A View from Above

The suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes in water resources management

- Master Thesis -

Colophon Date: November 4, 2005 Author: Arnejan van Loenen E-mail: [email protected] Graduation committee: Dr. M.S. Krol Dr. ir. J.L. de Kok University of Twente Drs. L. Reichard HydroLogic BV University of Twente: Faculty of Engineering Technology (CTW) Water Engineering & Management (WEM) PO Box 217 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands HydroLogic BV: Utrechtseweg 14 3800 CD Amersfoort 033 4753535

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 1

Summary

Introduction Implementation of international, national and regional policy on a regional and local level in present water resources management requires the involvement of stakeholders. The process of implementing policy is called an interactive planning process because of the communication between participants about interests and perspectives. A relevant example is the development of water storage plans in which many participants with different interests are involved. Models and Decision Support Systems (DSS) can support these processes, but are not always designed according to the demands of the end-users. The complexity of the process on the other hand asks for models that support an integrated analysis. An example of such a model is the model that is developed for the Transboundary Studies, part of the INTERREG IIIb project Nature Oriented Flood Damage Prevention, which is carried out by HydroLogic. In this research is assessed whether this EcoDSS is suitable for supporting interactive planning processes. Thereby only this model is taken into account, which is not applied in an actual planning process. Only planning processes as occur in The Netherlands are reviewed, and the focus is on the interactive part.

Theory on GIS-models in interactive planning processes The increasing development of water resources management in the Netherlands in the last decades has resulted in an increasing complexity. The many policy fields related to water resources management have to be implemented on lower levels. To deal with the complexity an interactive approach is assumed to be best. In this process activities are employed to develop a consistent plan, in which policy and implementation programs are defined. Sufficient support is gained by involving all stakeholders from the beginning of the process. There are different arrangements for these actors to participate, ranging from formal involvement to consultation. Next to the increased complexity, other problems are unclear problem definitions, the strong relation with spatial planning, minimum contact with other administrations and an incorrect use of computer models. A good example of a planning process potential inhibiting those problems is the development of water storage plans. Different policies diverge in these plans and there are many stakeholders. These stakeholders were not actively involved and therefore the process could not be labeled an interactive planning process. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are considered to have a high potential to support interactive planning processes in water resources management. A GIS is a computerised system that facilitates the phases of data entry, data analysis and data presentation especially in cases when dealing with georeferenced data. Descriptions of the interdependence and relationships between locational properties, as well as thematic and temporal attributes, which describe characteristics and conditions of space and time, are called GIS-models. The models describing the processes can be fully integrated, semi- integrated or external. In general can be observed that rule-based and empirical time- independent models can be fully integrated in GIS. If the GIS -model helps decision makers to confront ill-structured problems through direct interaction with data and analysis models, it can be defined as a DSS. In an interactive process, the DSS should help participants define the problem, the objectives, evaluation criteria and changes in object variables. There is a strong relation between the DSS, the planning process and the water system, the latter consisting of a physical part and a societal part. It depends on the characteristics of a DSS where in a planning process a DSS is

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 2

applicable, and for what groups of participants. Often DSS are developed from a designer’s point of view. Poor problem analysis, neglectance of complexity and focus on one aspect decrease its suitability. Design steps have been formulated to optimise DSS development. Characteristics as user-friendliness, collaboration, transparency, flexibility and assessment determine its suitability.

Development of the EcoDSS The EcoDSS is such a DSS. It is developed as part of a subproject of the NOFDP. The aim of the NOFDP is to increase the share of ecology in river basin management. The subproject Transboundary Studies is an example project to examine the aspects concerning the Flemish-Dutch relations concerning water resources management. Part is the development of a transnational GIS -model able to analyse the relation between measures in the river basin and ecology. The EcoDSS analyses the effects of these measures on a regional scale. On this scale the measures can be defined as subsurface retention and water storage, which are results of measures on a local scale. The model analyses the suitability of natural and agricultural areas for these measures. The basic input of the EcoDSS consists of maps. Within the range of water resources management, many maps have been produced on a national level in the Netherlands with related topics. Also on a regional scale, there is a lot of spatial information although this information cannot always be merged with other information of other regional authorities like provinces and water boards. Examples of analysed integrated models are: RaMCO, INFORM, Dommel-DSS and the Waternood-tool. Separate models examined are the MOVER, the modules of the Waternood-tool, DEMNAT and the models Water Storage and Nature and Water Storage and Agriculture. To reach the objective of the Transboundary Studies, the modules of the Waternood-tool and the models Water Storage and Nature and Water Storage and Agriculture were selected and found to be suitable for integration in a GIS. The model Water Storage and Nature analysed the relation between water storage and nature from five perspectives: inundation tolerance of flora, of fauna, tolerance concerning bases in the inundating water, salinity and nutrients. The lowest rated determines the final result. For this method information is needed on inundation frequency, depth, duration and season, and on nutrient content of the inundating water, salinity, sediment content and hardness. For the model Water Storage and Agriculture the same inundation characteristics are required as input data, as well as information on the origin of the inundating water. In this method risks for effects of organisms and contaminants on agriculture are translated into the suitability for inundation concerning crops/cattle and contaminants. The model Semi-continue HELP-tables is integrated in the GIS by determining the difference in deviation from maximum yield as a result of changed groundwater levels. The required input data are soil type, crop type, groundwater levels and change of groundwater level. The final integrated model is the Terrestric Nature Waternood-Tool, which calculates the fitness of a Nature Target Type for a certain groundwater level. The change in fitness as a result of a changed groundwater level determines the suitability of the nature for the measure. The maps that are requires as input data needed to be adapted. The Nature Target Types Map of the Province of Noord Brabant, and the ecological map of Flanders, were translated to a standard used in The Netherlands. The Belgium soil map was used to generate a groundwater map of Flanders. The soil map of The Province of Noord Brabant was generalized to a Dutch standard, which unfortunately was not possible for the Belgium soil map. Water quality characteristics maps of inundation water were generated on basis of expert knowledge and reports. Because no information on inundation characteristics and groundwater level changes as the result of subsurface retention were available, these input data were left for the user. This decision made the model

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 3

a DSS. The uncertainty that is the result of the model / data combination is small because of the use of data ranges in the model. The EcoDSS has been applied to the rivers basins of the Rivers De Dommel and De Mark . These basins are characterised by sandy soils and stream valleys. Nature is mainly concentrated along the valleys, but also on sandy soils. The crops farmed are mainly corn and potatoes. The instrument developed as an extension of ArcMap enables the presentation of the result maps in combination with other maps. With this instrument decision makers have a tool to analyse the effects of possible scenarios. They can also check whether an alternative doesn’t conflict with existing nature and agriculture. The EcoDSS has been validated during workshops with water managers and on the basis of a literature study. Comparison with the literature study showed a large resemblance. The water managers agreed that the results of the EcoDSS resemble their experiences well. They also value highly that the model is based on models of a renowned organisation. In the present situation water managers mainly use hydrological models. Workshops contributed to the assessment of the suitability of the EcoDSS. Many applications were observed, and its reliability confirmed. On the other hand was also noticed that interpretation of the results can be difficult.

Assessment of the suitability of the EcoDSS The suitability of the EcoDSS was assessed using the criteria developed especially for assessment of DSS. The EcoDSS was rated reasonably user-friendly, especially because of the clear visual presentation of results and no modelling knowledge is required. On the other hand a manual or built-in help is not present and background knowledge is required. Also on the characteristic collaboration the EcoDSS scored reasonably. The combination of policy fields is a good basis for discussion, expression of opinion and knowledge sharing. On the other hand there is no explicit support for consensus building, identification of evaluation criteria and storage of generated knowledge. Although the EcoDSS was not designed to be transparent, the fact that it is based on accepted models makes the results reproducible. One of the main characteristics of the EcoDSS turned out to be it flexibility, especially because of its GIS-architecture and to a lesser extent because of the range of policy questions. The characteristics assessment of the EcoDSS was scored well. It was designed to analyse the effects of measures in an integrated way, although not all possible policy fields are taken into account. The full potential of the EcoDSS can be used with the help of a moderator. The test showed that in an interactive planning process there is not a specific phase for which the EcoDSS is best suited. It was mainly developed for Analysing and Modelling results, but it turned out the EcoDSS can also be of support during the Discussion of Results, the Problem Analysis and the Search for Solutions. With the help of a moderator, and using the functions of the GIS -program, the EcoDSS can meet most of the criteria. The assessment showed that it is mainly the formal decision makers and the government officials who can use the tool. To a lesser degree also experts on the subject can use the tool, but probably they don’t have enough insight in the decision-making context. NGO-representatives are not familiar with the assessment of effects of alternatives and the general public has no prior knowledge of the subject. As a result of the assessment of the EcoDSS options for extensions were analysed. To make the EcoDSS better suitable for use in the Problem Analysis and Search for Solutions phases, non-spatial tools like whiteboard functions and tools to identify goals, objectives and evaluation criteria, can be integrated. Possible functions are a damage function, a cost / benefit function, an affected-area calculator, and addition of maps of other policy fields. For

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 4

the Analysis and Modelling phase, and the Discussion of Results, extensions like comparison and storage of results, distributed input parameters and ranking of alternatives are useful. The results of the assessment are based on the experience gained during the development of the EcoDSS and on workshop results. These are subjective grounds, because outsiders would test the EcoDSS different. It is also the question whether interactive planning processes really exist. And if the DSS meets the criteria for suitability, will the process than go smoothly?

Conclusions and recommendations It can be concluded that GIS -models theoretically have a high potential to support interactive planning processes. Especially the visual presentation of different perspectives can stimulate collaboration and the flexible architecture enables adaptation to changes in the process. The characteristics of GIS-models give sufficient opportunities to develop DSS according to the criteria of suitability. Drawbacks are that GIS-models, like other models, are dependent on available data and have difficulty modeling processes in time. The EcoDSS was developed as an example of a GIS-model. It was tested to be suitable to support interactive planning processes, although the help of a moderator is necessary. The analysis of the relation between nature / agriculture and water storage / subsurface retention proved to be reliable and the results usable. The fact that different perspectives are combined was valued high. Because the EcoDSS was designed to meet the objectives of the Transboundary Studies, its design was not focused on the suitability criteria for DSS. Despite this, it turned out that with the help of a moderator, the EcoDSS is reasonably suitable to support most phases of the interactive planning process. Especially in the phases Analysis / modeling and Discussion of Results the EcoDSS can play an important role, and in Problem Analysis and Search for Solutions the EcoDSS can support the main, non-spatial DSS. The fact that the EcoDSS is an extension of ArcMap enables analysis of the results with ArcMap functionality, but it would be better to incorporate those functions in the GIS-model itself. Background knowledge is necessary to use the tool. Therefore it is not suitable for people who are not familiar with the subject, especially the general public and representatives of NGO’s. It was confirmed that the EcoDSS also returns reliable and clear results, for a large range of input variables. When developing GIS-models, it is recommended to take suitability criteria into account to make the model usable for the phase and the participants it is meant for. Based on the experiences gained with the development of the EcoDSS can be observed that functions can easily be neglected that can be of large value for the users. A result of the research was that in the first phases of the planning process non-spatial DSS are the main support, but GIS- models can contribute much. During the Analysis / Modeling and Discussion of results, GIS- models can be suitable to serve as the main DSS. During the whole process a well designed GIS-model can be of support.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 5

Samenvatting

Inleiding De implementatie van internationaal, nationaal en regionaal beleid op een regionale en lokale schaal in het hedendaagse waterbeheer vereist participatie van belanghebbenden. Het proces waarin beleid wordt geïmplementeerd wordt een interactief planproces genoemd vanwege de communicatie tussen deelnemers over belangen en perspectieven. Modellen en Beslissingsondersteunenden Systemen (BOS) kunnen deze processen ondersteunen, maar zijn niet altijd ontwikkeld naar de eisen van de eindgebruikers. De complexiteit van het proces aan de andere kant vraagt om modellen die een geïntegreerde analyse kunnen uitvoeren. Een voorbeeld van zo’n model is het model dat HydroLogic in het kader van het project Transboundary Studies, onderdeel van het Interreg IIIB project Nature Oriented Flood Damage, ontwikkelt. In dit onderzoek is bestudeerd of dit model, EcoDSS, geschikt is om interactieve planprocessen te ondersteunen. Hierbij is alleen dit model beschouwd, wat niet toegepast is in een daadwerkelijk planproces. In het onderzoek zijn alleen planprocessen beschouwd zoals deze voorkomen in Nederland, waarbij de focus was op de interactiviteit.

Theorie over GIS-modellen in interactieve planprocessen Met de toegenomen ontwikkeling van het waterbeheer in Nederland in de laatste decennia is ook de complexiteit toegenomen. Vele beleidsvelden gerelateerd aan waterbeheer kennen beleid dat geïmplementeerd moet worden op een lager niveau. Interactieve planprocessen worden vaak geschikt geacht om met deze complexiteit om te gaan. In een dergelijk proces worden activiteiten ontplooid om een consistent plan te ontwikkelen waarin beleid en implementatieprogramma’s zijn beschreven. Draagvlak wordt verworven door alle actoren vanaf het begin van het proces te betrekken. Er zijn verschillende manieren waarop die actoren betrokken kunnen worden, van formele inspraak tot consultatie. Naast de complexiteit zijn problemen in het hedendaags waterbeheer de onduidelijke probleemstellingen, de sterke relatie met ruimtelijke ordening, gebrek aan contact met andere autoriteiten en een verkeerd gebruik van computermodellen. Een goed voorbeeld van een planproces waarin deze problemen potentieel aanwezig zijn is de ontwikkeling van waterbergingsplannen. In deze plannen komen verschillende beleidsvelden samen en worden belangen geraakt. De belanghebbenden zijn niet altijd direct betrokken waardoor het proces niet bestempeld kan worden als een interactief planproces. Het potentieel van Geografische Informatie Systemen (GIS) om interactieve planprocessen in waterbeheer te ondersteunen wordt als groot beschouwd. Een GIS is een computersysteem dat de fasen data invoer, analyse en presentatie faciliteert, voornamelijk van plaatsbepaalde data. Beschrijvingen van de afhankelijkheid en relaties tussen lokatie-eigenschappen, alsmede thematische en temporele kenmerken die eigenschappen beschrijven in de ruimte- tijd, worden GIS-modellen genoemd. Deze modellen kunnen volledig, semi-volledig of extern geïntegreerd worden. Over het algemeen kan waargenomen worden dat rule-based en empirische tijdsonafhankelijke modellen volledig geïntegreerd kunnen worden in GIS. Een GIS-model kan gedefinieerd worden als een BOS als het besluitmakers ondersteunt in het omgaan met ongestructureerde problemen door directe interactie met data en analysemodellen. In een interactief proces, moet de BOS deelnemers helpen bij het definiëren van de problemen, de doelen, de evaluatiecriteria en veranderingen in objectvariabelen. Er is een duidelijke relatie tussen de BOS, het planproces en het water systeem, de laatste bestaand uit een fysisch systeem en de maatschappij. Het is afhankelijk

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 6

van de karakteristieken van een BOS waar deze in een planproces toegepast kan worden, en voor welke groepen deelnemers. Vaak worden BOS ontwikkeld vanuit het perspectief van de ontwikkelaar. Een slechte probleemanalyse, negeren van de complexiteit en de focus op één aspect verminderen de geschiktheid van een BOS. Er zijn ontwerpstappen geformuleerd om de ontwikkeling van BOS te optimaliseren. Het zijn de kenmerken gebruiksvriendelijkheid, ondersteuning van samenwerking, transparantheid, flexibiliteit en analyse die de geschiktheid van een BOS bepalen.

Ontwikkeling van het EcoDSS Het EcoDSS is zo’n BOS. Het is ontwikkeld als onderdeel van een subproject van het NOFDP. Het doel van het NOFDP is om het aandeel van de ecologie in waterbeheer te vergroten. Het subproject, Transnational Studies, is een voorbeeldproject dat aspecten rond Vlaams-Nederlandse samenwerking in het waterbeheer onderzoekt. Een onderdeel is de ontwikkeling van een transnationaal GIS-model dat de relatie tussen ecologie en maatregelen in het watersysteem kan analyseren. Het EcoDSS analyseert deze maatregelen op een regionaal niveau. Op deze schaal kunnen maatregelen worden gedefinieerd als vasthouden en bergen, welke het gevolg zijn van maatregelen op lokale schaal. De basis invoer van het EcoDSS bestaat uit kaarten. Er zijn in Nederland vele kaarten ontwikkeld met onderwerpen gerelateerd aan waterbeheer. Ook op een regionale schaal zijn veel kaarten beschikbaar, maar deze kunnen niet altijd naast gelijke kaarten van andere autoriteiten gelegd worden. Voorbeelden van geïntegreerde modellen zijn RaMCO, INFORM, Dommel-DSS en het Waternood-instrumentarium. Afzonderlijke modellen die geanalyseerd zijn, zijn MOVER, de modules van het Waternood-instrumentarium, DEMNAT en de modellen Waterberging en Natuur en Waterberging en Landbouw. De modellen uit het Waternood-instrumentarium en de modellen Waterberging en Natuur en Waterberging en Landbouw voldoen aan de doelen van de Transboundary Studies. Het model Waterberging en Natuur analyseert de relatie tussen waterberging en natuur vanuit vijf perspectieven: kansrijkdom flora, fauna, tolerantie voor de hardheid van water, zoutgehalte en nutriënten. De meest negatieve beoordeling bepaalt het eindresultaat. Voor dit model informatie is nodig over inundatiefrequentie, seizoen, duur en diepte, en de kwaliteit van het water met betrekking tot nutriëntgehalte, zout, hardheid en sedimentgehalte. Dezelfde inundatiegegevens als voor het vorig model zijn benodigd voor het model Waterberging en Landbouw, alsmede de oorsprong van het water. In dit model worden de risico’s van de effecten van organismen en stoffen op de landbouw vertaald naar de geschiktheid voor inundatie met betrekking tot landbouw en contaminanten. Het model Semi-continue HELP - tables is in het GIS geïntegreerd door het verschil in deviatie van de maximale opbrengst als een gevolg van veranderde grondwaterstanden te bepalen. De benodigde invoerdata zijn bodemtype, gewastype, grondwaterstanden en verandering in grondwaterstand. Het laatste model dat geïntegreerd is, is het model Terrestrische Natuur Waternood-instrumentarium, wat de geschiktheid van een natuurdoeltype voor een bepaalde grondwaterstand bepaalt. Het verschil in geschiktheid als een gevolg van veranderingen in grondwaterstand bepaalt de geschiktheid van de natuur voor een maatregel. De kaarten die benodigd zijn als invoer voor het EcoDSS moesten aangepast worden. De natuurdoeltypekaart van de Provincie Brabant en de ecologische kaart van Vlaanderen moesten vertaald worden naar een algemene Nederlandse standaard. Met behulp van de Vlaamse bodemkaart konden grondwaterstanden berekend worden. Helaas was het niet mogelijk de Vlaamse bodemkaart om te zetten naar een Nederlandse standaard. Waterkwaliteitskenmerken van het inundatiewater zijn gegenereerd op basis van expert

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 7

knowlegde en rapporten. Omdat er geen informatie was over de kenmerken van inundaties en veranderingen in grondwaterstand, als gevolg van vasthouden, beschikbaar was, is invoer van deze informatie overgelaten aan de gebruiker. Hierdoor werd het model een BOS. De onzekerheid in het model is klein vanwege het gebruik van klassen in het model. Het EcoDSS is toegepast op de stroomgebieden van de Mark en de Dommel. Deze stroomgebieden worden gekenmerkt door zandgronden afgewisseld met beekvalleien. Natuur is voornamelijk geconcentreerd langs de beken, maar ook op de zandgronden. Er worden voornamelijk aardappels en maïs verbouwd. Het instrument dat is ontwikkeld als een extensie van ArcMap maakt het mogelijk de resultaten te presenteren in combinatie met andere kaarten. Met het instrument hebben besluitmakers een middel om de effecten van verschillende maatregelen te analyseren. Ze kunnen ook controleren of een maatregel niet conflicteert met bestaande natuur en landbouw. Het EcoDSS is gevalideerd tijdens workshops met waterbeheerders en op basis van een literatuurstudie. De vergelijking met de literatuurstudie toonde een grote gelijkenis. De resultaten kwamen goed overeen met de ervaringen van de waterbeheerders. Het werd erg gewaardeerd dat het model is gebaseerd op modellen van een organisatie met aanzien. Op het moment gebruiken waterbeheerders voornamelijk hydrologische modellen. De workshops droegen bij aan het beoordelen van de geschiktheid van het EcoDSS. Tijdens de workshops werden verschillende toepassingen opgemerkt. Ook werd duidelijk dat de interpretatie van de resultaten lastig kan zijn.

Bepaling van de geschiktheid van het EcoDSS De geschiktheid van het EcoDSS is bepaald met de criteria ontwikkeld voor het beoordelen van BOS. Het EcoDSS werd redelijk gebruiksvriendelijk bevonden, voornamelijk vanwege de heldere presentatie van resultaten en het feit dat geen modelleerervaring noodzakelijk is. Aan de andere kant ontbrak een handleiding of helpfunctie en is achtergrondinformatie noodzakelijk. Ook met betrekking tot ondersteuning van samenwerking was het EcoDSS redelijk getest. Het combineren van beleidsvelden vormt een goede basis voor discussie, meningsuiting en het delen van kennis. Aan de andere kant is er geen duidelijke ondersteuning voor het zoeken naar consensus, identificatie van evaluatie criteria en het opslaan van gegenereerde kennis. Ondanks dat het EcoDSS niet ontworpen was op transparantie, maakt het feit dat het model is gebaseerd op geaccepteerde methoden de resultaten reproduceerbaar. Een van de belangrijkste kenmerken van het EcoDSS bleek de flexibiliteit te zijn, voornamelijk vanwege de GIS-architectuur en in mindere mate het bereik van beleidsproblemen. Het analysepotentieel werd goed beoordeeld. Het was ontworpen om de effecten van maatregelen geïntegreerd te analyseren, alhoewel niet alle mogelijke beleidsvelden in ogenschouw worden genomen. Het potentieel van het EcoDSS kan vrijwel volledig benut worden met een moderator. De beoordeling toonde aan dat er niet een specifieke fase is in het planproces waar het EcoDSS het beste ondersteuning kan bieden. Het model is voornamelijk ontwikkeld om effecten te analyseren, maar het bleek dat het ook het Discussiëren van Resultaten, Probleemanalyse en het Zoeken naar Oplossingen kan ondersteunen. Met behulp van een moderator en de functionaliteiten van ArcMap kan aan de meeste criteria worden voldaan. De beoordeling toonde aan dat het voornamelijk de besluitmakers en de overheidsbeambten zijn die het model kunnen gebruiken. In mindere mate kunnen ook experts op het gebied van hydrologie het model gebruiken, maar deze hebben over het algemeen onvoldoende kennis over de besluitvormingscontext. Vertegenwoordigers van NGO’s zijn meestal niet bekend met

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 8

het analyseren van de effecten van alternatieven en het publiek heeft onvoldoende kennis over het onderwerp. Deze groepen deelnemers kunnen het EcoDSS daarom niet gebruiken. Als een gevolg van de beoordeling van het EcoDSS konden mogelijke extensies aangewezen worden. Om het EcoDSS beter geschikt te maken voor toepassing tijdens de probleemanalyse en het zoeken naar oplossingen, zouden een whiteboard en niet-ruimtelijke hulpmiddelen om doelen en evaluatie criteria te bepalen geïntegreerd kunnen worden. Ook kosten / batenfuncties, oppervlakteberekeningen en andere kaarten zouden kunnen worden toegevoegd. Voor de Analyse en Modellering fase, alsmede de Discussie van Resultaten, zouden opslag- en vergelijkingsfuncties, ruimtelijk verdeelde invoerparameters en een ordeningsfunctie voor alternatieven kunnen worden toegevoegd. De resultaten van de beoordeling zijn gebaseerd op de ervaringen opgedaan tijdens de ontwikkeling van het EcoDSS en op de resultaten van workshops. Dit is een subjectieve basis en anderen zouden waarschijnlijk het EcoDSS op bepaalde criteria anders beoordelen. Een ander punt is of interactieve planprocessen zoals beschreven in de theorie werkelijk bestaan.

Conclusies en aanbevelingen Er kan geconcludeerd worden dat GIS -modellen theoretisch een groot potentieel hebben om interactieve planprocessen te ondersteunen. Voornamelijk de visuele presentatie van verschillende perspectieven kan samenwerking versterken en de flexibele architectuur maakt het mogelijk op veranderende omstandigheden in het proces in te springen. Ze geven voldoende mogelijkheden om GIS -modellen te ontwikkelen volgens de criteria voor geschiktheid. Nadelen zijn wel dat GIS-modellen, zoals andere modellen, afhankelijk zijn van de beschikbare data. Daarnaast is het lastig om tijdsprocessen te modelleren. Het EcoDSS is ontwikkeld als een voorbeeld van een GIS -model. Het bleek geschikt te zijn om interactieve planprocessen te ondersteunen, alhoewel de hulp van een moderator noodzakelijk is. De analyse van de effecten van de maatregelen waterbergen / vasthouden en de landgebruiksvormen natuur / landbouw bleek betrouwbaar te zijn en de resultaten bruikbaar. Het feit dat verschillende perspectieven gecombineerd worden is erg gewaardeerd. Omdat het ontwerp van het EcoDSS gericht was op de doelen van de Transboundary Studies, werd er niet op de geschiktheidscriteria voor BOS gelet. Ondanks dit bleek dat met behulp van een moderator, het EcoDSS redelijk geschikt is om de meeste fasen van interactieve planprocessen te ondersteunen. Voornamelijk tijdens de Analyse / Modellering en Discussie van Resultaten kan het EcoDSS een rol spelen, en tijdens de Probleemanalyse en het Zoeken naar Oplossingen kan het model de primaire, niet-ruimtelijke BOS ondersteunen. Het feit dat het EcoDSS een extensie in ArcMap is maakt het mogelijk de resultaten te analyseren met ArcMap functionaliteit, maar het zou beter zijn als deze functies in het EcoDSS zelf geïntegreerd zouden zijn. Het is noodzakelijk om achtergrond kennis te bezitten om het model te gebruiken. Daarom is het niet bruikbaar voor actoren die niet bekend zijn met het onderwerp, voornamelijk het publiek en vertegenwoordigers van NGO’s. Uit de ontwikkeling van het EcoDSS bleek dat het bij het ontwikkelen van GIS-modellen aan te bevelen is om geschiktheidscriteria in acht te nemen om het model bruikbaar te maken voor de fase(s) van het planproces en de actoren waarvoor het model bedoeld is. Dit omdat bleek dat functies over het hoofd gezien kunnen worden die voor een optimaal gebruik belangrijk kunnen blijken te zijn. Een conclusie van het onderzoek was dat het voornamelijk niet-ruimtelijke BOS zijn die de eerste fases van een interactief planproces kunnen ondersteunen, bijgestaan door GIS-modellen. Gedurende de Analyse / Modellering en Discussie van Resultaten kunnen GIS-modellen de primaire BOS vormen. Het EcoDSS toonde aan dat het mogelijk is dat GIS -modellen interactieve planprocessen ondersteunen.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 9

Foreword

During my whole study period the graduation was an event that lied far ahead. Even after the first meetings with the graduation committee, the graduation itself was a subject I still had not to think about. The first concern was about setting up the research. Now, after eight months of literature study, programming, testing, thinking, and discussing, the graduation is the only thing that is important. During these months I had the pleasure to cooperate with many people who made this Master thesis possible. First of all I’m very grateful that Arnold Lobbrecht gave me the opportunity to perform the research at HydroLogic in Amersfoort. Here I had the change to learn many aspects of the consultancy business and gain experience with practical application of scientific knowledge. I was very fortunate to have Leanne Reichard as my practical supervisor, because she always took the time to discuss matters with me or answer any question I had. She also enabled my full participation in the NOFDP project, which was a very interesting experience. My great thanks also go to Maarten Krol and Jean-Luc de Kok, my supervisors at the University of Twente. They gave me the opportunity to formulate my own graduation research and showed a lot of confidence in me. Despite this confidence they were very critical, which has contributed much to the quality of this research. Questions and documents for review I sent them were always replied within short notice, what I appreciated very much. I learned a lot from carrying out this research and hope that (parts of) the results will turn out to be useful in future. Hopefully this report will make you as enthusiast about the subject as I am.

Arnejan van Loenen November 4, 2005

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 10

Table of contents

1 Introduction 14 1.1 Water resources management in a social context 14 1.2 Models as Decision Support Systems 15 1.3 HydroLogic / NOFDP 15 1.4 Outline 15

2 Research design 17 2.1 The project framework 17 2.2 Research direction 17 2.3 Research objective 18 2.4 Research questions 18 2.5 Approach 18

3 Theory 20 3.1 Planning processes 20 3.2 Geographic information systems 26 3.3 Decision Support Systems 32 3.4 Conclusions 36

4 Case -study: development of the EcoDSS 39 4.1 Background 39 4.2 Framework 41 4.3 Study on spatial data in the Netherlands 45 4.4 Study on ecological models in the Netherlands 47 4.5 Methodology for integration of selected models in GIS 51 4.6 Data preprocessing 59 4.7 Application 62 4.8 Validation of the results 71 4.9 Conclusions 75

5 Test of the model suitability 77 5.1 Test of the EcoDSS by water managers 77 5.2 Test of the EcoDSS to suitability criteria 80 5.3 Suitability of the EcoDSS 83 5.4 Identified options for extensions of the EcoDSS 87 5.5 Conclusions 88

6 Discussion 90 6.1 Sources for the test 90 6.2 Interactive planning processes 91 6.3 Suitability of GIS-models 91 6.4 Conclusions 93

7 Conclusions 94 7.1 The theory on GIS-models in interactive planning processes 94 7.2 Development of the EcoDSS 94 7.3 Suitability of the EcoDSS 95

8 Recommendations 96 8.1 Recommendations on the EcoDSS 96 8.2 General recommendations 96

Sources 97

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 11

Definitions 103

Appendices 107

1 GIS 1 1.1 Dis(advantages) of common data formats 1 1.2 Basic operations 1 1.3 Temporal aspects 2 1.4 Databases 2 1.5 Types of models 3 1.6 Quality of spatial data 3

2 Decision support tools 4

3 Characteristics and criteria 5

4 Integrated models 7 4.1 Classification of input variables Water Storage and Nature 7 4.2 Risk table Water Storage and Agriculture 8

5 Uncertainty 9 5.1 Uncertainty of the model results 9 5.2 Uncertainty input data 9

6 Sensitivity Analysis 12

7 Reports workshops 15

8 Testing of the EcoDSS for suitability 21

9 Recommendations for improvement of the EcoDSS 26

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 12

List of figures and tables

Figure 1: Relation between plan and policy 22 Figure 2: Model of planning process for integrated water resources management 23 Figure 3: Spatial information on different policy fields for the same location 27 Figure 4: Different methods for integrating models in a GIS 29 Figure 5: Relation between DSS, the planning process and the water system 33 Figure 6: Logo of the Interreg IIIB project NOFDP 40 Figure 7: Level on which measures are defined 42 Figure 8: Effect of local measures on a regional scale 43 Figure 9: Combination of measures and land use 52 Figure 10: Suitability of nature for groundwater level 56 Figure 11: Example of a HELP -table for water damage 57 Figure 12: Catchment areas of the River De Mark and De Dommel 63 Figure 13: A screenshot of the instrument, as an extension within ArcMAP 65 Figure 14: Validation of the model results of the EcoDSS 72 Figure 15: Location of the examined areas 73 Figure 16: Reviewed areas during the workshops 74 Figure 17: Visual representation of the rating of the EcoDSS to the criteria for suitability 83 Figure 18: Suitability of the EcoDSS for different phases 84 Figure 19: Required level concerning relevant features of the EcoDSS and of participants 85

Table 1: Formal planning instruments 21 Table 2: A typology of models 30 Table 3: Criteria for suitability of DSS 35 Table 4: Extent of characteristics of GIS to meet the characteristics of planning processes 36 Table 5: Extent to which characteristics of GIS-models meet the criteria for suitability 38 Table 6: Relations between input variables and perspectives 53 Table 7: Substances and organisms analysed in Water Storage and Agriculture 54 Table 8: Relation input variables and perspective 54 Table 9: Translation of risks to suitability 54 Table 10: Classification total change in deviation 58 Table 11: Required data per measure / land use combination 58 Table 12: Available spatial data 60 Table 13: Analysing the suitability of areas for different inundation frequencies 67 Table 14: Analysing the suitability of areas for subsurface retention 69 Table 15: Water Storage and Nature from five perspectives 70

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 13

1 Introduction

1.1 Water resources management in a social context

In the Netherlands water is of large importance. Many objectives, some of which can be conflicting, depend on water systems. Apart from the physical conditions in which a water system finds itself, the water manager also has to take into account standards, which have been imposed from the society. Implicit standards are commissioned directly by interested parties, for example the conservation of socio-historic elements or the appearance of the affected areas. Official standards have been laid down in legislation. A good example is the National Administrative Agreement on Water (NBW) (Balkenende, Schultz van Haegen, Franssen, Beukema, Deetman, De Graeff, et al., 2003) in which is agreed that all river basins have to be reviewed to accepted standards for inundation. It has also been agreed that the desired ground and surface water regime (GGOR) per river basin must be determined and that a watertest must be carried out when changing the contents of a zoning plan. On a European level the Water Framework Directive has become active in 2000 (European Committee, 2000), in which is determined that the water quality in water bodies has to meet certain standards. The water boards are responsible for achieving this goal. It is the responsibility of the provinces, water boards and municipalities to implement this European and national policy at a regional and a local level. A good cooperation is required to gain support from interest groups and integrate policy both horizontally (between several policy fields) as vertically (between several hierarchical government levels). This cooperation takes place during the planning process. Because of the active involvement of several parties, every party with its own aims and interests, this process can be referred to as an interactive planning process. The groups and organizations involved in this process are called participants. Characteristic of such a process is the mutual influence by and of participants (within a network) (Van Rooy, 1997). The result of this process is a plan in which is described how the European, national and regional policy will be implemented on a regional or local level. It is the task of the water boards to represent the role of the water system and its users within this process. Since water plays an important part in a lot of other policy fields (nature, recreation, spatial planning), the perspective of the water boards has become broader while her task still has remained the same (Van der Stoel, Versteden, De Vries, Van den Nieuwenhuijzen, De Jong, 2001). This new role of the water boards is exemplified by the development of water storage plans. In the NBW (Balkenende et al., 2003) has been agreed that areas need to be appointed, where in times of high river discharge, the surplus of water can be stored. The water boards have the task to determine what areas are best suited for this purpose. This is done in close cooperation with the provinces who are responsible for spatial planning. But also other actors are involved. The storage locations are located within the administrative boundaries of municipalities, who represent the inhabitants of the affected areas, and environmental organizations will try to avoid that natural areas will be affected. To gain sufficient support for the plans these stakeholders need to be involved actively (Verbeek & Wind, 2001). This way they become participants in the planning process. Each participant has its own interests and perspectives so conflicts can easily arise. In such a process tools can be very helpful in stimulating communication and analysing relations. In the case of water storage, tools can be needed that calculate the hydrological consequences of measures taken, determine the change in yield of agriculture and show the effects on nature.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 14

1.2 Models as Decision Support Systems

While determining how to carry out their task, water managers have to make political choices. They have to determine if, when and how to involve other policy fields and interested parties in the planning process (see also Van Leussen, 2003). Furthermore they have to determine on what basis decisions are made during the process. It is nowadays usual, at some stages in the process, to use (computer) models to support the decision-making in the implementation of the policy. These models often help analyse the effects of measures on basis of which decisions are made. They can also be of help by actively involving the participants. There is a wide variety of models, each with its own characteristics (for an overview of applied models in The Netherlands, see Reichard, 2005a). To approach the water system in an integrated way the water manager would prefer to use models, which integrate different policy fields. Often these models are, or are part of, Decision Support Systems (DSS). In practice they prove to be difficult to apply because of a communication gap between the participants and the modeller (Rodenhuis & Stuip, 2002). Researches show that technological driven models are still used often. If end-users are not involved from the beginning they can be confronted with a model that doesn’t serve their needs. This can lead to a rejection of a model if the modelled problems and the measures taken do not correspond to the priorities of the water managers (De Kok & Wind, 2003). Therefore it is the question to what extent these integrated models are suitable to contribute to planning processes in strategic water resources management. On the other hand the integrated approach towards water systems, enforced by NBW, WB21, WFD, increases the need for tools to support the analysis of the dependency between water and other policy fields. It is clear that an integrated approach of the water system is necessary (Van der Stoel et al., 2001, De Kok & Wind, 2003). Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are considered to have a high potential for integrating different policy fields. A GIS-model as a DSS could be the solution.

1.3 HydroLogic / NOFDP

HydroLogic is a consultancy firm in the field of water resources management and information and communication technology (ICT). She tries to support water managers using innovative techniques for developing and implementing practical solutions and has a wide experience in the area of GIS-modelling (see for an example Reichard, 2004b). For the INTERREG IIIb project Nature Oriented Flood Damage Prevention (NOFDP) (Winterscheid, Ostrowski, Van Gulik, Lambregts, De Lauw, Slikker, et al., 2002). HydroLogic carries out the project Transboundary studies (Reichard, 2004a). The aim of this project is to gain experience with, and develop methods for, integrated planning of (transnational) river basins. The goal of the integrated planning is to increase the share of the ecological aspect within river basin management, next to the from tradition present quantitative aspect. Part of Transboundary Studies is the development of a model integrated in a Geographic Information System (GIS), that is applied to the transnational river basins of the Rivers Dommel and Mark . The development of this model forms the practical component of this research project and thereby contributes to answering the research questions.

1.4 Outline

The research is carried out by comparing the theory on GIS, interactive planning processes and DSS (chapter 3) with the application of the GIS-model developed for the NOFDP (chapter 4). How these two components of the research result in the assessment of the suitability of

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 15

the EcoDSS for support of interactive planning processes in water resources management (chapter 5) is discussed in chapter 2. The result of the research is discussed in chapter 6, which is followed by conclusions about the suitability of the EcoDSS (chapter 7). As a result of the discussion and the conclusions recommendations are presented (chapter 8). With the recommendations the research is closed.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 16

2 Research design

An unguided research is as an unguided projectile: it often doesn’t reach its objective. Therefore the research needs to be directed. The boundaries of the trajectory are described in section 2.1. Within these boundaries the research was carried out in a certain direction. The direction in which the research was guided is discussed in section 2.2, and the objective in section 2.3. To help realize this objective, research questions were formulated (section 2.4). The approach to realizing the research questions is described in section 2.5.

2.1 The project framework

To avoid an unstructured and unguided research, the research had to be restricted. A first boundary is the restriction to the EcoDSS as a supporting tool. Thereby it is assumed that it is the water manager that uses the GIS-model. Depending on the characteristics of the model it is possible that other parties also use the EcoDSS. Theory on the specific communicative aspects of GIS was not studied because the focus is on GIS-models as support for interactive planning processes. Possible other tools that can be of support, possibly in cooperation with GIS, are not discussed in detail. Another component of the framework within which the research takes place is the interactive planning process. The research is restricted to planning processes such as should occur in the (Dutch) water sector. There are different approaches to interactive planning processes, as proposed by Geldof (2004), Van Rooy (1997) and Verbeek (1997). Van Rooy (1997) and Verbeek (1997) identify a more or less linear process, in contrast to Geldof (2004). He focuses in his research on the flexibility of changing between different phases, but the interactivity between social and physical processes requires the same tools as interactivity in traditional planning processes in which multiple participants are involved. This research does not address the specific characteristics of these planning processes, but will concentrate on their main feature: the interactivity. For describing the activities in planning processes the definition by Verbeek (1997) is used (see also paragraph 3.1.2). In the research no other GIS -models have been studied then the one that was developed for the NOFDP project. The objectives of the NOFDP for the GIS-model (see paragraph 4.1.2), developed by HydroLogic, therefore determine the practical part of the framework. This model determines the suitability of nature and agriculture with relation to measures in the water system. These measures are restricted to subsurface retention and storage of water. The GIS-model has been applied on the river basins of the Rivers Mark and Dommel. The research is conducted by comparing theory with practice. The practical part is limited to the development of the EcoDSS, and the assessment of the usability of it by interviewing water managers. Within this graduation research, the GIS-model will not be applied to an actual planning process.

2.2 Research direction

A lot of research is being done on the integration of computer models. Despite of the effort invested in process modelling and integration, the potential of DSS is not fully exploited (De Kok & Wind, 2003). A promising method to overcome this problem is the use of geographic information systems (GIS). In GIS, models can be integrated to analyse relations between

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 17

different policy fields (Geldof, 2004 and Sebus, 2005). These models are a representation of relevant aspects of a system and require input data and produce results. GIS has a high potential to support water resources management. It requires governments to cooperate because maps have to be interchangeable and therefore they must be designed according to specific standards. Communication with participants goes smoother using maps and the possibility to play with scenarios incorporating interactive policy (Sebus, 2005) stimulates interaction. GIS is a useful tool for expressing spatial relationships among mapped items, which stored in GIS-models. The use of GIS-models as a tool in planning processes in water resources management is still in a beginning phase, but the prospects are very high. In this research was examined what contribution the GIS-model EcoDSS can make to interactive planning processes in water resources management.

2.3 Research objective

As indicated in the previous chapter there is still no unambiguous opinion concerning tools that are suitable to support interactive planning processes. GIS seems to be a suitable method. For this reason the combination of the development of a GIS-model for the NOFDP project and a study into the suitability of GIS -models to support interactive planning processes in water resources management seemed logical. The research objective therefore was as follows:

To assess the suitability of the EcoDSS to support interactive planning processes in water resources management, by comparing theory on GIS, interactive planning processes and DSS with the development of the EcoDSS.

By reaching this objective more insight in the suitability of GIS -models to support interactive planning processes was gained, which can contribute to the successful application of GIS - models.

2.4 Research questions

The previous paragraph is described how the research was approached. In this paragraph the research questions are presented which have been addressed during the research.

1. What criteria can be found to assess the suitability of GIS -models to support interactive planning processes?

2. What are the characteristics of the GIS -model developed to reach the objectives of phase three of the Transboundary Studies?

3. What conclusions can be drawn from developing and applying the EcoDSS concerning the suitability to support an interactive planning process in water resources management?

2.5 Approach

The literature research first examined the characteristics of GIS and the criteria that are characteristic to GIS. Next was studied what the characteristics of interactive planning processes in water resources management are and how DSS are being applied in water

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 18

resources management. Together with the literature study the development of the GIS-model for the NOFDP took place. Before the development of the model started, a study was performed into models that can be integrated into the GIS-model and spatial data that is available. These models and spatial data were integrated in the EcoDSS. The model was next applied to the river basins of the Rivers Mark and Dommel and the result was presented to experts of the relevant water boards. This and the experience gained during the development of the EcoDSS contributed to the assessment of the suitability of the EcoDSS.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 19

3 Theory

In this chapter the theory that is related to the application of GIS-models in interactive planning processes is studied. The result is the answer to research question 1: What criteria can be found to assess the suitability of GIS-models to support interactive planning processes? To answer this question, first interactive planning processes in water resources management will be treated. The next section handles the characteristics of GIS and possibilities for model integration and finally these two are related in a section that discusses the contribution of Decision Support Systems (DSS) in interactive planning processes.

3.1 Planning processes

In water resources management engineering is not the main point of focus anymore. Important nowadays is the process of plan making. In this process many actors can be involved. To understand what the use of a DSS in planning processes should be, it is necessary to know what an interactive planning process in water resources management implies. Therefore first a glimpse of the development of water resources management in the Netherlands is given. In the next section the relation between the terms policy and plan is examined. In this section also a diagram representing planning processes will be presented. The following section reviews the roles of the different groups and organizations that are involved in planning processes. The problems caused by this involvement are discussed in the next section. Next, the interactivity in planning processes is elaborated. In the last section a relevant example is given of a planning process.

3.1.1 Development of water resources management in the Netherlands Whole books have been written on the development of water resources management in the Netherlands. To get an indication of the background of the present planning processes in water resources management the developments in the last hundred years are of importance. Van Leussen (2002b) recognizes three “waves” in water resources management. The hydrological perspective (quantitative water management) characterizes the first wave: the water cycle in the air, on the ground and in the soil. By influencing this water cycle land could be made suitable for agriculture, waterways could be made suitable for transport, drinking water could be stored and inhabited areas could be protected against flooding. During the second half of the last century it became clear that more policy fields are connected to water resources management, like environmental policy, ecology and spatial planning. The use of the terms water system approach and integrated water resources management characterize this second wave. It became clear that safe, clean and healthy water systems can only be obtained by reviewing the whole water system. Therefore the different policy fields each with its own interest and influences have to be taken into account. Van Leussen (2002b) defines the developments of the last two decades as collaborative water resources management. It is not just one problem that is identified, but there are multiple problems, all concerning water resources management. There is no single party that can define the problems independently and generate a solution. Multiple parties have a mandate that can contribute to the solution. These organizations also have their own interests. Therefore mutual dependencies between the organizations in a policy network exist. This is a “network in which organizations govern a policy field from different perspectives and targets and with different ways to influence [the policy field, which is…] not always consistent

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 20

and harmonious” (translated from Godfroij, 1990, cited by Van Rooy, 1997). The interested parties therefore have to collaborate to find an optimal solution. An interactive process is necessary.

3.1.2 Policy and planning The lowest governing bodies concerning water resources management are the water boards. This form of functional government is also the first form of authority on water resources management to arise in the Netherlands. For a long time they remained independent of national developments. The establishment of Rijkswaterstaat, the state water authority, in 1798 was the start of the first centralized approach of water resources management. In the following decades laws were created mainly concerning flood protection and transportation. During the last century the creation of national laws concerning water resources management peaked with laws like the Groundwater Act of 1954, the Water Supply Act of 1957, the Physical Planning Act of 1962, the Nature Conservation Act of 1967, Soil Protection Act, 1986, Surface Water Pollution Act of 1969, Water resources management Act of 1989 and the Water Board Act of 1992. The development of water resources management can be recognized in the subjects of the laws: from the emphasis on the hydrological cycle to integrated to collaborative water resources management. These acts require government bodies on different levels and in different fields to make plans on water resources management. The formal planning instruments together show how many government bodies are concerned with water resources management. An overview is given in Table 1:

Government body Formal planning instrument

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water National Policy Document on Water resources management resources management Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the National Environment Policy Plan Environment Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Structure Schedule Green Space National policy document on nature, forest and landscape Provinces Water Resources Management Plan Regional Plan Spatial Planning Environment policy plan Rijkswaterstaat Management Plan National Waters Water Boards Water Resources Management Plan Table 1: Formal planning instruments (Van Rooy & Sterrenberg, 2000)

These plans are a proposal for the implementation of national and regional policy. There exists a strong relation between policy and plan, but different definitions are in use. In literature there is no clear definition (as shown by the enumeration of definitions of policy in Hoppe & Van de Graaf (1996)) in which the difference between policy and plan is distinguished. According to Hoogerwerf (1989, cited by Hoppe & Van de Graaf (1996), translated from Dutch), policy is “the ambition to reach certain goals with certain means and certain choices of time”. These goals in general are formulated vaguely, like “making the water system more resilient” (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1998), or “stimulating the sustainable use of water” (European Union, 2000). Also on a lower level policy is developed. An example of policy on regional level is “to optimize the cooperation with the German neighbours” (Waterschap Regge en Dinkel, 2001). A plan on the other hand can be considered as a “designed system incorporating the approach of a problem” (translated out of Geerts et al., 2004). Geldof (2004) defines a plan

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 21

as: “a document in which policy and implementation programs are described” (translated from Dutch). In a plan therefore relevant policy is assimilated. But the plan is more concrete than the policy. Despite this, a plan can still be on an abstract level. The Fourth National Policy Document on Water Resources Management (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1998) can, according to Geldof (2004), be defined as a plan on national level. Also characteristic for plans is that they are on a lower abstraction level than the policy defining the plan. Van Rooy (1997) defines it this way: “a plan forms the foundation for implementation or the framework for further specification on a lower abstraction level” (translated from Dutch). The relation between policy and plan is schematized in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Relation between plan and policy

In the studied literature no definitions were found for interactive planning processes. The definitions for policy (development) and for plan need to be combined to formulate a propriete definition for interactive planning process.

“The whole of activities for developing a consistent plan, in which policy and implementation programs are described, and with which sufficient societal and administrative support is gained, as the basis for implementation of policy”

This definition is a combination of the definition of “plan” of Geldof (2004 and Van Rooy (1997), and the definition of policy forming by Verbeek (1997). In this research the focus is on plans on a regional level, in which the implementation of international, national and regional policy is described. Because of the similarity and overlap between plan and policy, the processes to develop those instruments resemble each other. Verbeek (1997) adapted an activity planning, based on the decision making model of Mintzberg (1976, studied by Verbeek (1997)), to be applicable in planning processes in integrated water resources management. The resulting model is shown in Figure 2. Characteristic for this model is that it, next to showing what activities take place in what order, iterative moves can be made. These are necessary to make reconsiderations. With this model, at any time during the planning process, it can be seen in what phase the process is, and what phases are still to come. Each phase has its own characteristic activities (Ubbels & Verhallen, 1999). Verbeek (1997) concluded that one of the main activities in common planning processes is the gaining of support. According to him this activity takes place during, but not related with, the phases Problem Analysis, Search for solutions and Analysis / Modelling. One of the characteristics of an interactive planning process, is that because of the interaction, support is gained. Therefore in Figure 2 these phases are related to the activity Gaining Support.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 22

Figure 2: Model of planning process for integrated water resources management (Verbeek, 1997, based on Mintzberg, 1976). The model shows the different phases of common planning processes. Within a process it is possible to return to a previous phase as the result of information generated during a phase. Since the gaining of support in interactive planning processes is strongly related to the activities of the process, these are integrated.

3.1.3 Interactive planning process To have an integrated approach of water systems, Brundtland (1987, studied by Van Rooy, 1997) states that clarity is necessary concerning awareness, recognition and acknowledgment of the problems. Planning processes can contribute to gaining this clarity. It can also be “a source of inspiration and a stimulus to cooperate and reach a decision” (Hengeveld, 1994, from Van Rooy, 1997). In general, plan preparation is still seen as an internal preparation by the responsible authority. In these cases the results of the planning process are communicated within the organization and to external organizations. Little space is left for interactions with other parties and there is no space for the relations other parties have with water systems (Van Rooy, 1997). The complexity of handling water systems asks for an interactive approach in which from the start on other parties are involved. The unclear problem definition and the unclear solution require the involvement of all stakeholders. The plan changes from a decision document to an open decision making process (Van Rooy, 1997 and Drogendijk & Duijn, 1999, from Ubbels & Verhallen, 2000). Because cooperation starts at the plan preparation this is a good basis for further cooperation. This is also mentioned by Verbeek (1997) who states that during the phase anticipating project analysis the role of the actors should be analyzed. He doesn’t mention that this can be done by involving these actors themselves.

3.1.4 Actors in planning processes concerning water resources management During the last century many actors have become involved in water resources management. Ubbels & Verhallen (2000) recognize five different groups that participate in interactive planning processes: formal decision-makers (the politicians), government officials (officials preparing the policy or plans), experts in the field of integrated water management (institutes, agencies), non-governmental organizations (environment action groups and economic

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 23

interest groups), and the general public. These groups can be involved in different ways. Kuks (2004) distinguishes four types of participatory arrangements. The first type is the property right, which has been attributed to specific uses and user groups. These are for example fisheries, water polluters and groundwater users. Secondly policy planning, and then especially physical planning, became a forum to account for new uses and user groups. Policy fields other than the traditional flood protection and land reclamation have influence on water resources management. The third participatory arrangement was the introduction of interest groups in water boards. Because of extending the task of water boards to quality control pollution tax was raised and polluters like industries and households could be represented in water boards. When on behalf of the general interest water board taxation for all citizens was raised, also the general public had to be represented in water boards. This way the water boards themselves became a melting pot of different user groups. Because water boards became aware that representation of interest groups within the water board council was insufficient for a proper design of the water system, they increasingly consulted intermediate organizations (such as nature conservation organizations and farmer unions) during the policy making process. This is the fourth type of participatory arrangement. The user groups mentioned here all have different interests in water resources management and therefore are part of the complex process of planning processes in water resources management. Within the government also different uses and user groups can be recognized. Next to the complex vertical coordination between central and decentral governments, there is also a complex horizontal interaction between different policy fields concerning water resources management. Especially on a regional level this is a problem.

3.1.5 Problems in planning processes If planning processes would go smoothly there would be a lesser need to investigate the use of GIS-models for policy support. Unfortunately this is not the case. Verbeek (1997) recognized four problems with integrated water resources management. First of all problems are not always indistinct: they are not precisely defined and there is no agreement about what the problems are (1). This problem is related to the complexity of the water system. That instruments are spread over the many actors does not contribute to the planning process (2). Especially the relation between water resources management and spatial planning is a difficult one (3). Kuks (2004) states that “incoherence between the administrative organizations of water resources management and physical planning is [especially] complicating water resources management”. The contribution of water boards in provincial planning processes is restricted to the water resources management plan (4). It seems that a direct connection to the departments of physical planning and environment lacks (Bosma & Landman, 2001, cited by Van der Stoel et al. (2001)). Probably this is the result of the fact that “these organizations only coordinate because of statutory obligations and only cooperate in project relations” (Van Rooy, 1997). These problems contribute to the complexity of water resources management. Geldof (2001) continues on this complexity. He states that many plans are never implemented because of the complicated processes in which many actors are involved and the target of the process is turbid. Also water resources management and society get more interwoven. Therefore the interests of the affected parties can get easily under pressure, which can result in emotional reactions. His main point is, that the support of organizations in the interactive planning process usually does not involve parties that are important in the implementation/operation phase appropriately. As a result a good plan emerges but the flexibility to adapt it to implementation/operation-driven wishes is hampered by the fact that the design phase is closed. Finally Geldof (2001) identifies restrictions in computer models, which are used in planning processes to support decision makers. They

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 24

can be of great help, but often their role changes from “tool” to “unconditional truth”. In these cases there is no policy choice anymore, it is the outcome of the model that determines the decision.

3.1.6 Theory in practice: planning water storage areas In 1998 the Fourth National Policy Document on Water Resources Management (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1998) was issued. One of the main themes is the resilience of the water system, which needed to be improved to guarantee a healthy water system in the future. The agreements between the relevant authorities on water resources management on how to deal with this and other problems were written down in the National Administrative Agreement on Water (Balkenende et al., 2003), which was signed in 2003. Next to these national policy documents directly concerning water resources management, there is also the Reconstruction Act of 1998 (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit), which aims at reconstructing rural areas. On a regional level the provinces are responsible for the water resources management. The policy is effectuated in the provincial Water Resources Management Plan. Also on a regional level water administration plans exist. This is an effectuation of the Fourth National Policy Document on Water Resources Management (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1998) and the Provincial Water Resources Management Plan. In this plan not only technical measures are planned, but also water is being given a place in the physical plans and in the development of nature and agriculture. The plan describes the tasks and which perspectives are taken into account. There is a strong connection with the Provincial Reconstruction Plans. Both plans aim at finding locations for water storage, save these locations for future use through physical planning, and prepare a financial compensation for owners of storage areas. For deciding what areas are suitable for water storage, a separate planning process was started (Brabantse Delta, 2004). This planning process had a traditional design, characterized by just a few participation moments for interest groups. The process started with a plan based on hydrodynamical model results, which were presented to participants. This meeting served for gaining support and involving other perspectives than the hydrological. On the basis of the results of this participation meeting scenarios for water storage were generated and a report was made. The concept water storage plan was presented to the participants and with the results of this meeting the plan was adjusted. This plan was presented to the decision makers. Characteristic for this process is that participants were only involved during two meetings, in contrast to the theory of interactive planning processes, which proclaims involvement during the whole process. Interactivity was limited to a small involvement in the phase Discussion, which was gone through twice (after another modeling phase). Another interesting observation is that the main point of view is the hydrological. Other perspectives like ecology, recreation, socio-history etcetera are only taken into account as a result of the two participation meetings. This approach does not ensure a correct balance of perspectives, which is in contrast to the concept of integrated water resources management. Finally the decision is based on the results of a hydro dynamical model, which does not take other perspectives into account and is not specifically designed for the objective of the planning process.

3.1.7 Conclusions The development of water resources management in The Netherlands has had its impact on planning processes as they occur nowadays. The notion that many aspects are connected to

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 25

water resources management complicated the design of water systems. The many policy fields that have an interest in water have to be taken into account. Next to the interests protected by law, other interest groups have to be involved in the planning process to increase the chance of success of the process. The planning processes in which international, national and regional policy is implemented, and in which many policy fields and interest groups need to be involved, are mainly on a regional level. Therefore the interactive planning processes that are the subject of this research are on a regional level and have the objective to implement international, national and regional policy. These planning processes have the following characteristics:

· Different policy fields on different levels · Implementation of policy · Societal and administrative support required · Different phases · Interactivity between different participants with different interests · Complex interactions · Strong relation with spatial planning

3.2 Geographic information systems

As mentioned in the Introduction, GIS is considered to have a high potential for application in water resources management. In this section the fundamentals of (Geographic Information Systems (GIS) will be discussed. This data management tool can be defined as:

A computerised system that facilitates the phases of data entry, data analysis and data presentation especially in cases when dealing with georeferenced data (De By, Knippers, Sun, Ellis, Kraak, Weir, et al., 2001).

The characteristics of GIS together with model integration possibilities will lead to criteria concerning the use of GIS in interactive planning processes. Therefore first spatial representation, the basis of GIS, is handled. In paragraph 3.2.2 the temporal aspects of GIS are discussed. The next paragraph handles the storage of data in attribute tables. There are different ways to integrate models in a GIS. This is explained in paragraph 3.2.5, after which is presented what kind of models are suitable for integration. The final paragraph has a word about the quality of model integration.

3.2.1 Spatial representation The main characteristic of GIS is the use of spatially referenced data. These data are stored in a dataset, which could be considered as a type of map. Every value of a dataset corresponds to a location somewhere in the universe, in general somewhere on earth. The power of GIS is that because of this feature it can build relations between the datasets in the layers.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 26

Figure 3: Spatial information on different policy fields for the same location

Spatial data should be designed in such a way, that they represent phenomena and relations in the real world as accurate as possible. It is impossible to give a complete representation of reality. The size of the objects used for the representation of the phenomena determines the level of detail that can be resolved (Burrough, 1995). How accurate a dataset is depends on the method of measurement and storage. Because of the basic assumption that the world can be described in terms of sets of basic entities, in most GIS a proper treatment of a wide range of continuous and stochastic phenomena is excluded. Examples are the spatial and temporal variations in the characteristics of biology, water and atmosphere (Burrough, 1992, mentioned in Burrough, 1995). There are a couple of standard methods to store the geometry of phenomena. For spatial data the raster format and the vector format are the most common. Polygon vector data describe the phenomena using the borders of a delimited part of the domain with a specific form of appearance of the phenomenon. In the raster format (tessellation) space is divided into regular parts, often squares (in Appendix 1.1 the advantages and disadvantages of both data representation methods are shown). This is not the case with raster data, in which in each cell the mean, average or maximum value of the phenomenon within the geometry of the cell is represented. This approach is necessary because cell boundaries don’t follow the boundaries of the phenomenon. This makes raster data generally less accurate for phenomena with a discrete set of forms of appearance (Berry, 1995). It depends on the nature of the phenomenon if this poses a problem: concerning discrete objects the accuracy of the representation of the phenomenon is in general smaller than in vector format. Because of the generalization of reality within each cell of a raster, these data sets are very suitable for overlay operations (see Appendix 1.2 for an overview of common operations in GIS). Spatial data that will be combined within a GIS-model often don’t concern the same phenomena, for example soil types and land use (see Figure 3). Overlay of these maps in vector mode creates a large number of new objects due to the possibly many intersections of polygons in the contributing maps, each with the combined values of the two input data sets. This is not the case when raster datasets with the same resolution are used.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 27

3.2.2 Temporal aspects Because of the orientation towards a high spatial resolution in representing data, GIS has limitations in representing (changes in) spatial data in time. There are some methods to evade this problem by making full use of the possibilities that GIS has to offer. De By et al. (2001) have identified four categories of these so-called spatial-temporal data models: the snapshot model, the space-time cube model, the spatio temporal composite model and the event-based model (see for an explanation Appendix 1.5). Characteristic for these models is the division in discrete time steps. How these time steps are determined is dependent of the problem considered. Another approach of the time problem concerns the approach of steady flow systems. This is a continuous time problem. In this approach, for systems of which the input changes very slowly in time, a long-term mean can be used as input. This example is the case of groundwater flow (Maidment, 1995). Therefore designation which model is best suited to generate and analyse temporal results is dependent on aspects like the goal of the research, the desired temporal resolution and the method of analysis.

3.2.3 Databases The information that is represented in spatial data is stored in attribute tables. Attribute data are information on the characteristics of the spatial phenomena. Both vector and raster data can have attribute tables, although for the raster format this is less common. The connection of spatial phenomena to attribute tables is an important characteristic of GIS. It gives the possibility to perform extensive analyses of the spatial phenomena. The attribute table can be considered to be a simple database and because of the connection to spatial phenomena it is sometimes named a spatial database. It lacks the features of more extended databases like Microsoft Access (see Appendix 1.4). Because of the possibility of interaction between the attribute table and the so-called Database Management Systems (DBMS), GIS-models often incorporate connections with DBMS. This enables the DBMS to perform operations with data within attribute tables of spatial data sets. Examples are comparing and sorting of data, the simultaneous use of databases and check on data integrity.

3.2.4 GIS-models The term model can be interpreted in many different ways. In general a model is an abstraction and description of reality used to represent objects, processes or events. This description can be structural (focuses on the composition and construction) or relational (focuses on the interdependence and relationships among factors). Relational models often consist of a set of rules and procedures for representing a phenomenon or predicting an outcome. In geoprocessing, a model consists of one process or a sequence of processes connected together. These are relational models. In a GIS-model the processes use spatial data as input. Therefore, a GIS -model can be defined as:

Description of the interdependence and relationships between locational properties, as well as thematic and temporal attributes, which describe characteristics and conditions of space and time

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 28

GIS-models can be subdivided into cartographic models and spatial models. The first type is automation of manual techniques involving drafting aids and transparent overlays. Spatial models are expressions of mathematical relationships among mapped variables. A GIS- model can be described using the terms scale, extent, purpose, approach, technique, association, aggregation and temporal (Berry, 1997). The model can be integrated in a GIS, or it can be external.

Figure 4: Different methods for integrating models in a GIS. The independent Model A and the GIS exchange data using computer files. Model B is also independent, but this model and the GIS both use the same database. Model C is fully integrated in the GIS.

3.2.5 Model integration in GIS A large part of the models in water resources management implicitly have a spatial component. The models concerning environmental processes often assume a continuous spatial variation. In practice this representation of spatial variation is often discretized and because of that integration in GIS is made possible. There are different ways models can be integrated in a GIS. Werner (2004) distinguished three concepts for hydro dynamical models. First is the integration with an external model (model A in Figure 4). In this concept the data in the GIS and the hydro dynamical model remain independent. There is an exchange of data using computer files. An example is the Dommel-DSS (Wassen, 1998, see also paragraph 4.4.1). The second concept is the semi- integrated model in which the model and the GIS remain independent, but both share the same database (model B in Figure 4). An example of this type of integration is INFORM (Winterscheid et al., 2002, see also paragraph 4.4.1). Models integrated according to both concepts will be considered in this report as being external. In the third concept the hydro dynamical model is fully integrated into the GIS (model C in Figure 4). RaMCO is an example of this type of integration (De Kok, Engelen, White & Wind, 2001, see also paragraph 4.4.1). With increasing integration, the flexibility of an integrated model for application in different areas increases, but more assumptions have to be made about the distribution of variability in the space-time dimension in the model (Werner, 2004). The advantage of the integration is that the process can be modelled using generic tools based on a simple integrated database. Often the calculations are not optimal: difficulties can arise when iterating model runs and it

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 29

can be difficult to write the model using standard GIS functionality (Burrough, 1996). A loose coupling is often used when the modelled process is complex or modelled by experts and therefore can’t be integrated in a GIS. The maintainability of the system decreases because of the increased exchange of data. According to Werner (2004) full integration in GIS should only be chosen when the reliability of the model is not undermined by the simplifications necessary for integration of the model.

3.2.6 Applicable methods As mentioned in the last paragraphs the models that can be used to relate spatial data in a GIS-model have a mutual dependency with this spatial data. Burrough (1996) used a classification method of models to determine what the characteristics are of models that can be integrated in GIS. These models can be grouped according to two kinds of criteria. In the first group models are distinguished regarding their mathematic compression used to model the process. This is an approximation of reality: the simpler the process, the easier the mathematical terms. The identified types of mathematical compression are (see for an explanation also appendix 1.5): (1) rule based (logical models) (2) empirical (regression models) (3) deterministic physical (everything known) and (4) stochastic physical (only probabilities known). In the second group models are distinguished into the operation of the model in space-time: (1) local (derivation of new attributes for a part of space from other attributes of the same part of space (2) neighbourhood (derivation of new attributes for a part of space from the attributes of the surrounding part of space) (3) global (derivation of new attributes for a part of space as the result of a process that extends throughout a large part of the space under view). Burrough (1995) distinguished three main characteristics of models: integration into GIS, time-dependency and spatial variation. He uses these characteristics to determine what models are appropriate for what kind of integration into GIS. For this research only the first to are appropriate. The results are shown in Table 2:

Kind of model Local Neighbourhood Global

Rule-based - Integrated - Integrated - Integrated - Time-independent - Time-independent - Time-independent Empirical - Integrated - Integrated - External - Time-independent - Time-independent - Integrated - Time dependent - Time-independent Process (deterministic) - External - External - External - Integrated - Time-dependent - Time-dependent - Time-dependent Process (stochastic) - External - External - External - Time-dependent - Time-dependent - Time-dependent Table 2: A typology of models (Burrough, 1995)

This table can be used to determine what the characteristics are of models that can be used for the different operations in space-time. In general can be observed that rule-based and empirical time-independent models can be fully integrated in GIS. This in contrast to time- dependent deterministic and stochastic models which, except for local-deterministic models, can only be integrated with a loose coupling.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 30

3.2.7 Quality of model results The use of computer models in a GIS requires data to be available and standardized according to common formats. This standardization concerns the method of measurement and classification as well as the resolution in the spatial and time dimension (Burrough, 1996). When using models it must be taken into account that technology isn’t the only restricting factor anymore for common operations in spatial analysis. It is the human interpretation, expressed into mathematical models, and the availability of sufficient reliable data. Therefore the added value of GIS for environmental models can be expressed as follows:

Information = conceptual model + data (Burrough, 1995)

The quality of the results is dependent on the quality of the models as well as on the data (Burrough, 1995). In practice, basic spatial data like land use data and soil data are measured and stored in a specific manner. Therefore the reliability of these data is a fixed fact (see Appendix 1.6 for factors determining the quality of spatial data). Without the generation of new spatial sets this results in the fact that only the models can influence the reliability of the results.

3.2.8 Conclusions With the integration of models in GIS, a GIS-model can be developed to support interactive planning processes in water resources management. The functionality of GIS enables a large range of applications based on spatial data. The used spatial data sets can best be in raster format, because this format is best suited for overlay operations. When the suitable models are time-independent and deterministic or rule-based, they can be fully integrated. Full integration also increases the flexibility of application of the model. Care must be taken that reliability is not undermined by simplifications necessary for the integration. Time-dependency is difficult to model in GIS, and therefore models representing processes like hydrodynamics can best be connected externally in a GIS. The reviewed characteristics form a framework for integration of models in GIS. The specific characteristics of GIS concerning GIS-modelling that have been determined in this section are:

· Overlay of georeferenced spatial data · Spatial data is schematisation of reality · Quality of results depends on data and model · Connection with DBMS · All possible scales · Adjustable UI · Many (spatial) operations · Modelling of local, neighbourhood and global processes · Rule-based and empirical time-independent models can fully be integrated, deterministic and stochastic process time-dependent models can be integrated with a loose coupling · Time represented in discrete steps With the support of this framework can be determined what models are suitable for integration in the GIS that will be developed for the NOFDP -project. The framework is also necessary to give an indication of the suitability of GIS -models in interactive planning processes in water resources management. These topics will be discussed later in this report.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 31

3.3 Decision Support Systems

Verbeek (1997), Van Rooy (1997) and Geldof (2004) all suggest approaches to planning processes in which participants are actively involved. Also problems were observed which are mainly the result of the complexity because of the involvement of many policy fields and stakeholders. There are a lot of tools to support the involvement of participants, but there is hardly any suggestion in which respect certain tools are suitable to involve the participants. When models are being used to produce information which is comprehensible and helpful to decision-makers and participants, facilitate public accountability in the way decisions are reached and help win acceptance for plans (Jamieson & Fedra, 1996, from Ubbels & Verhallen, 2000), the tool can be defined as a decision support system (DSS). A DSS can be defined as a:

“Computer-based system, which helps decision makers to confront ill-structured problems through direct interaction with data and analysis models…” (Sprague and Carlson, 1982, from De Kok & Wind, 2003).

These tools often use mathematical model calculations, but this is very dependent on the function of the tool. Existing DSS are not always suitable for improving the communication between participants. Therefore other kinds of DSS have emerged that organize discussions and input from participants, and provide information on subjects relevant to participants. These tools help structure the process so that it becomes clear for all participants when what decisions need to be taken. Together with the participants agreements can be made to structure the process so the communication and cooperation is simplified and improved. This results in a better use of available instruments and intellectual capacity (Van Rooy, 1997). In this section first the role of DSS in interactive planning processes is discussed. The next section focuses on the problems that exist concerning the use of DSS. Subsequently the theory on designing DSS is reviewed concluded by a paragraph in which criteria concerning the suitability of DSS are presented.

3.3.1 The role of DSS Because of the complexity of water systems, with all its interacting socioeconomic, institutional, ecological and geophysical processes, it is difficult for the decision maker to foresee the consequences of decisions. For a good control of the planning process the decision maker should have objectives and control measures available, a model to predict the consequences of these measures and information on these consequences, information concerning the environment of the water system and sufficient capacity for information processing (Verbeek and Wind, 2001;De Leeuw, 1974, from De Kok & Wind, 2003). In an interactive planning process the DSS should also help the decision maker involving the participants by helping to define the problem, the objectives, evaluation criteria and changes in object variables. Sprague and Carlson (1982) identify the key purposes of a DSS as assisting managers in their decision making processes in semi-structured tasks, supporting managerial judgment and improving the effectiveness of decision-making. De Kok (2003) also mentions that in case of multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests a DSS can serve as a platform for discussion, taking into account different points of view on an equal basis. Verbeek (1997) schematized the relation between DSS, the planning process and the water system (see Figure 5). During the planning process there is communication with user groups and governments within the water system. The input of the DSS is formed by opinions from the society and models of the water system. This information is gathered, stored, processed

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 32

and presented by the DSS. The output should be the exact amount of information sufficient to make a well-substantiated decision. Where in the planning process a DSS is useful depends on the kind of tool. Ubbels and Verhallen (2000, see for an abstract of the definitions Appendix 2) recognize three categories DSS: Gaming Techniques, DSS with an emphasis on simulation and prediction, and General Support Tools (related to activities like stimulating discussion or consensus-building). They draw the conclusion that Gaming Techniques perform well in the first two phases of a decision making process (Problem Definition and Search for Solutions). DSS with an emphasis on simulation and prediction perform better in comparing alternatives (analysis of the alternatives and modeling). General Support tools can play a role during activities that support interactivity. De Kok and Wind (2003) also notices that DSS are suitable for consistency-oriented activities, aimed at explaining the consequences of alternative decisions to stakeholders if consensus exists on goals.

Figure 5: Relation between Decision Support System, the planning process and the water system. (Verbeek, 1997). The water system consists of a physical part and a societal part. These influence each other and can be managed by the planning process. The elements of the water system also provide opinions, information and models for the DSS. The information that is supplied by the DSS to the planning process must be balanced to the demand of the process.

3.3.2 Problems with DSS Despite the amount of research invested in developing especially DSS, there are still a lot of problems related to DSS. One of the biggest problems with the application is the unfamiliarity of the participants with the models or the lack of user-friendliness of the models. This makes model results less usable and a target of discussion. These may become troubled due to a lack of insight in the reliability of the calculated results. As seen often DSS are designed from the designers’ point of view. Often the model is based on the preferences of the researcher or practical considerations. The poor problem analysis results in the lacking of relevant aspects in the DSS (De Kok & Wind, 2003). Often the model is aimed at only one aspect (for example hydrodynamics). The fact that complex problems may show chaos is neglected and therefore not incorporated in the model. The result is that small changes in initial conditions can enlarge variability in results instead of decreasing them (Geldof, 2004). It is difficult for models to take that chaos onto account. Despite this chaos professionals aim too much at the results of models, they are being thought of as the truth.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 33

3.3.3 Design of a DSS Since there are many forms and types of Gaming Techniques and General Support Tools it is impossible to give simple design steps. For DSS De Kok & Wind (2003) mentioned essential conditions for a successful design. These conditions probably can also be applied to Gaming Techniques and General Support Tools. The first condition is a solid analysis of the problem from an integrated point of view. Next is the active involvement of the end users from the beginning of the design. Because of this the qualitative design will match the requirements of the end users, provided they play an active role in the definition of the problem, the formulation of objectives and selection of promising management strategies (evaluation criteria). The next condition is a clear statement of the purpose of the DSS, a presentation of the results in a form tuned to the needs of the users and a flexible design that can deal with changing demands. According to De Kok & Wind (2003) the effective application of DSS is limited to a situation where agreement has been reached on the objectives and measures, but the consequences are not yet clear. They warn that choices on data and models should not be made on the preferences of the designers or practical considerations such as the availability of data. The complexity of a model and its power to distinguish alternative models should be in balance.

3.3.4 Suitability of DSS for application in planning processes The different types of DSS are, depending on their characteristics, suitable in one or more of the phases of the interactive planning process (see Figure 2). To determine for which phase(s) of a interactive planning process a DSS is suitable, Ubbels and Verhallen (2000) identified criteria that can be linked to activities in planning processes (see Table 3 for an overview, and Appendix 3 for a description of the criteria). By determining for what activities a DSS is suitable, the suitability of this DSS for the different phases of the planning process can be assessed. The criteria can also be used to find out what user groups are able to use the DSS. The criteria are grouped in characteristics of the DSS. The characteristic User-friendliness has consequences for the user groups that can handle the DSS. It determines whether only experts are able to handle the tool, or that also random citizens can join in. The characteristic Collaboration refers to the suitability of the DSS to support communication. This should lead to collective problem definition and identification of evaluation criteria, incorporate divergent views and stimulate discussion. A DSS can also be judged on its Transparency. Insight in the constraints and assumptions, and the uncertainties of the effects increase the “policy” part of the decision-making. The characteristic Flexibility tells something about the suitability of the DSS to be used in different situations. Finally the characteristic Assessment identifies the potential of the tool by revealing what the tool assesses and how that is done. By testing a DSS on the basis of these criteria, the scores can tell how suitable the DSS is for each phase. In addition also the suitability of the DSS for use with a given group of participants can be assessed.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 34

Characteristics Criteria

User-friendliness Well-organized screen Background knowledge Professional language Visualization Guidance Manual or built-in help Insight into modelling need

Collaboration Communication Storing generated knowledge Collective problem definition Divergent views Identifying evaluation criteria Consensus

Transparency Model assumptions and constraints Uncertainties

Flexibility Range of (policy) questions Flexible architecture

Assessment Integrated analysis Goals and objectives Possible solutions Initial ranking of possible solutions Solutions translated into alternatives Effects estimated by modelling Simple linear relations and repro-functions Expert systems Detailed complex models Comparing alternatives Table 3: Criteria for suitability of DSS (Ubbels & Verhallen, 2000)

3.3.5 Conclusions Literature on the use of DSS in interactive planning processes in water resources management contain criteria for the GIS-model that is to be applied in these planning processes. It is mentioned that it is important, before designing the DSS, to undertake some activities with the participants of the planning process. The participants should define the problems and the objectives together. They also have to determine the evaluation criteria for the solution, in which all interests are taken into account, together. It is possible that a DSS supports part of this process, but then it should be flexible enough to adapt itself as a result of the process. The input of the system are opinions from the participants and models of the water system. In an interactive planning process the DSS should be able to involve participants. Depending on the process design there is a choice of different groups of participants and also different phases of the planning process. Because of this involvement of different groups of participants the DSS should be able to incorporate different perspectives. This is dependent on the objectives of the DSS. It should be this flexible that it can handle changing demands. To meet these requirements a DSS supporting interactive planning processes should have the following characteristics:

· User-friendly · Support collaboration · Transparent · Flexible · Balanced assessment

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 35

3.4 Conclusions

In this section the theory concerning GIS -models and interactive planning processes in water resources management was studied. The characteristics of GIS and GIS-models deliver special features and limitations of GIS-models that have to be taken into account. It is dependent on the characteristics of interactive planning processes what role GIS -models can play in these processes. Based on technical criteria, the characteristics of GIS as studied in section 3.2 give some clue to what extent GIS-models can contribute to interactive planning processes. Therefore the characteristics of GIS and interactive planning processes were compared, and it was determined to what extent a characteristic of GIS meets a characteristic of interactive planning processes. This is visualized in Table 4. The table shows that the characteristics of GIS can contribute much to an interactive planning process. It is only the aspect of different phases that GIS has no real functionality for, although the many (spatial) operations that are possible in GIS offer opportunities to deal with this aspect. Therefore it can be concluded that GIS technically is able to support interactive planning processes.

Contributes much to...

Supports ...

Might contribute to ...

Different policy fields implementationon different levels of policySocietal and administrativeDifferent support phases requiredInteractivity differentbetween interests different participantsComplex with interactions Strong relation with spatial planning Overlay of georeferenced spatial data 3 3 3 2 3 Spatial data is schematization of reality 3 2 Quality of results depends on data and model Connection with DBMS All possible scales 3 3 3 2 3 Adjustable UI 3 3 Many (spatial) operations 2 1 2 3 2 Modeling of local, neighborhood and global 3 3 processes Rule-based and empirical time-independent models can fully be integrated, deterministic and stochastic 3 3 process time-dependent models can be integrated with a loose coupling Time represented in discrete steps

Maximum rating Table 4: Extent of characteristics of GIS to meet the characteristics of interactive planning processes. In the rows the characteristics of GIS are placed, in the columns the characteristics of interactive planning processes. The size of the symbol indicates to what extent a characteristic of GIS contributes to a characteristic of interactive planning process. The rating is subjective and based on experiences.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 36

To assess whether GIS is suitable to support interactive planning processes is dependent on more factors then only the technical characteristics. To function as a DSS the model should meet criteria that are caused by the fact that the different phases of the interactive planning demand specific functions of a DSS. Also different user groups demand different functions from a DSS. The study by Ubbels & Verhallen resulted in a list of characteristics which, dependent on the users and the phases, a DSS should meet. The characteristics of GIS that were defined in this chapter give a clue about the potential application of GIS -models in interactive planning processes. These characteristics are in Figure 5 related to the criteria for suitability to support interactive planning processes. These relations are based on the theory and on experience, and are therefore subjective. The larger the symbol, the better a characteristic can support that criterion. The maximum rating for each criterion gives an indication of the potential support of GIS -models concerning that criterion. From the table can be concluded that on average, GIS -models have a high potential to support interactive planning processes. Concerning the DSS characteristic User-friendliness, GIS-models score reasonably. It is especially the need for background knowledge that GIS -models can have problems with. Also uncertainties cannot be handled well, although the many (spatial) operations possible in GIS might be able to counteract that problem. GIS-models prove to have a high potential to function as a DSS with characteristics like flexibility, support of collaboration and balanced assessment. GIS are not transparent concerning the use of data and models. Table 5 can help determine to what extent the EcoDSS has made use of the potential of GIS-models. This will be discussed in chapter 5.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 37

Characteristics of DST User-friendliness Collaboration Transp. Flex. Assessment

Contributes much to...

Supports ...

Might contribute to ...

0 Negative

Well-organized screenBackground knowledgeProfessional languageVisualization Guidance Manual or built-in helpInsight into modelingCommunication need Storing generated knowledgeCollective problem definitionDivergent views Identifying evaluationConsensus criteria Model assumptionsUncertainties and constraints Range of (policy) questionsFlexible architectureIntegrated analysisGoals and objectivesPossible solutions Initial ranking of possibleSolutions solutions translatedEffects into alternatives estimated bySimple modeling linear relationsExpert and systems repro-functionsDetailed complex modelsComparing alternatives Overlay of georeferenced spatial data 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 Spatial data is schematization of reality 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 Quality of results depends on data and model 0 0 0 0 Connection with DBMS 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 All possible scales 3 2 3 3 3 2 Adjustable UI 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 Many (spatial) operations 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 Modeling of local, neighborhood and global processes 2 3 3 3 2 3

Rule-based and empirical time-independent models can fully be integrated, deterministic and stochastic process time- 0 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 Characteristics of GIS-models dependent models can be integrated with a loose coupling

Time represented in discrete steps

Maximum rating Table 5: Extent to which characteristics of GIS -models meet the criteria for suitability of DSS for support of interactive planning processes. The larger the symbol the symbol relating the characteristics to the criteria, the larger the contribution of the characteristic to the suitability criteria. The ratings are subjective and based on experience. The maximum rating shows to what extent a criteria for suitability can be met by GIS -models.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 38

4 Case-study: development of the EcoDSS

The goal of this research is to determine what the suitability of the EcoDSS is to support interactive planning processes in water resources management. The EcoDSS was developed as an example of a GIS-model as described in section 3.2. As De Kok & Wind (2003) observed, models are often developed from the perspective of the designer. The development of the EcoDSS enabled the analysis of the suitability of these models. In this section the development of the EcoDSS is described. The first section will discuss the background of this GIS-model. In section 4.2 the framework as a result of the objectives of the model will be presented. Because of the conditions described in this section a study has been performed on available spatial data in The Netherlands of which the results are presented in section 4.3. Potential models that are suitable for integration in the GIS and that satisfy the conditions are studied in the subsequent section. This study resulted in the choice of four models that were integrated in the EcoDSS (section 4.5). Because the spatial data were not directly applicable in the GIS -model, small adjustments were needed. These are described in the next section. Finally model was applied to the basins of the Rivers De Dommel and De Mark . Some results are shown in this section, along with the instrument that has been developed to show the results. This is followed by a word about the validation of the GIS- model. This chapter ends with the results of workshops in which the EcoDSS was presented to water managers.

4.1 Background

There were two motives for developing the EcoDSS. First the model serves the objectives of a subproject of an European project for stimulation of transboundary relationships. Analysis of development and application of the model contribute to the graduation research. This has been discussed in section 2.2. In this section the background of the EcoDSS will be discussed. First the objectives of the NOFDP are discussed (paragraph 4.1.1). Next the objectives of the Transboundary Studies are presented in paragraph 4.1.2.

4.1.1 NOFDP – Transnational studies The EcoDSS has been developed within the framework of the INTERREG IIIb project "Nature Oriented Flood Damage Prevention" (NOFDP) (Winterscheid et al, 2002). The general aim of the NOFDP is:

Development of an information and knowledge database together with a decision support system to assist participating countries in the North West European region in making optimal decisions for river basin management where ecological improvement of the river corridors is the goal, along with a high level of public participation, spatial development and prevention of flood damage.

This aim is visualized in the logo of the project (Figure 6) in which from different perspectives a river basin is reviewed. In the logo is visualized that a water system, in this case the river basin, can be approached from different perspectives. The traditional perspective with the most attention is the water management. This perspective represents the traditional approach: to make areas suitable for habitation and agriculture, and to protect it from flooding (this is the first wave as mentioned in paragraph 3.1.1). Nowadays it is recognized that there

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 39

is a strong relation of water systems with spatial planning (the second wave), which is another perspective on river basins. As NOFDP observes, the ecological perspective, which is also part of the second wave, does not have a large share in river basin management. It is this share that the NOFDP aims to increase. The high level of public participation, as mentioned in the general aim, can be seen as part of the third wave: collaborative water resources management.

Figure 6: Logo of the Interreg IIIB project NOFDP. In the logo the aim of the project is visualized: a river basin can be reviewed from different perspectives. Traditionally water management has a large share in river basin management. The role of spatial planning has increased and is integrated in the river basin management. The share of ecology on the other hand is still small. The NOFDP aims at increasing this share.

A transnational study, aimed at the river basins of the River Dommel and the River Mark is part of the NOFDP-project. The aims of this study are (Reichard, 2004b):

· Obtaining insight how Flemish-Dutch transnational cooperation in the field of water resources management and spatial planning can be optimized, focusing particularly on nature oriented drought and flood damage prevention.

· Developing scenarios for measures in transnational river basin management in which nature oriented drought and flood damage prevention is taken into account.

· Communicate credible measures to relevant policy makers and interest groups in the field of land use and spatial planning in the Netherlands and Belgium, so that the transnational character of NOFDP-project is guaranteed. HydroLogic carries out the project Transboundary Studies (Reichard, 2004b). Therefore among other things substantive, organizational and technical aspects of transnational cooperation were examined (phase one), available spatial data were analyzed (phase two), a model was developed in which measures in the river basins of the River Mark and the River Dommel can be analyzed from an ecological perspective (phase three), and finally the results were communicated with all interested parties (phase four), which was still going on at the time of writing.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 40

4.1.2 Transnational GIS-model The development of the EcoDSS, part of phase three of the Transnational Studies, has the objective:

To analyse from an ecological perspective credible measures in the river basins of the River Mark and the River Dommel.

The goal for phase three can be worked out into the following objectives:

· Determine where the subsurface retention of water is an effective measure while causing minimal damage to nature and agriculture.

· Determine where the storage of water is an effective measure while causing minimal damage to nature and agriculture. · Be a tool for communicating with participants. · Use simultaneously available spatial data from The Netherlands and Belgium. · Development of a transnational analysis instrument based on GIS. · Gain experience with the development of a DSS The measures which will be analysed in the model belong to the triplet “retention, storage, discharge" as mentioned in the Fourth National Policy Document on Water Management (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1998). The goal of this national policy is to increase the resilience of water systems.

4.2 Framework

The technical criteria as derived in section 3.2 and the goals of the Transboundary Studies define a framework within which spatial data and models have to fit. Therefore before the results of these studies are presented, the framework will be described. In the first paragraph there will be a word on the used computer software. The next paragraph will discuss the scale of the model (paragraph 4.2.2). The measures that result from the objective of the EcoDSS and the scale are presented in paragraph 4.2.3). The last paragraph will handle the land use functions that the model should be able to analyse (paragraph 4.2.4).

4.2.1 Software The methods, which have been applied in the EcoDSS, are not linked directly in the GIS to the spatial data of the Dutch and Flemish parts of the river basins. The technical adjustment of the models to make them applicable for integration with the spatial data has taken place with the help of Visual Basic for Applications (Visual Basic for Applications, 2001) and Excel 2000 (Excel 2000,1999). Also the spatial data themselves could not directly be integrated because of small irregularities between the formats and the models. Although most methods are based on standard classification methods (Bal, 2001), small differences still exist. The adjustments of the spatial data have taken place in ArcView 3.2a (ArcView, 2001). The final link between the adjusted models and the spatial data was made using PCRaster (Wesseling, 2001). This model is well suited for relating different maps. PCRaster requires maps to be in raster format, therefore all maps were converted to raster. The results of the PCRaster analysis were presented in ArcMap (ArcMap, 2004). In this programme also the instrument has been developed (to see also chapter 4).

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 41

4.2.2 Scale The EcoDSS is a transnational and ecological DSS based on GIS. Because of the characteristics of GIS and the available spatial data (see next paragraph) the EcoDSS can function only at a regional scale. This is according to the mention concerning interactive planning processes, which are often at a regional scale. The measures, which can be taken against drought and flood, belong to the triplet “retention, storage, discharge" as mentioned in the Advisory Report Water Management 21st Century (Tielrooij et al., 2000). Figure 7 presents how these measures can be expressed on different scale levels. On regional level can be spoken of the measures (subsurface) retention and storage. These measures are analysed in the EcoDSS.

Figure 7: Level on which measures are defined

4.2.3 Measures

The measures expressed on a regional level, as described in de previous paragraph, are explained in this paragraph. In Figure 8 the measures have been visualized.

Storage Storage of water takes place when there is a surplus of water in a river basin. This water flows over the ground or via sewer systems to the watercourses where it causes high water levels. In a natural situation floodplains inundate first. However, in the present situation nearly all areas have been protected against high water levels and therefore the floodplains are prevented from inundation. To have control on the areas which will inundate it is possible to appoint special areas for storage of water: designating these areas for inundation will diminish the risk of flood elsewhere. Specific measures are the removal of (summer) dikes and lowering of floodplains. Hydrodynamic and hydrological models predict the effects of these measures during high discharge situations.

Retention This is a measure, which prevents fast drainage of precipitation. Over the previous decades many water systems have been adjusted in such a manner that precipitation is drained away as soon as possible to prevent undesirable local high groundwater levels, in particular to prevent damage to agricultural production. This often results in the fact that groundwater is not sufficiently replenished to maintain a stable condition. The surplus of water may cause problems downstream. With subsiding grounds and climate change these problems may

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 42

Figure 8: Effect of local measures on a regional scale. In the top picture rural watercourses are deep and small to increase drainage during periods of rain. This causes low groundwater levels in dry periods. Dikes protecting reclaimed floodplains refrain the river from flooding. In the bottom picture the rural watercourse is shallow and broad, so its cross section is the same as before, but groundwater levels are higher. Therefore more water can be retained in the soil. The dike has been removed so the river can flood freely and more water can be stored during periods of high discharge. increase. Retention of water can counteract these problems. There are several measures to prevent quick drainage of precipitation. The watercourses can be dimensioned and maintained in such a way that the flow speed of the water is decreased. By increasing the wall roughness (for example by the extensivation of the maintenance) and decreasing the inclination of the river by letting it meander, results in a less rapid drainage of the water. It is also possible to increase the width of the watercourse and make it shallower which results in a larger hydraulic radius. This has consequences for groundwater levels (Huijskes & Geerlink, 2003). The second measure with which drainage speed can be reduced is adaptation of sluices and weirs. This can raise water levels (temporarily) resulting in a temporary retention of water. A third measure is the removal of drainage-enhancing pipes and gutters in the agricultural fields. Measures will only impact agriculture and nature if they concern structural changes. Hydrological this means that changes in the groundwater level must occur. Therefore only those measures will be taken into account that affect groundwater levels. According to WL | Delft Hydraulics (2002) mainly the shallowing of watercourses contribute to changes of groundwater levels. How much the groundwater level changes exactly as a result of the measure depends on different factors and must be calculated by groundwater models.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 43

4.2.4 Functions To determine the impact of the measures on nature and agriculture, it is necessary to define what is meant by these last terms. Concerning the definition, it must be taken into account that spatial information must be available about these forms of land use. Because in raster maps it is difficult to represent aquatic ecology, only (semi-) terrestrial nature will be considered within the EcoDSS.

Nature There are many methods to classify nature because there are many factors that influence the existence of plants and animals. To support policy development in the Netherlands and Belgium effort has been done to create a general applicable method to classify nature areas, existing or to be developed. In the Netherlands this has resulted in the production of Nature Target Type maps in which the Ecological Main Structure is visualized. This has been done per province, on basis of a nationally developed standard (Bal, 2001). In Flanders the Biological Rating Map (BWK) (Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, 2003) has been developed. Instead of classifying an area as a certain type of nature, in the map has been indicated which ecotopes occur in a certain area. This has not only been done for nature areas, but also for agricultural areas and cultivated areas.

Agriculture Agriculture is an easily defined form of land use because it is flora or fauna controlled by humans, and homogenous distributed over relatively large areas. On a certain agricultural area there is thus generally one type of vegetation or type of animal. This makes mapping easy and for this reason agriculture is incorporated in the Dutch and Flemish land use maps. In both maps similar crop types are distinguished. It has to be taken into account that the agriculture represented in the land use maps is the result of a snap shot. Therefore it is possible that land use / agricultural function has changed.

4.2.5 Conclusions The development of the EcoDSS took place within a predefined framework, which was based partly on the project objectives, partly on practical reasons. The project objectives required the model to be able to locate, from an ecological point of view, areas suitable for water subsurface retention and storage within the two river basins under scope. Therefore model had to analyse transnational river basins and had to be developed within a short timeframe. This last argument excluded the integration of hydro dynamical and other models with a temporal aspect, which in general require a longer development period. The exclusion of these dynamic models does not limit the functionality of the EcoDSS because the objectives require no analysis of short -term dynamical interactions. The technical restrictions are mostly determined by the available spatial data. The models must be able to use these data as input and return spatial data as output. These data originate from two countries, which increases the chance that these data are not similar. The model should be able to handle these data at an equal level.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 44

4.3 Study on spatial data in the Netherlands

At the start of the research a study was conducted on the spatial data that is available at the national and regional governments. The research was restricted to the data available for the Dutch parts of the river basins of the Rivers De Mark and De Dommel (for a complementary study concerning Belgium, see Reichard, 2005a), but also in short spatial data in Flanders are discussed. The target of the study was to make an inventory of the spatial data available that can be used in a GIS-model. This information will later serve as a basis for the decision what models to integrate in a GIS. In this section the spatial data relevant for GIS-modeling in water resources management will be treated.

4.3.1 National spatial data In this paragraph relevant spatial data sets for water resources management are discussed (for detailed information on these spatial data sets see Reichard, 2005a). In the Netherlands basic spatial data sets have been developed that can be of use for a large range of policy fields. The Large-scale Base Map of the Netherlands is a very detailed topographical map, which can serve as a basis for street plans. This map is produced on a commercial basis. Another topographical map, the Top10vector, which has a slightly smaller level of detail, is often used as reference map for governmental information systems based on GIS. Research institute Alterra produces maps of the soil and groundwater dynamics. In the soil map is, next to information on texture and soil type, categorized information on the groundwater characteristics stored. Since this information on groundwater is categorized and presented in discrete objects, Alterra is at present producing maps containing semi-distributed groundwater level information. The values in this map are among others based on the elevation of the area under scope, which is stored in a Digital Elevation Map (DEM). This DEM has a resolution of 25 meter and therefore the groundwater map has the same resolution. Partly related to these maps is the Geomorfological Map of the Netherlands, which aim is to inventory and describe the relief of the Dutch landscape. Next to the groundwater maps produced by Alterra, maps concerning hydrological subjects have been produced for use in a national nutrient transport model. These maps on drainage resistance and density of ditches have a resolution of 250 meter. Detailed information about the cover of the Dutch surface is stored in the Land Use Map of the Netherlands and the CORINE Land Cover Database of the Netherlands. The first map is developed for domestic use and describes the land cover based on satellite pictures taken in the year 2000. The resolution is 25 meter. The CORINE Land Cover Database describes the land use according to European standards on a regional scale. Detailed information on the ecology on the surface of the Netherlands is stored in the Ecological Landscape Mapping the Netherlands. This is a GIS containing the most complete ecological mapping in the Netherlands. It has a resolution of 1000 meter, but because it is a GIS there is information on all the flora and fauna within each grid cell. On the basis of this GIS the Nature Target Types Map has been devised. In this map is indicated how the ecological network in The Netherlands should be developed. Parts of this network already exists in the form of nature areas, others have to be developed in the next years. Provinces are obliged by law to make the part of the map of their administrative boundaries. This nature has to be categorized according to national standards and becomes part of the Ecological Main Structure of the Netherlands.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 45

4.3.2 Provincial spatial data Provinces in The Netherlands are responsible for the physical planning in their administrative region. To carry out this task a lot of studies are performed in which spatial data is generated. This paragraph focuses on the spatial data available in the Province of Noord-Brabant. This province has most of the above-mentioned national maps for their administrative boundaries in their property. Since the province is responsible for regional water policy, a lot of the provincial maps concern water resources. In the National Administrative Agreement on Water (Balkenende et al., 2003) involved governments agreed to determine the Acceptable Ground- and Surface Water Regime, which is a balance between spatial distributed claims on the ground water level that is stored in a map. To produce this map with the Acceptable Ground and Surface Water Regime a whole range of other maps had to be produced which all are related to water resources. These maps are on a regional scale. In a project in which the role of water in physical planning was stressed, hydrological maps have been produced especially concerning water pressures. Also concerning the physical planning aspect of water resources are the maps created for the rural reconstruction (see also paragraph 3.1). These maps form together the Integrated Hydrological Ambition and have a special focus on areas, which can potentially contribute to the water resources management as part of the provincial reconstruction. The provincial policy concerning the water resources management is effectuated in the Provincial Water Resources Management Plan. The maps belonging to this plan therefore contain the spatial effectuation of the water policy. These are related to the Provincial Plan, which is an effectuation of the physical planning in the province. The provinces are not obliged to design their spatial data sets according to specific standards. Therefore it is not always possible to merge maps of different provinces. Because of this fact the use of provincial data sets for a generic model is not recommendable.

4.3.3 Water Boards The water boards collect spatial data, which is required for or is the result of the functioning of the water board. This information ranges from detailed data on waste disposals to locations of water constructions. The water boards also posses those parts of the national data sets concerning their administration areas. Although part of the spatial data sets is based on national standards a lot of spatial data is based on own standards and therefore hard to exchange. This is the result of the independent position water boards have always occupied, but results in the observation that it is not possible to use data sets of different water boards side by side. It is not recommendable to base a generic model on data available at water boards.

4.3.4 Spatial data in Flanders Reichard (2005a) studied the national spatial data available in Flanders. In this study was found that also in Flanders there are large collections of spatial data with in general the same subjects as in The Netherlands. The spatial data sets are often developed on basis of national standards, and therefore different than in The Netherlands. Also on a provincial level spatial data are produced and differences in GIS development between the provinces can be considerable.

4.3.5 Concluding One of the objectives of the EcoDSS is that it should be applicable in the whole NWE-region. Therefore spatial data should be available at least at national level. Lower governments often

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 46

have the disposal over those data. A lot of other datasets available at the province and the water boards have been collected or developed especially for that authority and are therefore not nationally available. Basing the EcoDSS on that spatial data would prevent the project to achieve its goal. Therefore the models that will be integrated in the GIS should be able to handle the basic spatial data available at a national level. The most important datasets in The Netherlands are the Land Use Map, groundwater dynamics, Soil Map, DEM, Ecological Landscape Mapping, Nature Target Types, CORINE Land Cover Database, Phreatic Drainage Resistance, Ditch Density and the Geomorfological Map. Because the EcoDSS has to analyze whole (transnational) river basins, it has to function on a regional scale. On the one hand this matches well with the spatial data available at the water boards and the province, on the other hand the degree of abstraction makes it difficult to take unique areal features into account, like seepage, small terrain elevations and individual ecological entities. The spatial data available at a regional level often do not incorporate these areal features. Only generalized and standardized data can be used which has an effect on the outcome of the model. As was mentioned in paragraph 3.2.7, the quality of the model results is dependent on the used spatial data and the applied models. Because of the characteristics of national spatial data, the results should be interpreted as an indication of the suitability of areas in relation to measures for prevention of drought and floods. For analysis at a lower level a more detailed follow-up study is appropriate. Because in general spatial datasets in Flanders cover the same subjects as in The Netherlands, a merge of transnational data sets should be possible.

4.4 Study on ecological models in the Netherlands

In the target for the EcoDSS is mentioned that the model had to be able to determine the suitability of measures for drought and flood prevention in relation to nature and agriculture. In the previous section the spatial data available for the project area was studied. It was concluded that only basic spatial data available at a national level is suitable for use in a GIS- model applicable in the North West European Region. In this section a number of models focusing on the relation between water resources and nature / agriculture is studied. These models had to be able to use the spatial data as input data and generate results and thus fulfill the target of the EcoDSS. On the basis of this study models were selected that were applied in the EcoDSS For an extensive overview of models in the Netherlands, see Reichard (2005a) and Van Loenen, (2005).

4.4.1 Integrated models Four integrated models have been selected that incorporate models analyzing the relation between ecology and water resources management. These models are RaMCO (De Kok & Wind, 2002), INFORM (Fuchs et al., 2003), Dommel-DSS (Wassen et al., 1998) and the Waternood-tool (Helmyr & Van Weeren, 2002). These integrated models differ in objective as well as in extent of integration.

RaMCO RaMCO stands for Rapid Assessment Module for COastal Zones (De Kok & Wind, 2002). RaMCO is a good example of a fully integrated model. The main function of RaMCO is to predict changes in land use as a result of economic changes on a macro level, and the spatiotemporal distribution of land use and surface water on a micro level. These changes in land use are dependent on the availability of suitable land and measures in the water system. The changes are modeled using constrained cellular automata which are simple spatial

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 47

models in which the status of each cell depends on the earlier status of the cells in its surrounding. Based on this principle it can be examined what the changes in land use are on a micro level within the constraints of the macro level. The relations laid within RaMCO are integrated in a GIS. Since the model uses raster data as input data and the results are time- dependent, the model can be defined as a fully integrated dynamic model based on discrete boundaries. The ecological component of RaMCO is not designed for application in Dutch water systems, which makes RaMCO unsuitable for use in the EcoDSS.

INFORM INFORM stands for INtegrated FlOodplain Response Model (Fuchs et al., 2003). It is an integrated dynamical model developed by the German Institute for Hydrology, and it is designed to analyse the effects of measures in rivers on flow regime and ecology. The main function is the analysis and evaluation of the effects of changes in water level in the rivers on the ecology in the floodplains. In the model 22 modules are integrated using a GIS. Three modules calculate water levels in the river and changes as a result of measures. The results form the basis for a module that calculates the response of the groundwater level in the floodplain, after which a soil module determines changes in soil hydrology. This is the basis for other modules that then predict population and spreading of vegetation. The evaluation module gives decision makers the possibility to compare scenarios. This model can be categorized as a time-dependent, semi-integrated model, in which local as well as neighbourhood functions are incorporated. The ecological module will be examined in the next paragraph.

Dommel-DSS The Dommel-DSS (Wassen, 1998) is the result of the EU-LIVE Dommel project, which target was to develop methods for the combined use of landscape ecological models and socio- economic knowledge for development of integrated management plans for small transnational rivers. Requirement of the project was that these environmental impact assessment models had to be designed in a scientific sound manner, and simultaneously with the development of a feasible water management plan. The Dommel-DSS also uses a GIS to integrate different modules. It can be characterised as an integration of external process models, which incorporate neighbourhood as well as local functions. The basic principle of this model is that these effects on ecosystems of measures in water systems can be examined by analysing the effects on valuable ecosystems, namely meadows, woodlands and aquatic ecosystems. The ecological modules form the heart of the integrated system, the hydrological models only serve the ecological models. To use the Dommel-DSS a lot of specific information necessary that is not widely available is. The fact that the model has been developed especially for the project area of the case study restricts its usage to areas with a similar ecology, which are mainly brook valleys located in the southern part of the Netherlands.

Waternood-tool To help water boards determine the statutory imposed Acceptable Ground and Surface Water Regime (GGOR), the Dutch Foundation for Applied Water Research (STOWA) developed a model to analyse the relation between groundwater and land use (Helmyr & Van Weeren, 2002). The land use incorporates the modules urban, nature, agriculture and aquatic ecology. This tool can be characterised as a fully integrated GIS-model since different (spatial) operations are performed within a GIS. The model uses basic spatial data as soil map, land use map and groundwater maps to determine to what extent demands of land use functions match the actual groundwater situation. By offering the possibility to compare different

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 48

scenarios the tool serves as a DSS for decision makers. Because land and water use have to be valued the tool supports a policy choice. The Waternood-tool is based on simplifications of reality and simple relations between ground water and land use functions. Since there is no temporal aspect the model can be classified as a combination of fully integrated empirical and rule-based time-independent models. The modules are based on basic national data and therefore very suitable for integration in the EcoDSS. They will be discussed in more detail in the next section.

4.4.2 Process models In the study several individual models have been analyzed. These models analyze the relationship between the water system and ecology. Some of these models originate from the integrated models and are worth of further study. These are MOVER and the modules of the Waternood-tool. The other modules studied are DEMNAT and the methods Water Storage and Nature and Water Storage and Agriculture.

MOVER MOVER is the ecological module of the integrated model INFORM. The objective of the module is to predict the change of existence of vegetation as a function of the results of other modules, depending on the version of INFORM one or more of the following variables: flood frequency, cover, soil type, humidity, trophy, variability in water level and distance to the watercourse (Fuchs, 2003). There are various versions of MOVER, each with its own characteristics. There are conceptual differences as well as different requirements in input data. MOVER was developed for the Lower Rhine region and simulates vegetation on the basis of a rule-based empirical-deterministic model. The relevant model parameters are determined per grid-cell using an automised decision model and the corresponding habitat is then assigned to the grid-cell. The deterministic model is derived from a multivariable statistic analysis of extended field data from the floodplains of the Middle Elbe. The model combines and weighs hydrological, soil and structural parameters. The results are presented in species or vegetation groups. The design of MOVER fits well for integration in a GIS and also the input data matches the available spatial data quite well. The only drawback is that the vegetation modelled by MOVER is not typically Dutch. This makes the model less relevant for integration in the EcoDSS.

DEMNAT DEMNAT is the Dutch acronym for Dose Effect Model Nature Terrestric. It is an ecohydrological model developed by the Dutch Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA) to predict the effects of changes in the water system on terrestric and semi-terrestric nature (Van Ek, Stam, Van Houten, De Boer, 2002). It has been designed specifically for the Dutch situation and serves as a tool for water resources management. The input of DEMNAT can consist of the output of hydrological models, but also manual input is possible. The ecological effects are expressed in (a change in) the botanical quality of eighteen ecosystem types, which are based on a Dutch classification system. For each ecosystem has been determined what the change of occurrence is for certain factors on which the ecosystem is dependent. The hydrological factors are surface water level, seepage intensity, spring groundwater level and percentage of foreign water. The other factors are related to the soil: moisture regime, nutrient availability and acidity. The overlay of hydrological characteristics with soil characteristics leads to basic calculation units: ecoplots. Using dose-effect relations it is calculated for every ecoplot how the botanical

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 49

quality of an ecosystem type changes (the effect) as a result of the three hydrological input variables (the doses). These relations were determined for every possible combination of ecosystem type and soil type (Runhaar et al., 1996). DEMNAT is a reliable model for prediction ecotope types changes as a result of changes in the water system. Because the model is very complex and the output is the result of a combination of ecotope type and ecoserie per square kilometre, this model is not very suitable for integration in a practical GIS-model.

Semi-continuous HELP-tables For the Waternood-tool a method was needed to describe the relation between groundwater and agriculture. This relation was present within a model developed for land development projects (Werkgroep HELP-tabel, 1987). These projects needed a tool to describe the relation between the water system and the agricultural production. The method distinguishes several crop types, 70 soil types and a range of ground water levels. Depending on the combination of these factors a deviation from the optimal yield is determined as a result of damage caused by water or drought. This deviation from the optimal yield is an average for a standard agricultural business operation, determined for long-term operation. The original HELP-tables could only give an indication of the deviation per predefined groundwater stage. For application of the method in the Waternood-tool, the method was made semi-continuous (Van Bakel, 2002). Since this method is based on national available basic spatial data sets and it incorporates a good relation between groundwater and agriculture, the method is determined to be suitable for application in the EcoDSS.

Terrestric nature Waternood-tool In addition to the method to describe the relation between groundwater and agriculture, a method was needed for the Waternood-tool to describe the relation between groundwater and nature. It was not possible to use an existing method and therefore a study was conducted especially for the Waternood-tool. The aim of the method is to describe to what extent the situation is suitable for a Nature Target Type. Thereby only a restricted number of hydrological variables could be taken into account to make the method applicable. The choice is made to use the Mean Spring Groundwater Level (GVG), the Mean Lowest Groundwater Level (GLG), Potential Days with Drought and presence of seepage. The method is based on input variables that exist in available basic spatial data and examines the relation between groundwater and nature. Because the method is suitable for integration it can be integrated in the EcoDSS.

Water Storage and Nature The advisory report of the Commission Water Management 21e Century (Tielrooij et al., 2000) contains as the most important recommendation the priority ranking for measures according to three categories: retention, storage and discharge (of water). The STOWA was instructed to start a study concerning the relation between water storage and nature to support water administrators in finding suitable locations for storage of water (Runhaar, Arts, Knol, Makaske, Van den Brink, 2004). In the study was attempted to indicate the impact of water storage on nature on the basis of literature and available knowledge of researchers. All the information available was arranged in lookup-tables, which made it suitable for practical use. The rule-based model gives an indication concerning the suitability of nature for combination with water storage on the basis of the sensitivity for inundation of the flora and fauna and the compatibility with nature sensitive to (a lack of) nutrients, bases and salt. The model is based on the same categorization of nature as has been used in the Nature Target Types Map. Most

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 50

of the input information is present in maps produced by the water boards and need only little adjustment. Therefore this method is suitable for integration in the EcoDSS.

Water Storage and Agriculture For the same reason as the model Water Storage and Nature, the STOWA developed the method Water Storage and Agriculture (Cornelissen, Harmsen, Kempenaar, Knol, Van der Zweerde, 2003). This rule-based model is also based on the use of lookup-tables in which the results of relevant studies have been gathered. The input variables of the model are: frequency, duration and depth of inundation, origin of the water and type of agriculture. The model returns an indication of the effects on a whole group of aspects concerning agriculture. These aspects have been grouped in cattle breeding, crop farming and contaminants. Each aspect is given, next to a qualitative judgement, an indication of the risk. This risk is the multiplication of effect times the chance of occurrence. The input variables are almost the same as for the model Water storage and nature and since risk can be interpreted as the inverse of suitability, the model is very suitable for integration in a GIS.

4.4.3 Concluding The study delivered some interesting results. Different models with different degrees of integration were studied. Are the models integrated in the Dommel-DSS external, the models integrated in RaMCO are fully integrated. The models of INFORM are external, but use the same database. Also the way nature and agriculture were modelled differs per model. The models that were found to be suitable for use in the EcoDSS all are developed by the STOWA. The models describing the relation between groundwater and agriculture and nature are part of the integrated GIS-model Waternood and already had been adapted for integration in GIS. The two models describing the relation between water storage and nature and agriculture are one-dimensional rule-based deterministic models that can be made suitable for integration in a GIS. All these models fit the criteria defined in section 4.2: they are applicable in the Netherlands and its surroundings, they were developed for use on a regional level, they (can be adjusted to) give a first indication of the suitability of measures concerning nature and agriculture, and finally they can use basic national available data. Because they are time-independent and based on discrete boundaries they are very suitable for full integration in a GIS.

4.5 Methodology for integration of selected models in GIS

In this section will be explained how the models, selected in the previous section, will be integrated in GIS. The basic principle for integration is the same for each model. In the original models the input of one-dimensional values results in a one-dimensional output value. Because of the integration of the models in GIS, for every point in space a one-dimensional output value is determined (the so-called local operations, as defined in paragraph 3.2.6). This results in two-dimensional output maps. Figure 9 shows the relation between the measures subsurface retention and storage, and the types of land use. Each combination can be modeled by one of the models selected in previous section. Both the models Water Storage and Nature and Water Storage and Agriculture were developed by the STOWA to assist water managers assess the effects of water storage. The model Semi-continue HELP-tables is based on a method that assesses the effects of changes in a water system on the agricultural production and made semi- continue for the Waternood-tool. In this report will further be referred to the model as

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 51

Subsurface Retention and Agriculture. The model Terrestric Nature Waternood-Tool was especially developed for the Waternood-tool to assess the effects of changes in groundwater level on nature. In the report will further be referred to the model as Subsurface Retention and Nature. In this section for each model is described how it functions and how it was adapted to integrate it in GIS (for more information, see Reichard 2005b). The output of the integrated GIS-model is the suitability of a measure concerning nature / agriculture. The model Water Storage and Nature uses the categories very unsuitable, unsuitable, suitable and very suitable. This categorization seems best fit for the purpose of the EcoDSS. Therefore the other models will be integrated such that their output values will be in the same categorization.

Figure 9: Combination of measures and land use. For every combination of the measures Subsurface retention and Water storage with the types of land use Nature and Agriculture a model is integrated in the GIS.

4.5.1 Water Storage and Nature The relation between water storage and nature is very complex. This is reflected in the model Water Storage and Nature (Runhaar, 2004). In the model from five different perspectives the relation between water storage and nature is analysed. The first perspective is the tolerance of the fauna for inundation. Some species can better tolerate an inundation than others. The factors inundation frequency, depth, duration and season determine whether or not a specie tolerates the inundation. The same counts for fauna. Some species, related to a Nature Target Type, can better handle a specific inundation than other species. The third perspective is the nutrient tolerance. There are different Nature Target Types which don’t tolerate nutrient- rich water, and vice-versa. These same relations exist for salinity and bases, which are the fourth and fifth perspective. The model calculates for these five perspectives an output value, in the order from very unsuitable, to very suitable.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 52

Basic map Input variable Perspective

Frequency, depth, duration Inundation tolerance and season of inundation flora

Inundation tolerance Sediment content fauna

Characteristics Nature Target Types Quality Nutrient tolerance

Hardness Sensitivity for bases

Salinity Sensitivity for salt

Table 6: Relations between input variables and perspectives

The input data that is required to determine the output value differs per perspective. In Table 6 is presented what input variables are required to determine from each perspective the suitability of a specific area for water storage (for the classification of the input values, see Appendix 4). The model relates certain predefined characteristics to each Nature Target Type, like system type, productivi ty, inundation-dependence, inundation tolerance and salinity. These characteristics form the basic input for the model. Next the other input variables are related to the characteristics of the Nature Target Types. For four of the five perspectives the characteristics of the inundation are important. Using either hydro dynamical models or statistics for every area can be examined how often and in what season inundations occur, how deep these are and for what period the land is inundated. The other input variables are related to the inundating water itself. Four characteristics of the inundating water need to be defined: the sediment content, the quality, the salinity and the hardness of the inundating water. For every perspective and for every pixel in the map under view the model determines a result. This means there are five result maps. To determine the suitability of each location for water storage, the minimal value of the five results determines the definitive result (see for an example paragraph 4.7.4). This is visualized as a spatial distributed indication of the suitability of the nature for combination with water storage. Because of knowledge gaps in literature and contradicting opinions between experts, STOWA could not always determine values for suitability for the whole extent of the relevant input variables. Where this was the case this has been indicated in the model. These uncertainties are presented in the model results of the EcoDSS as uncertain or disputable.

4.5.2 Water Storage and Agriculture In the model Water Storage and Inundation for 15 substances and organisms (see Table 7) related to agriculture the effects of, and risks because of, inundation are calculated (Cornelissen, 2003). The basic map is the Land Use Map in which is defined whether an agricultural parcel is used for grazing by cattle or for growing of crops. The model requires four input variables: frequency, duration and season of inundation (see Table 8).

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 53

Contaminants Crops Animals

Heavy metals Crop growth Toxic contaminants Polycyclic Aromatic Weeds Pathogenics en parasites Hydrocarben Rain worms Toxics of other organisms Nutrients Eels, protozoa Pesticides Fungus Viruses

Bacteria

Algae Table 7: Substances and organisms analysed in Water Storage and Agriculture

The main results of the model are qualitative judgements of the effect of inundation on the 15 substances and organisms. The model also calculates risks, which are related to those effects. These risks are quantified in the model. For the integration of the model those risks can be used to determine the suitability of agricultural areas for water storage, because the inverse of the risk can be interpreted as the suitability (see Table 9).

Basic map Input variable Perspective

Frequency, duration and Contaminants season of inundation Agriculture type

Origin of the inundating water Agriculture

Table 8: Relation input variables and perspective

Risk Suitability

None (0) Very suitable Unknown (1) Suitable Possible (2) Unsuitable Large (3) Very unsuitable Table 9: Translation of risks to suitability

The model calculates the risk for every combination of input variable / agriculture type and substance / organism (see Appendix 7). This is unpractical for a spatial analysis because for every spatial object (in this case for every pixel) 75 results will be generated: 15 organisms / substances times five input variables / agriculture type. The model reduces this 75 results to 15 results by taking the results of the 5 input variables / agriculture type together. In the model the rule is applied that if a certain risk (none, possible or large) occurs three times or more often then that risk is the determining value (Cornelissen, 2003). Is this not the case then the risk is classified as uncertain. So for every organism / contaminant one risk is determined in Water Storage and Agriculture. This still leaves 15 output values. For the integration in GIS these 15 output values have been reduced by determining a value for the risk per group of contaminants / organisms (see Table 7). For the groups contaminants and cattle the risks per substance / organism (see Appendix 7) have been averaged. The group crops contain eight organisms of which crop growth and weed are the most important.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 54

Therefore the average of these two aspects together have been determined to count for half of the resulting risk. The results are now reduced to three groups: contaminants, cattle and crops. Since cattle and crops are spatially separated, these results can be taken together. This leaves the final output of the integrated model to suitability of water storage concerning contaminants and suitability of water storage concerning cattle/crops.

4.5.3 Subsurface Retention and Nature This method was designed to determine the suitability of a Nature Target Type as a result of GLG, GVG, drought and seepage (Runhaar, Gehrels, Van der Lee, Hennekens, Wamelink, Van der Linden, 2002). Since the tables, which form the basis of the model, are not complete for the input va riables GLG, drought and seepage, these variables are not taken into account in the EcoDSS. This reduces the input data to the GVG. This is acceptable because a change in structural groundwater level only affects nature during spring. Graph A in Figure 10 is a representation of the groundwater range of a random Nature Target Type. In the graph is the range groundwater levels visualized for which the Nature Target Type is fit. Does the groundwater level structurally rise above this range than the nature will deteriorate because the situation is too wet for the species in the Nature Target Type. When the groundwater level structurally drops beneath the range, then the situation is too dry for the species. With the help of this graph can for every combination of Nature Target Type and actual groundwater level (GVG) be determined how fit the present situation is for the Nature Target Type and what the situation is after implementation of the measures. It is essential that these measures result in a structural groundwater level rise for the model to be applicable. The situation before and after the measures can be compared to determine how the nature will be affected. In Figure 10 the possible situations are presented in graphs. The dotted line is the groundwater level before implementation of the measures, the dashed line is the groundwater level after implementation. In Graph B the groundwater level is already above the fitness range, and any extra raise will only move the groundwater level further away from a suitable situation. Therefore the implementation of measures would not do the nature under view any good and therefore this situation is classified as very unsuitable. A situation is labelled unsuitable when the situation deteriorates. This can be when the groundwater level is not totally fit (Graph C), or is very suitable (Graphs D and E) for the Nature Target Type, and implementation of the measures decreases the fitness. When the groundwater level raise does not harm the Nature Target Type and the fitness does not change (except for the situation in Graph B), the situation is labelled suitable. This is the case when the groundwater level is completely fit for the Nature Target Type, and remains so (Graph F). It is also the case when the groundwater level is too low for the Nature Target Type and remains too low after implementation of the measures (Graph G). Although the groundwater level is not fit for the specific species, the implementation of the measures does not harm the nature, and even takes the groundwater level to a level in the direction of a suitable situation. Finally a combination of measures and nature is determined to be very suitable when the groundwater level is better fitted for the Nature Target Type under view. This situation can occur when the present groundwater level is not totally fit for the Nature Target Type, but implementation of the measure increases the fitness (Graph H). When the groundwater level is lower than the fitness-range, and the measures raise the groundwater to a level which is better suited for the nature under view, the situation is also labelled very suitable (Graphs I and J).

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 55

A B C D

E F G H

I J

Figure 10: Suitability of nature for groundwater level. In the graph (A) the fitness range of a Nature Target Type as a function of groundwater levels is showed. To determine whether a Nature Target Type tolerates a change in groundwater level depends on the change in fitness. In graph B the change in fitness is zero, but because the groundwater level moves further from the right levels, the change is very negative. In graphs C, D and E the change is negative and therefore the measure is unsuitable. Graphs F and G show a positive change and graphs H, I and J present a situation in which the fitness for the Nature Target Type is increased. That situation is therefore labeled very suitable.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 56

4.5.4 Subsurface Retention and Agriculture The HELP-tables were developed to determine what the difference in yield in agriculture compared to an ultimate situation is as the result of changes in the water system (Werkgroep HELP-tabellen, 1987). It was decided that the factors determining the deviation from the maximum yield are a function of Mean Highest Groundwater Level (GHG), GLG, soil type and crop type. This deviation can be determined for drought damage and water damage. The model is well suited to compare the situation before implementation of measures that raise the groundwater, and after implementation. This takes place approximately the same way as for the model Subsurface Retention and Nature. In Figure 11 a table is shown in which the deviation in yield (as a result of water damage) is presented for a large number of GLG and GHG values. For each combination of soil type and crop type such a table was developed (Van Bakel, 2002). Also for every combination of soil type and crop type there is a table for the decrease in yield as a result of drought damage. Because of the characteristics of agriculture production, a raise in

GHG 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 20 100 25 94 30 88 82 35 81 75 72 40 75 68 65 61 8 1

GLG 45 69 62 58 54 50 50 63 55 51 47 43 40 55 57 48 44 40 36 33 29 60 50 41 37 33 29 26 22 65 44 35 30 26 22 19 15 11 70 38 28 23 19 16 13 11 8 6 75 37 27 22 19 15 12 10 8 6 5 80 35 27 22 18 15 11 10 8 6 4 4 85 34 26 21 17 14 11 9 8 6 4 4 4 90 32 25 20 16 13 10 9 7 6 3 3 3 3 95 31 24 19 16 12 10 8 7 5 3 3 3 3 3 100 29 24 19 15 12 9 7 6 5 3 2 2 2 2 105 28 23 18 14 11 9 7 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 110 27 23 18 14 11 9 6 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 115 26 22 18 14 11 8 6 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 120 25 21 17 14 11 8 6 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 125 24 19 16 13 11 8 6 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 130 22 18 15 13 10 8 6 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 135 21 17 15 12 10 7 6 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 140 20 17 14 12 9 7B6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145 19 16 14 11 9 7 5 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 150 18 16 14 11 9 7 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 155 17 16 14 11 9 7 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160 17 15 14 11 9 7 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 165 16 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 170 16 14 13 11 9 7 5 3 2 2 1 1 A1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 175 15 14 12 11 9 7 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 180 15 13 12 10 8 7 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 185 14 13 11 9 8 6 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 190 14 12 10 9 7 6 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 195 13 11 10 8 7 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 200 13 11 9 8 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 205 12 10 9 7 6 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 210 11 10 8 7 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 215 11 9 8 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 220 10 9 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 225 10 8 7 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 230 9 8 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 235 9 7 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 240 8 7 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 245 8 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 250 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 255 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 260 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 265 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 270 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 275 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 280 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 285 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 290 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 295 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 300 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 305 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 310 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 315 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 320 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 11: Example of a HELP-table for water damage. In the table is presented what the deviation from maximum yield is for a specific soil, crop type and GLG / GHG combination. Using these values can be determined what the change in deviation is when groundwater levels change. Point A in the figure represents the present situation. When subsurface retention is applied, the situation changes to point B. The deviation has increased. The amount of change is an indicator for the suitability of an area for the subsurface retention of water.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 57

groundwater level will always result in an increase in deviation from the maximum yield concerning water damage, and a decrease in deviation concerning drought damage. It is dependent on the variables crop type, soil type, GHG, GLG and change in groundwater level how much the change in deviation. In the example in Figure 11 the present situation is at point A. The deviation is only one percent, which means that there is almost no water damage. Because of a change in groundwater level, caused by the implementation of measures, the deviation increases to eight percent. This is a change of seven percent. The same calculation can be made for drought damage. In the case of drought damage the deviation can only decrease because a raise in the water level will decrease drought. Therefore the decrease of deviation because of the decrease in drought damage can be subtracted from the increase of deviation because of the increase of water damage. This value is the total change in deviation. To translate this change in deviation to a judgment of suitability of an agricultural area for retaining water, the change in deviation needs to be classified. The classification is shown in Table 10.

Total change in deviation Suitability

> 30 % 1 (very unsuitable) 10 - 30 % 2 (unsuitable) 5 - 10 % 3 (suitable) < 5 % 4 (very unsuitable) Table 10: Classification total change in deviation

This analysis of change in deviation concerning drought and water damage can be carried out for every pixel representing an agricultural area in the GIS.

4.5.5 Required spatial data In Table 11 the required input data for all the models are presented. The required input data are mostly dependent on the measure that the data is used for. The models for the analysis of water storage require the most input data because there are more characteristics to inundation than to subsurface retention.

Subject Water Water Subsurface Subsurface storage and Storage and Retention Retention Nature Agriculture and Nature and Agriculture

Groundwater x x Soil x Agriculture x x Nature x x Characteristics water x x Inundation frequency x x Inundation depth x

Inundation duration x x Season of inundation x x

Required Change of groundwater level x x Table 11: Required data per measure / land use combination

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 58

4.5.6 Conclusions The models that were selected in section 4.4 could be fully integrated in the EcoDSS. Most of the models use the same input variables, so just a limited of spatial data sets are required. Although the functions of the models are different, they could be adapted so that they produce the same results. The model Water Storage and Nature on the one hand is the most complex of the integrated models, because it needs the most input data and generates the most output data. On the other hand, when using it to determine the suitability of water storage in relation to nature, no adaptations needed to be made because the model itself determines suitability. This in contrast to the other models which needed to be generalized to determine suitability. This required that some assumptions were made and classifications needed to be applied. These models require less input data and generate less output data. The number of input variables have been limited to just a few, on which in the next section will be elaborated.

4.6 Data preprocessing

There is a lot of spatial data available concerning water related topics. In section 4.3 an analysis was carried out on the spatial data available in The Netherlands, and some results were recapitulated. This information served as a basis for deciding what spatial data the model should be able to use. There is a strong relation between the models integrated into the EcoDSS and the spatial data available. The models mainly have been chosen on the spatial data available: these spatial data had to be collected for the models. In this section the spatial data that has been used in the EcoDSS is discussed. Therefore first an enumeration of the required spatial data is given in paragraph 4.6.1. Then in paragraph 4.6.2 the adjustments necessary to be able to use the data, or to generate data are handled. The uncertainties that are connected to spatial data are discussed in paragraph 4.6.3.

4.6.1 Collected spatial data In Table 12 an overview is given of the spatial data that was collected for the EcoDSS. As can be seen no information was collected about inundation characteristics and changes of groundwater level. These data are available in the form of model results, but are confidential because of the sensitive information stored in the data. Therefore it has been decided that it is the user who will manually input this information. With that the model has become a Decision Support System (DSS): the user can analyse by himself what effect certain measures will have on nature and agriculture. The potential areas for implementation of the measures are also maps that are not required for the analysis of natural and agricultural areas, but they can clarify the results of the analysis. As can be seen in the table, some spatial data that is required is lacking for the Flemish parts of the river basins. Most of these spatial data sets can be generated using other data sets. In the next paragraph is discussed how this problem was tackled.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 59

Subject Province of Noord-Brabant Flanders

Groundwater Groundwater maps - Soil Soil map Soil map

Agriculture Land Use Map 4 Land Use Map Nature Nature Target Types Map Biological Valuation Map Characteristics water Water Quality Maps - Required

Potential areas for subsurface Landscape ecohydrological retention Structure Map (LES) Potential / present / appointed Landscape ecohydrological Flood risk areas Flanders water storage areas Structure Map (LES) Inundation frequency Inundation depth Inundation duration

Season of inundation

Optional Change of groundwater level Table 12: Available spatial data

4.6.2 Adjustment operations Most of the required spatial data sets were not directly applicable in the EcoDSS. In this paragraph is presented how data was adjusted or generated to make it suitable for use in the EcoDSS.

Potential storage and retention areas Hydrodynamic models have been used to determine what areas inundate within the catchment areas, on the basis of which potential storage areas have been appointed. Groundwater models in combination with GIS-models have been used to determine what areas are suitable for subsurface retention of water. The results of these studies are available in maps, but are no required input. They can be used as an overlay to show what areas have been appointed to take measures. The EcoDSS itself shows for all nature and agricultural areas the suitability for combination with measures in the water system.

Nature type The models for analysing the suitability of measures concerning water storage and retention in relation to nature are based on a Dutch classification of nature using the methodology developed by Bal (2001). The map shows the nature areas that should be present in 2015. Parts of this nature already exists, others have to be realised. Despite that this is a national applicable method, the nature map devised by the province of Brabant was not classified using the method. Therefore this map had to be translated. The same is the case with the Flemish nature map (BWK), which was classified according to a method developed in Belgium. A consultancy firm carried out the translation. Because the BWK contains the ecotopes of all areas, the areas that are not indicated as nature needed to be filtered out. The BWK shows existing nature at the moment of creation. There is therefore a difference with the Dutch Nature Target Types Map.

Groundwater Because in Flanders groundwater data is not available in spatial datasets, this information had to be generated on a different way. The Flemish soil map is classified using drainage characteristics which made it possible to use this information to generate groundwater maps.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 60

In a study conducted by Stuurman (2002) the Flemish soil map was transformed into a GxG- map using a Dutch classification.

Land use Information on land use is derived from the land use map of the Netherlands (LGN4, developed in 2000) and of Flanders (BWK), developed in1996. This is a snapshot recording and undoubtedly changes have been taken place. When interpreting the results it is important to take this into account. Because agriculture is derived from this map there is a chance that in the mean time the agricultural function of a piece of land has changed.

Soil map The soil map of Brabant, which is part of a national soil map, is classified in a large range of soil types. The model integrated in the EcoDSS that requires a soil map, Subsurface Retention and Agriculture, is based on a reclassified soil map, which has been developed for a study on nutrient transports in the soil (Wolf, 2005). In this study a translation table has been developed for the soil map. This translation table has been applied to adjust the soil map. For the Flemish soil map no translation tables were available. Since the classification method for the Flemish soil is very different it is impossible to translate this map into the Dutch classification. This excludes the Flemish part of the catchment areas for analysis of the suitability of subsurface retention concerning agriculture.

Water quality characteristics For the model in which the suitability of measures concerning nature is assessed, some characteristics of the inundating water are required. Some nature can be affected by water with high or low concentrations of sediment, bicarbonate, salt or phosphate. Therefore the model requires information on these characteristics. Since the model consists of a set of tables, the input information has to be classified. The information of phosphate, which concentration is spatially distributed over the river basins areas, could be derived from a study in water quality. The concentration of salt and bicarbonate is equal over the river basins, and the sediment load is assumed to be dependent on the distance to the source of inundation. The model describing the relation between inundation and agriculture requires information on the origin of the inundating water. The assumption is that mainly the origin of the water determines the quality. For the purpose of integration it is assumed that, except from the polder regions, all inundation water comes from rivers (other choices are polders and rain).

Storage and subsurface retention characteristics The models analyzing storage of water require information on inundation duration, depth, frequency and season of inundation. The models analyzing subsurface retention of water requires information on changing groundwater levels as a result of taken measures. These data can be the result of model calculations and are directly related to the potential storage and retention areas. If these optional data is available, a precise scan can be performed on the areas under research. Since this is not the case in this study, this option is not taken into account. These input variables are therefore left to the user to determine. This option is what the EcoDSS makes a Decision Support System.

4.6.3 Uncertainty The uncertainty that is the result of the uncertainty in spatial data and in the models is largely reduced because of the use of data ranges in the models. Values in spatial data sets have a large probability of falling within the ranges defined in the model. The uncertainty arises when

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 61

values in spatial data sets are located around the boundaries of the classes. With just a small deviation the result will be localized in another class. Therefore some insight in the uncertainty of the spatial data is recommended (see for more information Appendix 5). Because spatial data are a representation of reality, there is always some uncertainty when using those data (see paragraph 3.2.1). This is also the case with the translation of the nature maps (see Appendix 4). In the translation, mapped items are reclassified from a well-defined object to an object that in the best case is the same, but probably has slightly different characteristics. This is a source of uncertainty, but reduced by the way the model functions. In the model characteristics of the (translated) nature types are being used. The probability is large that the characteristics of the original classification and the translated classification are the same. The application of classification restricts the uncertainty to the borders between classes. This is not the case with the generation of groundwater maps for Flanders (see Appendix 4). Since groundwater characteristics depend on more aspects than the soil only (the groundwater maps are derived from the soil map), the chance is present that the GxG- values deviate from the actual GxG-values. It is unknown how large that deviation is but it is the best approximation possible. The Land Use Map incorporates a slight uncertainty that since the creation of the map the actual situation has changed (see Appendix 4). This is inevitable and therefore should be taken into account when interpreting the results. The uncertainty related to the soil map originates from the fact that there are, in contradiction to the representation in the soil map, almost never discrete boundaries between soil types. Finally the uncertainty concerning the water characteristics is quite small because the model requires classified data. The chance that values in the real situation don’t fit in the values as stored in the spatial data is small.

4.6.4 Conclusions Despite the fact that the models were chosen for their use of basic national available spatial data, quite some adaptations had to be made. Since the models are of Dutch origin, especially the Flemish spatial data needed to be transformed. Every adjustment of data decreases its reliability. Because most data is input in a classified form, it is assumed that the chance that the real value is outside this class is small. Therefore this increase in uncertainty has little effect on the outcome of the EcoDSS. For Flanders most gaps in spatial data could be filled, except for the Soil Map, because it is almost impossible to translate it. Spatial data on inundation extends, frequencies, and depths are available at water boards, but because this information is confidential it couldn’t be used in the EcoDSS. Therefore the user can determine what value these variables have.

4.7 Application

As is formulated in the objectives of the Transboundary Studies, the EcoDSS was applied to the river basins of the Rivers De Dommel and De Mark . To support a good interpretation of the results in paragraph 4.7.1 the river basins of the River De Dommel and River De Mark are described. In the following paragraph (paragraph 4.7.2) is explained how the EcoDSS can be of use for decision makers. To make it useful a user interface was developed which is presented in paragraph 4.7.3. With the help of this user interface the EcoDSS can be used to analyse different situations, of which some examples are presented in paragraph 4.7.4.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 62

4.7.1 Project area In Figure 12 the modeled part of the river basins of the Rivers De Dommel and De River Mark are presented. Both are rivers which catchment areas are located partly in The Netherlands, partly in Flanders. The Flemish parts of the catchment areas drain to the north.

Figure 12: Catchments areas of the Rivers De Mark and De Dommel

River Dommel The source of the River De Dommel is south of the Flemish city of Peer, in the swamps and ponds of the Donderslagse Heide (Heathland of Donderslag). In this area groundwater surges to the surface which is drained by small creeks and ditches to the lower Maastrichtse Heide (Heathland of Maastricht). Here the watercourse can be defined as a stream. In the sandy

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 63

Regions Kempen and Meierij the River De Dommel flows for a part through old meanders and in ‘s Hertogenbosch the river meets the River Aa. Together the rivers form the River Dieze that discharges in the River Maas. The River De Dommel is a lowland river and is dependent on rain and groundwater. Characteristic for the high sandy areas of this river basin is the relative large area where the groundwater level is low. There are large areas where the groundwater level doesn’t rise above two meter under the surface. In the basin of the River De Dommel cities like ‘s Hertogenbosch, Tilburg, Boxtel, Eindhoven and Overpelt are situated. A large area of grasslands and corn characterizes the agriculture. Spread over the basin also potatoes are grown. The nature areas are concentrated along the stream valleys but there are also some large nature areas on the sandy areas. There are a number of authentic socio-historic elements situated within the river basin, like windmills and castles, but also fishponds, flow fields and stream valleys. The meandering parts of the De Dommel are considered very valuable. As a result of recent policy concerning water resources management the Water Board is realizing water storage plans. Some of the locations in the plans have already been realized, like ‘t Bossche Broek near ‘s Hertogenbosch. The Province of Brabant is studying on areas suitable for retention of water.

River Mark The River De Mark has its source in innumerable wells and ditches in the seepage area east of the city of Merksplas and north of the city of Turnhout. This area is situated in the Noorderkempen in the Province of Antwerp. After passing the city of Breda the river De Mark joins the Mark -Vlietcanal. Together they form the River Dintel, which discharges in the Lake Volkerak -Zoommeer. The relief of the catchment area is very flat because of which the De Mark originally had a meandering course. It still has this form in the upper reaches of the river and along the border between the Netherlands and Flanders. The groundwater levels are in general somewhat higher than in the basin of the River De Dommel although there are some parts where the groundwater level never exceeds two meters under the surface. In the basin of the River De Mark the cities of Etten-Leur, Breda and Hoogstraten are located. Agriculture is characterized by a large percentage of grasslands and corn. There is also a lot of field cropping. In the Dutch part nature is concentrated in some large nature areas south of Breda. In Belgium the nature areas are fragmented.

4.7.2 EcoDSS as Decision Support System The objective of the EcoDSS concerning the application was in paragraph 4.1.2 defined to be to determine where subsurface retention and storage of water are effective measures while causing minimum damage to nature and agriculture. It was also defined to be a tool for communicating with participants. In paragraph 4.6.1 was observed that no spatial data was available concerning the effects of the measures. Therefore it was decided that it is the user who will input this information. This characteristic of the EcoDSS enables the analysis of different alternatives, and with that suffices the definition of DSS as cited in the introduction of section 0. The EcoDSS can support decision makers in analysing the suitability of potential areas for subsurface retention and storage of water from the perspective of nature and agriculture. The model can help find areas that are possible areas for implementation of the measures, but can also be a check if planned measures don’t have a negative impact on the existing nature and agriculture. In the workshops (discussed in paragraph 4.8.2) it was mentioned that the EcoDSS can be used to determine in advance where possible claims from farmers concerning damage to their lands can arise. The EcoDSS was designed for application in

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 64

transboundary river basins, which extents the use of the EcoDSS to transboundary river basin committees. The visual presentation of the results can be of help for decision makers to show why decisions are being made. The EcoDSS combines the different perspectives on water systems, with an emphasis on ecology, which enables discussion about measures and effects. Therefore the EcoDSS can be used to discuss measures with participants. It must be noticed that because of the complex interaction between the water system and nature and agriculture, and because of the analysis on a regional level, specific knowledge of the model is required to be able to analyse the results of the EcoDSS. Experts who control the model can deliver this specific knowledge. They help generate alternatives and interpretate the results. Because the EcoDSS is an extension in ArcMap, results can be stored and, with basic ArcMap functionality, be compared. This functionality also enables other operations on the results, like the development of evaluation criteria. The EcoDSS itself is not capable of calculating the effects of measures on a local level (see paragraph 4.2.2). It is the effects of these local measures that are assessed in the EcoDSS. Therefore it is necessary when using the model to keep in mind that the input variables need to be feasible: they must be based on computer models or on expert knowledge.

4.7.3 Instrument The instrument that has been developed to present the results of the EcoDSS is shown in Figure 13. This instrument is developed in ArcMap and therefore has all the functionality ArcMap offers. There are five main components of the instrument. The main screen (1) shows

5 2

3

1 4

Figure 13: A screenshot of the instrument, as an extension within ArcMap

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 65

the selected result maps and, if selected, extra reference maps. Which maps are being shown is dependent on the combination of parameters input by the user. In the case of water storage screen (2) is shown. The variables the user can change are: type of result map, inundation season, frequency, duration and depth and policy maps. In the case of subsurface retention screen (3) is shown. Here the user can adjust the groundwater level change and choose the policy maps. Both input screens have also the options to choose whether results for nature and / or agriculture are shown, and what extra reference maps will be loaded. The legend (4) shows the meaning of the colors and the symbols in the main screen. Finally, to analyse the results, the user can use some standard map browsing functions like zooming and panning.

4.7.4 Example of application The instrument that has been developed to use the EcoDSS as a DSS has many options. As an example some of these options are presented. In this paragraph an example of the analysis of potential water retention areas is presented, followed by an analysis of potential areas for subsurface retention. Because the integrated model Water Storage and Nature analyses the complex relation between water storage and nature, this relation will be highlighted.

Water storage In Table 13 the results are presented of an analysis of a stream valley south of the city of Eindhoven. In the analysis the suitability of the valley for water storage is determined for different inundation scenarios. The variable in this example is the inundation frequency. In the left column of Table 13 the nature as defined in the Nature Target Types Map is analysed and in the right column the agriculture as indicated in the Land Use Map. It can be seen that for some areas both nature and agriculture are visualized. This is the result of the fact that not all nature as indicated in the Nature Target Types Map does already exist: some of these areas still have an agricultural function. Hydro dynamical models have determined that the areas that are gray are outside the potential inundation areas. The white areas incorporate a land use other then the one under view. The example shows clearly that the suitability for a large part of the area under view decreases with increasing frequency. This is mainly the case for nature, for agriculture all areas are unsuitable for frequent inundations (B5). There are also some natural areas that are well suited for frequent inundations. As can be expected, these areas are located along the streams.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 66

Water retention and nature Water retention and agriculture

A1) The Nature Target Types in the example area1 B1) The agriculture types in the example area

A2) The inundation frequency is one time per 10 to 50 B2) The inundation frequency is one time per 10 to 50 years years

A3) The inundation frequency is one time per 3 to 10 years B3) The inundation frequency is one time per 3 to 10 years

A4) The inundation frequency is one time per 1 to 3 years B4) The inundation frequency is one time per 1 to 3 years

A5) The inundation frequency is higher then 1 time per B5) The inundation frequency is higher then 1 time per year year Table 13: Analysing the suitability of areas for water storage for different inundation frequencies

1 Not all Nature Target Types visualized in the map are represented in the legend

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 67

Subsurface retention The variable in the measure subsurface retention is the change of groundwater level. In Table 14 the results are presented for an area in which there are some natural and agricultural areas. Figure Table 14-A1, respectively Table 14-B1 show the basic maps for the area. Also in this example there are some areas which are both indicated to have a natural, respectively agricultural function. When because of the measure the groundwater level rise is 20 cm, the EcoDSS shows a positive result. All agricultural areas are indicated to be very suitable for the measure (Table 14-B2), which implies that the groundwater situation does not deteriorate much, or even improves. The most natural areas are determined to be suitable because the situation does not change (Table 14-A2). When the groundwater level rises even more, the situation improves, as can be seen by the label very suitable (Table 14-A3 and A4). This means that the new groundwater levels are better suited to the nature than the present situation. The area for which the rise is unsuitable also increases. With rising groundwater levels the agricultural areas labeled unsuitable increase (Table 14-B3 and B4). This is result of the fine- tuning of the water system to the agricultural function. A raise in groundwater level therefore probably has a negative effect on the yield of the agricultural areas. This example shows well that there is a drought problem in the Province of Noord-Brabant. The rising groundwater levels mostly have a positive effect on nature, and partly also on agriculture. The EcoDSS shows well where optimization of agriculture and nature go well together with the subsurface retention of water.

Subsurface retention and nature Subsurface retention and agriculture

A1) The Nature Target Types in the example area2 B1) The agriculture types in the example area

A2) The groundwater level rise is 20 cm B2) The groundwater level rise is 20 cm

2 Not all Nature Purpose Types visualized in the map are represented in the legend

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 68

A3) The groundwater level rise is 40 cm B3) The groundwater level rise is 40 cm

A4) The groundwater level rise is 60 cm B4) The groundwater level rise is 60 cm Table 14: Analysing the suitability of areas for subsurface retention

Perspectives of water storage and nature As mentioned in paragraph 4.5.1 the integrated model Water Storage and Nature analyses the relation between water storage and nature from five different perspectives. It is the most negative result that determines the final result. In Table 15 an example is presented of the analysis of a potential water storage area in the center of the Province of Brabant. In Table 15-A the nature under view is presented. Figure Table 15-B is the related final result map for an inundation with certain characteristics. As can been seen the whole southern part of the area is indicated to be very unsuitable for water storage. This must mean that at least one of the perspectives gives a negative result for this area. As can be seen in Figure Table 15-C and Table 15-D, it is not the tolerance of the flora and the fauna that cause the negative result. Table 15-E on the other hand shows why the area is indicated to be very unsuitable: the nature present in this part of the area does not tolerate the amount of nutrients in the water or the sediment. Because the problem is also not caused by the acidity or the salinity of the inundating water (Figure Table 15-F and Table 15-G), the nutrient tolerance of the Nature Target Type is indicated to be the problem. With the help of this information the decision maker can study the possibility to change the nutrient load of the inundating water. This enables the development of the area under view as a water storage area.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 69

A) The Nature Target Types in the example area3 B) The final result of the analysis

C) Suitability concerning inundation tolerance fauna D) Suitability concerning inundation tolerance flora

E) Suitability concerning the tolerance for nutrients F) Suitability concerning acidity

G) Suitability concerning salinity Table 15: Water Storage and Nature from five perspectives

3 Not all Nature Target Types visualized in the map are represented in the legend

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 70

4.7.5 Conclusions The EcoDSS is applied to a region in which measures need to be taken for the subsurface retention and storage of water. The nature that is present and will be developed shows features that are characteristic for nature of river valleys and sandy grounds. On the other hand it is clear that the water systems are adapted to optimize the agricultural function of the areas. The EcoDSS can help the water manager find locations were the measures don’t affect the nature and agriculture, or even improve those functions. Also when these locations already have been appointed, the EcoDSS can form a test of the suitability of these locations from the perspective of nature and agriculture. The examples showed that many scenarios can be examined, and for the relation between water storage and nature a more in-depth examination can be carried out.

4.8 Validation of the results

Although the models that are integrated in the EcoDSS have been validated in their respective studies, adaptations were made to have them generate concordant results (see previous sections). It is good modelling practice to validate a model with data on which the model isn’t based. There were two opportunities to validate the EcoDSS. The first is a study that was carried out to find out whether it is possible to store water during high river discharges in the natural areas in the Province of Brabant (Van der Molen, 2002). The second opportunity were two workshops with water managers from the water boards The Dommel and Brabantse Delta.

4.8.1 Literature The validation using the study in water storage in the valley of the River De Dommel, performed by Van der Molen (2002), aims only at the relation between water storage and nature. Nevertheless the results are useful to determine the validity of that part of the EcoDSS. This is also one of the more complicated relationships because of the many factors determining the suitability of nature for water storage (see paragraph 4.5.1). Some of the experts that contributed to the STOWA method Water Storage and Nature also contributed to the study of Van der Molen (2002). Despite this the method applied is different. Van der Molen studied characteristics of the existing nature in the valley of the River De Dommel. He used the results available from earlier studies on the effects of water storage to determine to what extent Nature Target Types could be combined with storage of water. The results are much less elaborate then the results of the EcoDSS, and more concentrated on feasible inundation scenarios. When the parameters of such a scenario are used as input in the EcoDSS, the correctness of the results of the EcoDSS are confirmed. A figure (location G in Figure 15) from this study is show in the right part of figure Figure 14. The results generated by the EcoDSS are placed next to this picture. The results are almost the same.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 71

Result of EcoDSS Result of test by Van der Molen (2002)

Figure 14: Validation of the model results of the EcoDSS. Comparison of the output of the EcoDSS (left image) to the results of a study by Van der Molen (2002) on the potential of nature areas to function as water storage areas (right image).

4.8.2 Workshops Two workshops were held in which the validity and usability of the EcoDDS were examined. Because of the recent development of Water Storage Plans the focus mainly was on the relation between water storage and nature, which is also the most complex part of the model. The first workshop, which was held on July 18, 2005, water managers of Water Board Brabantse Delta were present. Two areas were examined. First the valley of a tributary of the River Mark , The Merkske, was under view (Location A in Figure 15). The redevelopment of this transnational valley is object of national interest because of a transnational study in the relation between ground- and surface water. The water managers supported the results of the EcoDSS presented. They match the experiences of the participants of the workshops to a large degree. Where the results didn’t match the expert judgment this was mainly caused by the fact that the Nature Target Types, on which the analysis was based, are not always a good representation of the existing situation. In the workshop also some polders in the northern part of the river basin (Location B in Figure 15 and Figure 16) were examined on the relation between groundwater and agriculture. Although the model cannot generate results for all combinations of input groundwater levels and changes in that groundwater levels, the results that were presented gave a good indication of the relation between subsurface retention and agriculture. Because those areas are low-lying, the groundwater levels are already relatively high and therefore most areas were indicated as unsuitable for subsurface retention. To examine the results of the suitability of subsurface retention on nature, an area south of the city of Breda was taken into view (Location C in Figure 15 and Figure 16). These are relatively high sandy soils and drought is a problem here. This is also showed by the EcoDSS, because subsurface retention in these areas mainly shows positive results. The water managers agreed with these results.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 72

The second workshop took place on July 19, 2005, in which water managers from the Water Board The Dommel were present. Together with them the area south of the city of Eindhoven was examined. Here the valley of a tributary of the River De Dommel¸The Tongelreep

B

G C

A E F D

Figure 15: Location of the examined areas

(Location D in Figure 15 and Figure 16), can be found. This area is under development to give the river back its original course. Therefore the relation between water storage and nature was focus of interest. The results generated by the EcoDSS were quite comparable with the experiences of the water managers. At Location E in Figure 15 and Figure 16 a storage area in development was examined. The results surprised the water managers at first because they showed an unsuitable combination. Further investigation turned out that the Nature Target Types didn’t tolerate the quality of the inundating water. Therefore this aspect will be object of further research. Finally a natural area southwest of the City of Den Bosch was examined, for the relation between subsurface retention and nature (location F in Figure 14 and Figure 16. The water managers could accept the results of the EcoDSS.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 73

A) Het Merkske B) Bovenmark south of Breda

C) Polders in the norther part of the river basin of the River D) The Tongelreep De Mark

E) De Leij F) Groote Heide

G) De Dommel north of Eindhoven Figure 16: Reviewed areas during the workshops

4.8.3 Conclusions The study by Van der Molen (2002) and the outcomes of the workshops showed that the results generated by the EcoDSS give a good indication of the suitability of nature and agriculture for storage and subsurface retention of water. Because of the current interest in the storage of water in natural areas, the focus of the workshops was mainly on the results of the EcoDSS for the relation between water storage and nature. Also the other parts of the EcoDSS were evaluated well. On basis of these results, together with the fact that the integrated models in the EcoDSS are based on widely accepted studies, can be concluded that the results of the EcoDSS are trustworthy. Thereby must be taken into account that careful interpretation of the results is required.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 74

4.9 Conclusions

The goal of this chapter was to develop an integrated GIS -model according to the objectives of the Transboundary Studies. Therefore a study was conducted on available spatial data and models used for determining the relation between water systems and ecology. The study showed that there is a lot of spatial data available on national level and regional level, but that on a regional level the themes and designs of the data are variable. Because the model has to analyse whole river basins, the model has to function on a regional scale. On the one hand this matches well with the spatial data available at the water boards and the province, on the other hand the degree of abstraction makes it difficult to take unique areal features into account, like seepage, small terrain elevations and individual ecological entities. The spatial data available at a national and regional level often do not incorporate these areal features. The models that are suitable for relating water systems and ecology are different in design and function. The extent of integration of these models in GIS ranges from external tot fully integrated. It turned out that models developed by the STOWA met the objectives best. They could be fully integrated, which improved the flexibility of application. The result is an instrument in which the impact of measures for subsurface retention and storage of water on nature and agriculture can be analysed in a clear way at a regional level. The results of workshops with water managers and a study on water storage in natural areas in the province of Brabant proved the reliability of the EcoDSS. The developed instrument ensures that the results can be visualized user-friendly. As a result of the scale level the results must be considered as an indication. They form however sound material for a good first exploration of areas of interest, which later can be studied in more detail. The uncertainties that are inherent to modelling reality have different natures. Because input data as well as output data is classified using ranges the uncertainty that a value in reality is located within such a range is low. These aspects of the EcoDSS restrict to the use by experts who can interpret the results. The workshops showed that even for experts the goals and function of the EcoDSS isn’t directly clear. Summarising the EcoDSS can be described by the following characteristics:

· Assessment of suitability of natural and agricultural areas for water storage and retention · Deterministic, rule-based · Static · Based on available spatial data · Background knowledge required · Based on accepted methods · Detailed analysis of nature and agriculture · Suitability for subsurface retention based on change of situation · Small uncertainty · Applicable in Netherlands and similar areas · Transnational analysis · Regional scale · Graphical User Interface · User input for measures: five variables to inundation, one to subsurface retention · Simple output

With the development of the EcoDSS the suitability of GIS to fully integrate time-independent models has been affirmed. It resulted in a rule-based, deterministic static model which is

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 75

capable of analysing the relation between measures in the water system and nature / agriculture. This enables water managers to consider the ecological aspects of water management in river basin planning. It can be concluded that the EcoDSS fulfils it requirements. Whether the EcoDSS is really suitable as a Decision Support System will be examined in the next chapter.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 76

5 Test of the model suitability

In the previous chapters the theory about GIS -models in interactive planning processes was studied and a GIS-model analyzing the relation between the water system and the policy fields agriculture and nature was developed. As pointed out in paragraph 4.7.2 the EcoDSS was transformed from a model into a DSS. In the research was examined how this DSS can contribute to interactive planning processes. To place the research into perspective, first the results of a small survey on the practical use of models by water managers was held. This study was conducted to get some insight in the role of models in planning processes in water resources management (paragraph 5.1.1). The next step in the assessment of the EcoDSS was to gather opinions of the people who the model was intended for: the water managers. Their opinion on the EcoDSS contributes to the assessment of the suitability of the EcoDSS (paragraph 5.1.2) for application in interactive planning processes. The results of this assessment are presented in section 5.2. The criteria developed by Ubbels and Verhallen (2000) (see paragraph 3.3.4) were used to test the EcoDSS and help determine in what phases of the interactive planning process the EcoDSS can be of use. The test is also useful to point out what groups of participants are able to use the EcoDSS. This is presented in section 5.3. Based on the opinions of the water managers it could be determined what improvements are needed to make the EcoDSS better suitable for support per phase of the planning process. At this point enough information is collected to be able to answer the last research question: What conclusions can be drawn from developing and applying the EcoDSS concerning the suitability to support an interactive planning process in water resources management? The answer to this question can be found in the last section.

5.1 Test of the EcoDSS by water managers

Since the first computers appeared, computer models have been used to support decision making in strategic and operational water resources management. These computer models enabled the quick and detailed calculation of the models that were in use before the computer era. The large processing power makes the computer models useful tools to analyse complex processes in water systems. To place the assessment of the suitability of the EcoDSS by the water managers into perspective, a small survey has been conducted. This evaluation of the suitability, which is the result of workshops held with water managers, forms the largest contribution to the assessment of the suitability of the EcoDSS. In this section first the results of the survey are presented (paragraph 5.1.1). In the next paragraph the opinions of the water managers about the EcoDSS are reflected. This leads to a good insight in the requirements of the involved water managers concerning the use of models in water resources management.

5.1.1 Criteria by water managers In the survey the involved water managers were inquired about the models that are in use at the moment. When new models are being developed they should meet the demands of the water managers. Especially interesting is their view on the use of GIS -models. These topics are treated in this paragraph.

Models in planning processes At present water managers mainly use hydrological models. There are different models which are suitable for use on a regional or local scale. Models like SimGRO, SOBEK RR and DUFLOW are being used to model the water flows at a regional scale and determine where

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 77

problems will arise. On a local scale SOBEK CF and SOBEK RR are being used to determine the local effects of possible measures. The water managers that were interviewed did not use models for assessing the relation of water systems with other policy fields. These models are thought to be redundant because the present knowledge on other policy fields is considered sufficient. On the basis of expert judgment, external consultancy and incidental consultation of other parties, scenarios are developed which are presented to the stakeholders. During the development of water storage plans (see paragraph 3.1.6) the consultations of other parties only takes place during the phase Discussion of results. The process is looped back to the Search for solutions phase (see also Figure 2 in paragraph 3.1.3) and the results of the consultations are used as an input. The decision is made within a predefined policy framework.

Technical demands of water managers The demands of water managers on models are mainly technical. Next to the standard hydrological function the model should be able to assess the effects of climate change on the water system and the spatial effects of the dynamics of a water system on relevant policy aspects of agriculture and nature. It should allow optimising land use within the policy framework. The water managers also have demands from a users’ point of view. They value the option to change input variables and the model to present changes clearly. If a model gets outdated it should be updateable. It is valued highly if the model is easy to use (e.g. no large manuals to read), transparent and the output communicative.

Usability of GIS in planning processes Because of the subject of this research the opinion of the water managers on GIS was inquired. The water managers see possibilities in GIS but also drawbacks. They think it is positive of GIS that it is very communicative. Therefore it is suitable for involving others than the water managers. According to some water managers GIS is especially suitable during the Problem Analysis phase because of the clear overview and the possibility to make a spatial link between different policy fields. The water managers consider one of the drawbacks of GIS that it is not very suitable for directly generating solutions for conflicts, which was mentioned as one of the demands of a water manager. On a project level GIS is considered not to be applicable because of the limited accuracy of spatial data available. On a regional level GIS is considered to be able to meet the criteria of the water managers other than the hydrodynamic analysis.

5.1.2 Opinions on the EcoDSS The EcoDSS has been presented to water managers during three workshops (for reports on the workshops, see Appendix 7). Both ecologists and hydrologists attended the meeting. This meeting served as a validation of the results (see paragraph 4.7.5) on the one hand, while the workshops contributed to the definition of the suitability of the EcoDSS on the other hand.

Usefulness One of the first statements by the water managers made was that the EcoDSS fills a gap in the existing set of instruments available for a carefully studied water management, especially concerning the effects of storage of water. The EcoDSS enables the analysis of the suitability of measures in the water system and agriculture / nature so decisions can be based on solid grounds. Concerning the assessment of the optimum groundwater levels for nature and agriculture, the EcoDSS cannot replace the Waternood-tool since it is better adjusted for its task (see also paragraph 4.4.1). The in the EcoDSS integrated models that relate

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 78

groundwater levels to suitability for agriculture and nature originate from this model. In the EcoDSS these models have been used to analyse the suitability of measures in the water system concerning agriculture and nature, while originally they were only meant to optimize land use to groundwater regime.

Reliability The water managers valued highly that the integrated models are developed by the STOWA and therefore the results are thought to be very reliable. They match the experiences of the water managers and the results of some other studies very well (see paragraph 4.7.5). Because the models are integrated their results can be traced back, which contributes to the transparency of the model. It is considered a small drawback that not all Nature Target Types could be translated.

User-friendliness The water managers think the EcoDSS is very user-friendly. It is appreciated that it is easy to redefine input variables, and that the effects of these changes are presented very clearly. The results are easy to interpret and the option to recover the origin of a problem (in case of water storage) is valued highly (see paragraph 4.7.4). On the level in which the Water Storage Plans (see paragraph 3.1.6) are being developed the spatial results, characteristic for GIS, contributes much to the usability. It is mentioned that the EcoDSS has a potential as a communication tool, but because of the need for expert interpretation this must be handled with care. It was observed that the chosen models are restricted in the level of detail (as mentioned in paragraph 4.2.2).

Potential application The water managers see a number of possible applications of the EcoDSS. It could have been useful in the problem analysis phase of the process in which the water storage plans (see also paragraph 3.1.6) are being developed, were it not that this phase is already finished. At this moment the EcoDSS could be used as a check on the plans. When the plans are developed by water managers and are presented to decision makers, the EcoDSS can be used to gain administrative support. The results can be used for communication purposes and to inventory possible claims as the result of damage to agricultural areas. The EcoDSS is thought to be suitable to contribute to the development of the Acceptable Ground and Surface Water Regime and the definition of the ordnance concerning water levels.

Background knowledge During the first workshop it turned out that even for involved water managers it was not clear what the capabilities of the EcoDSS are. Although there are not many input variables and the results are visually presented, it was not clear what the function of the EcoDSS was and how the results should be interpreted. This observation made clear that sufficient background information is necessary for a good use of the model and that the introducing presentation needed to be extended. In the next workshop with other water managers, the problems mentioned were less, although the function of the EcoDSS still became not clear. Therefore the introducing presentation again was adapted to better correspond to the apprehension of the workshop attendants. Also the user interface was adapted to avoid a confrontation with too many options. In the last workshop held therefore the principles of the integrated models were not explained, but only the objective of the EcoDSS, the input and the output. This approach raised less questions and more attention could be spend on the functionality of the model, which added much to the understanding of the model. The results were accepted because the developer of the integrated models is valued highly.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 79

These workshops learned that things that seem simple for model builders are incomprehensible for users. The presentation of the model, its goals and functions have to be explained very clearly and as simple as possible. Also attention should be spend on the presentation of the user interface. These aspects should be taken into account when determining the suitability of models. The input of the water managers ended with their question when the EcoDSS would be made available.

5.1.3 Conclusions The EcoDSS is considered to be a valuable tool to assess the suitability of measures in the water system concerning nature and agriculture. It expands the basic functionality of GIS to combine information relevant to different policy fields, presented as maps. This advanced analysis of the relation between policy fields makes the EcoDSS a very valuable addition to the use of hydrological models. Using the EcoDSS, a well-founded analysis can be made concerning the effects of measures on nature and agriculture. The EcoDSS on the other hand is not suitable for generating solutions, but could be used as a judgement tool in discussing options for solutions. Many possible applications of the EcoDSS were identified. According to the workshop participants the EcoDSS could be used in all phases of the planning process. It has been stressed that the interpretation of the results generated by the EcoDSS requires background knowledge on the restrictions of the integrated models and used spatial data. The requirement of background knowledge necessitates the support of a moderator to control the input and output of the EcoDSS when non-experts are involved. The communicative potential of the EcoDSS is apparent, but attention must be paid to the requirement of background knowledge. The flexibility is valued highly. The survey showed that the water managers don’t really see the necessity of DSS and interactivity in planning processes.

5.2 Test of the EcoDSS to suitability criteria

In the previous chapter a large amount of information on the EcoDSS has been gathered. With the development of this model experience has been gained on GIS-models and during the workshops insight was obtained about the potential of the EcoDSS. With this knowledge can be assessed how suitable the EcoDSS is as a DSS. The workshops held with water managers contribute much to this assessment. When evaluating the results the framework in which the EcoDSS was developed needs to be taken into account. Within a short time frame a model had to be build that was applicable to different countries. It was not designed to be used by many user groups. In this section it will be studied how suitable the EcoDSS is according to scientific criteria. Ubbels and Verhallen (2000) collected criteria to estimate the suitability of DSS in different phases of an interactive planning process in water resources management (see paragraph 3.3.4). With the results of the evaluation can be determined in what phases and for which participants a tool can be used. In the following paragraphs the results of testing the EcoDSS to the criteria of Ubbels and Verhallen (2000) are presented (see also Appendix 7). The results are visualized in Figure 17.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 80

5.2.1 User friendliness A tool can be considered user-friendly when it is easy to use by all kinds of users. This is especially important when groups of participants with different features are involved. A user- friendly tool is also easy to learn and remember, and should provide the information needed in a meaningful form and in a short notice (Loucks 1995, from Ubbels and Verhallen, 2000). The EcoDSS scores average on this criterion. The screen is well organized and the tool is easy to walk through. The workshops showed that the clear and spatial presentation of results were values highly. Next to a distinct use of colours, other maps can be opened for reference which makes the interpretation easier. Finally no insight in modelling need is necessary to be able to use the tool. Two drawbacks were detected during the workshops, namely the necessity of background knowledge and the lacking of a manual or built-in help. As has been mentioned earlier (see section 4.9) the results should be interpreted carefully. This requires background knowledge or the presence of an expert. A manual or built-in help could help counteract this problem. Also some professional language is used which could discourage non-experts.

5.2.2 Collaboration Characteristic for this aspect is that communication must be extremely well supported. To score well on this criterion a DSS should be able to store knowledge generated by the process and make it easy accessible. To involve participants the DSS should be able to represent their perspectives and make them explicit. It is helpful if the DSS can support achieving final consensus (Ostrowksi, 1997, from Ubbels and Verhallen, 2000). The EcoDSS scores average on this criterion. A good aspect of the EcoDSS is that, when correctly applied, it encourages communication by provoking discussion, expression of opinion and knowledge-sharing. Another characteristic of the EcoDSS that is valued well is the incorporation of divergent views. Since the EcoDSS has especially been designed to integrate the relevant aspects of the water system, nature and agriculture, this incorporation is clearly present. Participants representing these policy fields have the same grounds for discussion. The EcoDSS has not specifically been designed to support the activities storing of knowledge, identification of evaluation criteria and supporting consensus building. There are possibilities to have the EcoDSS support these activities, as mentioned in paragraph 4.7.2. Finally the EcoDSS scores medium on the criterion collective problem definition. By visualizing the existing and future situation the EcoDSS is able to show clearly what problems exist in a situation. There is no explicit function to help define this problem.

5.2.3 Transparency A DSS is considered to be transparent when it is visible under what assumptions and constraints the tool operates. Also visualization of uncertainties contributes to the transparency (Ubbels and Verhallen, 2000). Because the EcoDSS has not been designed to be transparent, both criteria are rated low. Assumptions and constraints can be found in the report written about the EcoDSS, and uncertainties are shown for the effects of water storage on nature. This option is valued well. A help function could take away the indistinctness concerning assumptions, constraints and uncertainties.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 81

5.2.4 Flexibility If a DSS can be applied to various different policy questions, and when changes in boundary and other conditions can easily be incorporated, it is considered to be flexible. This is to a large extent the case with the EcoDSS. Especially the architecture, GIS, enables a whole range of modifications, provided that the required models and data are available. In the EcoDSS policy questions can only be defined within the range of the relation between water system, nature and agriculture. Policy questions concerning other perspectives can only be taken into account when models suitable for analysing those perspectives are integrated.

5.2.5 Assessment What role a DSS can play in an interactive planning process is dependent on the objective of the DSS and the way it operates. These characteristics help to clarify the potential of the tool by revealing what the tool assesses and how. The EcoDSS scores well on most of the criteria of the characteristic Assessment. It is especially designed for analysing the effects of the measures taken, which is an important criterion. It uses simple linear relations originating from well-known models that make the results reproducible. The EcoDSS was not developed to generate and compare alternatives. Not all relevant aspects of the problem are assessed in an integrated way: the attention is on the relation between water system, nature and agriculture. Using the GIS -functionality maps on other subjects can be opened for analysis. Goals and objectives can be defined with the help of a moderator as with the generation of possible solutions and alternatives. The EcoDSS also doesn’t support comparison of alternatives. As mentioned in paragraph 4.7.2 ArcMap can be used for a comparison of result maps.

5.2.6 Conclusion In Figure 17 the results of the test are visualized, using an ordinal scale (low-medium-high). The results are presented next to the potential of GIS-models as concluded in chapter 3. For a development period of two months, the EcoDSS scores good. Where the model does not meet the criteria this is often because the EcoDSS was not designed to meet these criteria. The main characteristics in which the EcoDSS scores well are its Flexibility and to some extent Assessment. For a high rating of this last characteristic the EcoDSS lacks some specific characteristics. With a correct control by a moderator this can be handled well. The EcoDSS has met to a high degree the potential of GIS-models. Only a manual or a built-in help could have improved its user-friendliness. The EcoDSS is not transparent according to the criteria, but transparent according to water managers. According to the potential rating of GIS-models, it is difficult to make a GIS-model more transparent because of its underlying schematisations. The EcoDSS was not designed to support organisation of collaboration. Also concerning this aspect a good control can reduce the effects of these drawbacks. The tool is on the other hand very flexible. This had mostly to do with the GIS-based structure. It is user-friendly, but background knowledge is necessary when using the tool and there is no manual. Apart from the characteristic Flexibility, the EcoDSS shows diverse results for each characteristic. Therefore it can’t be said it has or lacks a specific character. How this will affect the suitability of the EcoDSS for use in the different phases of an interactive planning process will be discussed in the next section.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 82

User friendliness Collaboration Trans. Flex. Assessment High Medium Low guidance consensus uncertainty visualisation communication expert systems divergent views possible solutions integrated analysis flexible architecture goals and objectives well-organised screen professional language manual or built-in help comparing alternatives background knowledge range of policy questions detailed complex models insight into modelling need collective problem definition effects estimates by models identifying evaluation criteria storing generated knowlegde initial ranking of possible solutions model assumptions and constraints solutions translated into alternatives simple linear relations and reprofunctions

Figure 17:Visual representation of the rating of the EcoDSS to the criteria for suitability. Grouped per characteristic presented how the EcoDSS was rated per criterion (light-blue). In dark blue the theoretical potential of GIS -models as defined in chapter 3 is presented.

5.3 Suitability of the EcoDSS

In the previous section the EcoDSS has been tested on the basis of different criteria which help to define the characteristics of the EcoDSS. These results can be used to determine how suitable the EcoDSS is for use in the different phases of an interactive planning process in water resources management (see section 3.1). The criteria relate to certain activities, which take place during the course of one or more phases. They can also relate to certain features of the different groups of participants. In the next paragraphs is discussed how suitable the EcoDSS is in the different phases and for the groups of participants.

5.3.1 Suitability to different phases To determine in what phases of a planning process the EcoDSS can be applied, in Figure 18 the valuated criteria are put next to activities that occur during these phases. If a criterion was rated high the symbols relating that activity to a certain phase are large. If a criterion was rated low the symbol is small. The size of the symbols per phase give an indication of the suitability of the EcoDSS for that activity. In the table it can be seen that the EcoDSS isn’t completely fit so serve in one specific phase of the process. The phases for which the tool is best fit are the Analysis / Modelling and the Discussion of Results phase. The EcoDSS can also be of help during the Search for Solutions and the Problem Analysis. Important in these phases is that the EcoDSS stimulates discussion by showing results for different scenarios. In these scenarios the perspectives from the water system, as well as agriculture and nature are taken into account. The results

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 83

show clearly when consensus should exist about certain measures. This helps generate the seeking of solutions. The effects of the measures are estimated and visualized clearly, which are the main characteristics of the EcoDSS and are therefore rated high. The EcoDSS on the other hand has not been designed to support activities by storing generated knowledge, which is one of the general activities in an interactive planning process. This problem can be met because the tool is based on a GIS-program (see also paragraph 4.2.1). This program is well-suited to store knowledge generated with the tool. The EcoDSS is less valuable in the early stages of the planning process because it was not designed to support collective problem definition, identifying goals and consensus building. It can support a non-spatial DSS carries out the main activities. This is confirmed by the water managers who think the EcoDSS can be of support during the first phases of a (traditional) planning process. The EcoDSS isn’t completely fit to translate solutions into alternatives, but also here the functionality of the GIS -program controlled by a moderator comes in help. Complementary hydro dynamical models or expert judgement can help examine the hydrological aspect of measures on local scale. The effects can be input in the EcoDSS. Taking into account these small supplements, the EcoDSS can support the process during the Analysis and Modelling phase well. Because it has a potential to support phases of a decision making process, the EcoDSS can be qualified as a DSS.

Problem Search for Analysis/ Discussion Policy Activities analysis solutions modelling of results choice communication storing generated knowledge collective problem definition

incorporating divergent views identifying objectives/goals consensus building identifying evaluation criteria seeking possible solutions initial ranking of possible solutions translation of solutions into alternatives estimating effects of alternatives visualisation of effects comparing alternatives choosing an alternative

Figure 18: Suitability of the EcoDSS for different phases (see paragraph 3.1.2 for an overview of the process). In the figure is showed what activities occur in each phase. The size of the symbol shows how the EcoDSS was rated concerning that criterion.

In the phases after the analysis and modelling, results have to be discussed and a policy choice should be made. The EcoDSS is only partly suited for these phases because alternatives can only be compared by a moderator and there is no possibility to identify evaluation criteria. This makes it hard for non-experts to choose an alternative without the

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 84

help of additional tools. If the EcoDSS could actively support comparing of alternatives, which are features that can be integrated in a GIS-model, the EcoDSS would also be valuable during the last phases of the process. Therefore to make the EcoDSS suitable for support during the whole interactive planning processes, the activities mentioned must be supported.

5.3.2 Suitability to different participants From the information in Figure 17 an indication can be found for the suitability of the tool for different participants (see paragraph 3.1.4) in the planning process. In Figure 19 features of participating parties in planning processes are shown, as estimated by Ubbels & Verhallen (2000). The larger the symbol, relating a group of participants to a certain feature, the better those participants can manage that feature. It is a very generalized view on the knowledge of participants, but it gives a good indication. There are also some symbols containing smaller symbols. In those cases there is a clear variety within the group of participants concerning the knowledge about the feature.

Required Familiarity of participants Features Activities level formal government experts on NGO's public decision officials the subject makers background knowledge Prior knowledge of professional jargon the subject

quality of visualization

Familiarity with the knowledge on modelling assessment of effects of alternatives explication of model constraints and boundaries

collective problem definition Insight into decision- identification of goals and making context objectives collective identification of evaluation criteria

organization of the screen General familiarity guidance through the tool with computers

availability of a manual

Figure 19: Required level concerning relevant features of the EcoDSS and features of participants (Ubbels & Verhallen, 2000). By comparing these features and the required level, it can be determined whether groups of participants are able to use the EcoDSS.

In the first column in Figure 19 the required level for each feature is shown. This required level concerns the EcoDSS, and its values have been derived from the evaluation of the criteria earlier this section. With the help of these scores the required level to be able to use the EcoDSS concerning each feature can be determined. This level can be compared with the ability of participants to manage that feature to assess what groups of participants are able to use the EcoDSS.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 85

The feature prior knowledge on the subject is specified by the criteria concerning background knowledge, professional jargon and quality of visualization. The EcoDSS scores bad on the first criterion, average on the second one but good on the other criteria. Especially the visual presentation of results contributes much to the usability of the EcoDSS. It is the background knowledge that is required for use of the EcoDSS that is the constraining factor concerning this feature. The professional jargon can be a problem for public. The feature familiarity with the assessment of effects of alternatives can be deduced from the criteria concerning knowledge of modelling and explication of model constraints and boundaries. The first criterion is valued good and the last bad. Because of this feature, and then especially the low rating of the explication of model restraints and boundaries, the EcoDSS would be restricted to use by experts on the subject. For the feature insight into decision making context the value is based on the criteria relating to collective problem definition, identification of goals and objectives and collective identification of evaluation criteria. The required level for use of the EcoDSS is for all medium to high. This while only formal decision makers and government officials have sufficient insight in the decision making context. According to Ubbels & Verhallen (2000) experts on the subject don’t have enough insight in the decision-making context and therefore would not be able to use the EcoDSS. The feature general familiarity with computers can be coupled to the criteria referring to the organization of the screen, guidance through the tool and availability of a manual. There is no built-in help or manual, but the EcoDSS scores well on the other criteria. Therefore it is mainly the lack of a manual that is the restricting factor concerning the general familiarity wit computers. In general, almost all formal decision makers should be able to use the tool. Also experts and government officials should not have much trouble using the EcoDSS, although the model does not support the participants enough to counteract their lack of insight in the decision- making context. In general, NGO representatives will have trouble using the tool, because they often are not familiar enough with the assessment of effects of alternatives and the decision-making context. In general the public will not be able to use the EcoDSS, but this was also not the objective. Therefore to make the EcoDSS suitable for use by other participants than formal decision makers, adaptations need to be made dependent on the group of participants.

5.3.3 Conclusions In this section based on the test in the previous section, the suitability of the EcoDSS for support in the different phases of the interactive planning process, as well as the suitability for use by different participants in that process, was assessed. The test showed that the EcoDSS meets many criteria, but because of its objectives cannot support all activities that occur during an interactive planning process. In every phase there are activities that are not supported. On the other hand it was showed that the model can contribute to many of the activities in combination with a moderator. There is not a definite phase in which the EcoDSS can fulfil a main function. Concerning the suitability of the EcoDSS for use by different participants the results are more clear, although there is not one group that the model is especially suited to. As the test showed, the EcoDSS is best suited for use by experts on the subject. This group of participants in general are sufficient familiar with the subject to be able to use the model well. Also government officials and formal decision makers can use the tool, although some

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 86

support is required. The tool is in a lesser extent suitable for representatives of NGO’s and the general public. A moderator is required if these participants were to be involved in which the EcoDSS is used.

5.4 Identified options for extensions of the EcoDSS

As has been noticed earlier (paragraph 5.2.4), EcoDSS is very flexible because of its GIS- based structure. The present model has mainly basic functionality, which was noticed during the testing of the model (see section 5.2). In this section possibilities for extensions will be discussed. Figure 18 and Figure 19 can help determine how the EcoDSS can be improved to make it better applicable for a particular phase of the planning process. Because the scope of this research is on GIS-models, and not on other tools, those additional tools will not be discussed in detail (for an elaboration on extensions per criteria see Appendix 9).

5.4.1 General The visual presentation of the results generated by the EcoDSS is very good. An activity that the EcoDSS was not designed to support for, is the storing of information that is the result of communication in the process. According to Ubbels & Verhallen (2000) this is one of the main characteristics of a DSS and is present in all phases of a planning process. The functions that could be added are a whiteboard function (for writing down notes of discussions) (Ubbels & Verhallen, 2000) and a save function (to save a combination of input parameters and map extent) (Workshop conclusion, see Appendix 7).

5.4.2 Problem analysis The EcoDSS is able to support the activities that occur during the Problem Analysis, especially because maps representing different perspectives can be showed. To have the tool play a larger role during this phase, improvements can be made to actively support the activities collective problem definition, identifying objectives/goals, consensus building and identifying evaluation criteria. Figure 17 shows to what extent GIS-models can support these activities: mainly non-spatial tools are required, possibly supported by a GIS-model. The addition of theme maps, characteristic for the other policy fields, help identify bottlenecks and consensus-areas (workshop conclusion). A role playing game (possibly related to topics in the GIS-model) can contribute to the identification of objectives (Ubbels & Verhallen, 2000). For the process of consensus building a tool could be added that visualizes goals and accomplishments of the process (Ubbels & Verhallen, 2000). Functions like a damage function, cost function and area calculator can contribute to the identification of evaluation criteria desired, dependent on the demands of the decision maker (Workshop conclusion).

5.4.3 Search for solutions The EcoDSS is capable of supporting participants in finding solutions. The results of the EcoDSS present the participants the suitability of chosen measures for different solutions. Characteristic for this phase of the planning process is that solutions need to be found and ranked, and turned into alternatives. Figure 17 shows that GIS-models offer possibilities for extensions that actively support these activities, for example spatially distributed input variables (Workshop conclusion). The results need to be stored for later analysis.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 87

5.4.4 Analysis / modelling The EcoDSS is best suitable for use during this phase. Its suitability would be increased if it was possible to link pixel-scale changes to concrete spatially defined measures, that can be combined in alternatives of spatial distributed variables and generate numerical results, as mentioned in paragraph 5.4.2 (Workshop conclusion).

5.4.5 Discussion of results In addition to the activities consensus building and identifying evaluation criteria, of which the necessary additions were mentioned in paragraph 5.4.2, effects need to be visualized and alternatives compared. Especially for this last activity the earlier mentioned additions like spatial distributed input variables, storage of alternatives and numerical functions need to be integrated (Workshop conclusion). Figure 17 shows the potential of GIS-models for this activity.

5.4.6 Policy choice The policy choice can best take place when it was possible to generate evaluation criteria in earlier phases and compare the alternatives by weighing criteria and negotiations.

5.4.7 Conclusions The EcoDSS has been designed for a specific purpose and can fulfil the required function well. Because of its GIS-architecture extensions can be added easily. In this section has been examined what functions can be added to the EcoDSS to make it better suitable for application during the different phases of the planning process. It turns out that as well non- spatial moderating functions, as spatial functions can be added. The non-spatial functions are mainly required during the first phases of the planning process when discussions about different interests and perspectives take place. In the later phases the additional tools should be integrated in the GIS-model because they are mainly based on spatial data generated by the GIS -model. Since in paragraph 5.3.1 has been concluded that the EcoDSS can be most useful in the Search for Solutions, Analysis / Modelling and the Discussion of Results phase, it is sound to increase the functionality of the EcoDSS for these phases.

5.5 Conclusions

In this chapter the research focussed on answering the third research question: What conclusions can be drawn from developing and applying the EcoDSS concerning the suitability to support an interactive planning process in water resources management? This chapter started with the presentation of a small survey under the water managers involved in the validation of the EcoDSS. From this perspective their opinions on the EcoDSS, as expressed during the workshops, could be used as a contribution for the assessment of the suitability of the EcoDSS in interactive planning processes. The results of this assessment showed that the EcoDSS is mainly suitable for application in the phases Analysis / Modeling and Discussion of Results. Also during the Discussion of results the EcoDSS can be of support, provided that a moderator is necessary. The water managers also thought the EcoDSS to be suitable for use during the Problem Analysis, Analysis / modeling, Discussion of Results and Policy Decision. This means that according to the workshop attendants the EcoDSS might be of use during the whole planning process, except for the Search for Solutions phase. This difference might be caused by the fact that the planning processes the

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 88

workshop attendants consider, cannot be defined as interactive processes. Therefore fewer demands are being made on DSS. The same apparent contradictions were found for the characteristic User-friendliness. The testing of the EcoDSS to the criteria resulted in an average score for this characteristic. This is mainly the result of the lacking of a manual or built-in help, together with the requirement of background knowledge. The water managers on the other hand rated the EcoDSS to be very user-friendly, mainly because of the flexibility of the input parameters, the visual presentation of the results and the fact that the STOWA the integrated model developed. Because these models were integrated, the origin of the results can be traced back. This contributes to the transparency. The criteria of Ubbels & Verhallen (2000) did not test this aspect. These differences between the scores on the criteria and the opinions of the water managers are probably also caused by the discrepancy between “traditional” planning processes and interactive planning processes. This means that if the model were to be used by other participants than the water managers, improvements need to be made concerning the user- friendliness. The conclusions drawn after the testing of the EcoDSS by the criteria of Ubbels & Verhallen (2000) are that the EcoDSS is reasonably suitable for support in interactive planning processes, provided that a moderator controls the EcoDSS. The workshops showed that the EcoDSS can be used in present planning processes. It meets the demands of the water managers: it is easy to use, the models are transparent and the output is communicative. On the other hand, if the model is to be used in interactive planning processes, some modifications need to be made to make it better support the interactive component.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 89

6 Discussion

In this chapter the results of the research are reviewed. These results are based on the development of the EcoDSS, workshops with water managers and a small survey. The first section will discuss these parts of the research. In the next section the objective of the research is reviewed. The discussion will be closed with an extrapolation of the suitability of the EcoDSS to the suitability of GIS-models.

6.1 Sources for the test

The results of the research are based on information that was collected from several sources. These sources can not tell “the truth”, but they provide information from a certain perspective. In this section these sources are discussed and it will be assessed to what extent they form a solid ground for the research.

6.1.1 Development of the EcoDSS The EcoDSS was developed as an example project for the NOFDP project. In the EcoDSS models were integrated that were found suitable for the purpose of the model. The suitability of the EcoDSS for support of interactive planning processes was partly based on the experiences gained with the development of the EcoDSS. The knowledge contributed to the testing of the EcoDDS to the criteria of Ubbels & Verhallen (2000). The question can be asked whether the developer can objectively test the model he created himself. Although the workshops contributed to the test to criteria like User-friendliness, the knowledge about the EcoDSS was used to test it to criteria like Transparency and Flexibility. Other parties who would test the EcoDSS would not have this much knowledge about the model and therefore probably the results would be different. A comparison to the scores of other models tested to the criteria of Ubbels & Verhallen (2000) therefore probably is not possible.

6.1.2 Workshops To validate the EcoDSS and gather information about the suitability of the model, three workshops were organized, of which two were with water managers. During these workshops the function of the EcoDSS was explained and the results were presented. Th e opinions of the workshop attendants contributed to the scores of the testing of the EcoDSS. The number of attendants to these two workshops is not sufficient for a representative assessment of the EcoDSS to the criteria. The chance exists that if a larger group of water managers would assess the model, the model would be scored differently, with all the consequences for the results of this research. On the other hand, there are no practical reasons why other water managers would score the EcoDSS differently.

6.1.3 Survey The survey served to place the input from the water managers in perspective. Based on these results some conclusions were drawn about the suitability of the EcoDSS. This survey was held under a small group of persons, which all were involved in the assessment of the EcoDSS. This resulted in statements concerning the use of models in water management and criteria of water managers concerning the use of models. Also in this case the number of survey respondents is too low to be representative to be able to give a general opinion on the use of models in water management and the criteria of water managers concerning those

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 90

models. On the other hand to put the opinions on which the test is based into perspective, the correct persons replied to the survey. Therefore especially concerning the use of models and criteria by water managers the characteristics of the survey need to be taken into account.

6.2 Interactive planning processes

This research was about a model for supporting interactive planning processes, as is described in the theoretical part of this report. The question is whether those interactive planning processes really exist. The process in which the water storage plans were developed could not be defined as an interactive process. It was a traditional planning process in which several phases were gone through and stakeholders were only involved during short moments (see paragraph 3.1.6). The main input was from water managers. Therefore, is the function of introducing GIS-models in planning processes to optimize those processes, or can GIS-models introduce interactivity in processes? And can the EcoDSS support the development of policy strategies or can it better help implement the policy strategies? The study assumed that the planning process is designed such that it is logical for participants to cooperate. If participants have a stake, they will at least accomplish that decision makers get aware of their perspective. To have the participants collaborate they need to get acquainted with the perspectives of other participants and letting them determine the objectives of the process themselves. The discussion between the participants is structured by the use of DSS. But is the assumption that participants will tolerate each others perspectives and objectives correct? If this is not the case than the value of DSS decreases.

6.3 Suitability of GIS-models

Based on the information gathered in this report it is to some extent possible to assess the suitability of GIS -models to support interactive planning processes in integrated water resources management. Criteria have been determined in the chapter discussing the theory (chapter 3). The test of the EcoDSS to suitability criteria resulted in experience in the suitability of GIS -models to support interactive planning processes.

6.3.1 Problem analysis In the problem analysis phase of the interactive planning process it is important that the participants communicate with each other (see paragraph 3.1.3). Together they have to define a common understanding of the problem(s). GIS-models are especially suitable for reflecting the different perspectives, as long as these perspectives can be expressed in spatial objects (see paragraph 5.2.2). Examples range from farmlands to natural areas, and from the quality of swimming waters to location of socio-historic elements. The main activities undertaken during this phase are non-spatial though (see paragraph 5.3.1). Communication tools like gaming techniques and mind-maps are the main support-tools of these activities. GIS-models can support these tools in providing the spatial information needed to communicate. The flexibility of GIS enables a GIS-based DSS to adapt to changes in conditions in the planning process easily (see paragraph 5.2.4). GIS-models are very suitable to show at which locations consensus exists on measures to be taken, and at which locations differences of opinion exist. Because basic spatial data sets, on which models frequently are based, have a limited accuracy (see paragraph 3.2.1), GIS -

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 91

models can best be of support at the implementation of international, national and regional policy on a regional scale (see paragraph 4.3.5).

6.3.2 Search for solutions GIS-models are well-suited to support the search for solutions. The spatial boundary conditions from different policy fields can be visualized clearly to indicate the framework for the process of finding solutions (see paragraph 5.2.5). GIS-models can combine the spatial data representative for the different perspectives and policy fields on different scales to help find solutions for the problem at hand. In the GIS operations can be carried out on these solutions, like cost calculations and assessment of affected areas because of model runs (see paragraph 5.4.3). This information can help rank solutions and alternatives, provided that evaluation criteria have been determined.

6.3.3 Analysis / modelling As the development of the EcoDSS showed, GIS -models are especially suitable for analysis and modelling of alternatives of problems with a predominantly static character (see paragraph 3.2.2). Here also some restrictions of GIS have to be taken into account. It is not possible to integrate all kinds of models (see paragraph 3.2.6). Especially models analysing continue or stochastic data, as well as models simulate processes in time, are hard to integrate in GIS. Trying to integrate them will often lead to a decrease of other advantages of GIS, like flexibility, transparency etcetera. On the other hand GIS are very suitable in the combining of the results of these models. GIS offers a good platform for integration of models that simulate processes in which different perspectives and policy fields are involved (see paragraph 5.4.4). The flexible architecture makes it possible to adapt easily to changed conditions during the planning process and the visual presentation of the predicted effects are a great support to communication (see paragraph 5.2.1). This will stimulate the discussion about the affected interests, possible solutions etcetera. GIS-models are able to store and present all the (spatial) data generated during this phase.

6.3.4 Discussion of results GIS-models are very valuable tools to contribute to the discussion of the results, but not capable of actively stimulating it (see paragraph 5.2.2). The results are presented in a GIS in maps, which are very clear for the participants and can be visual pleasing. In this phase of the planning process alternatives have to be compared. Here GIS-models can play an important role. The spatial results can be compared to each other and using the evaluation criteria, generated during the process, alternatives can be ranked on several ways.

6.3.5 Policy choice During the policy choice one alternative must be chosen. Despite many participants can be involved, the decision remains the responsibility of the decision-maker. The GIS -model can help the decision-maker, by comparing the results of the evaluation criteria of the different alternatives (see paragraph 5.4.6). Because often not all aspects of the decision can be taken into account in the GIS-model, the results can only be of support in the decision making process.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 92

6.4 Conclusions

The information on which the EcoDSS was tested is subjective. Part of it is the experience gained with the development of the model, part is the opinion of a small group of water managers. On the other hand there are no reasons to suppose that the ratings would be very different when carried out by another party. Whether interactive planning processes like described in the theory actually occur is the question. In that case adjusting a model to make it suitable for application in interactive planning processes is not useful. On the other hand, the EcoDSS is considered suitable to support “traditional” planning processes, and with extensions to support interactive planning processes it still can support the traditional processes. The potential contribution of GIS -models to interactive planning processes varies per phase. In the initial phases the focus of the activities is on the communication between the participants. GIS-models can contribute to these phases by supplying the discussion with good and clear information in the form of maps. The maps represent different perspectives and policy fields and can be on various policy levels. When alternatives are being sought and analysed in the analysis/modelling phase and discussion of results, the function of the GIS -model shifts from a supportive tool to an active DSS. Because of the flexibility of GIS, decisions made in the previous phases can be incorporated in the GIS -model to compare the alternatives. The visual presentation of the results stimulates discussion what contributes to the interactivity of the process. During the Policy Choice, at the end of the planning process, information generated in the earlier phases is used to base a decision on.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 93

7 Conclusions

In the first chapters of this report the target of the research was defined as:

To assess the suitability of the EcoDSS to support interactive planning processes in water resources management, by comparing theory on GIS, interactive planning processes and DSS with the development of the EcoDSS.

In the first part of the research the theory on GIS, interactive planning processes and DSS was studied. This delivered criteria concerning the suitability of DSS based on GIS, applicable in interactive planning processes in water resources management. In a case study experience was gained with the development of a GIS-model, the EcoDSS. This GIS-model was tested to criteria assessing the suitability of DSS to support interactive planning processes in water resources management. In this chapter the conclusions resulting from the research will be discussed.

7.1 The theory on GIS-models in interactive planning processes

In the theory evidence was found that GIS-models can be very suitable to support interactive planning processes. Complex problems, different policy fields and interaction of many participants characterize these interactive planning processes. In the process different phases can be recognized, each with its own characteristics. Tools that can support these processes are called Decision Support Systems. They contribute to the process mainly by collecting and presenting the correct amount of information needed to make decisions. The DSS can be successful in involving the participants, provided that it presents clear information and is easy to use. To be useful during the process, the DSS should be this flexible that it can be adapted to changing conditions. GIS incorporate many features that supports functioning as a DSS. The relevant features of GIS-models that determine its suitability are the spatial storage, analysis and presentation of information, the flexible architecture that enables easy integration, and the spatial analysis of the relation between different policy fields and perspectives. GIS-models also have drawbacks. They are dependent on the accurateness and availability of spatial data and models simulating processes in time are hard to integrate. Theoretically, GIS-models show a high potential to serve as a DSS suitable to support interactive planning processes.

7.2 Development of the EcoDSS

The EcoDSS was developed during an experience project within the NOFDP. The goal of this project is to show the possibilities of GIS to analyse transboundary river basins on the relations between different policy fields. The subject of the analysis was the relation between the water system and two forms of land use for the Dutch / Flemish river basins of the River De Mark and River De Dommel. For that purpose in the EcoDSS models analysing the relation between water storage and subsurface retention and agriculture / nature were successfully integrated. The spatial data available was easily transformed into the required format and missing data was reproduced using extrapolation of existing data. This showed that it is possible to successfully integrate existing models and use available spatial data as input. The results of the models turned out to be valid and useful to water managers, although an effort is required for understanding the functions of the GIS-model. Especially the

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 94

integrated analysis of different perspectives of agriculture and nature makes the EcoDSS a potential valuable tool for use in water resources management. It was observed that background information is necessary and care needs to be taken in the interpretation of the results. To be able to optimally support present planning processes, some extensions in the EcoDSS are necessary.

7.3 Suitability of the EcoDSS

In the theory the comparison of the criteria of DSS, suitable to support interactive planning processes, to the characteristics of GIS -models resulted in an indication of the potential of GIS-models. The EcoDSS was not developed to meet these suitability criteria; it was developed to meet the objectives of the Transboundary Studies. This is an approach often followed when developing models, which made this a representative case. The results of the testing were that the EcoDSS is suitable for use in all phases of the planning process, but also that it lacks specific features for each phase. Compared to the theoretical potential of GIS-models, the EcoDSS was rated high. The test showed that the EcoDSS is most suitable for supporting the phases Analysis / Modelling and Discussion of Results, because it can support the main activities during those phases. The EcoDSS can also support some activities in the phases Problem Analysis and Search for Solutions. In these phases the focus is on the communication between the participants, what can be supported best by non-spatial models and a moderator. The EcoDSS can supply these non-spatial models with information. The visual presentation of effects by the EcoDSS can stimulate discussion, which is necessary when assessing the results. The incorporation of different policy fields was rated high. In the Analysis / Modelling phase, the EcoDSS can be the active DSS. It was found to be reasonably suitable to support this phase, and with the help of a moderator all criteria can be met. Strong aspects are the integrated analysis of the problem and the presentation of the results in a clear way. This opens the results for discussion and therefore contributes to the involvement of the participants. The same counts for the Discussion of Results. In the EcoDSS not all possibilities were incorporated to make it completely suitable for use in this phase. In this part of the planning process alternatives need to be compared and ranked. The EcoDSS is designed to compare the effects of different variables of a measure, but not to compare alternatives with different measures. The theory showed that GIS-models can be very supportive in comparing alternatives because of the spatial representation. In the final phase the participants have to compromise on alternatives and the decision maker has to choose the final alternative. GIS -models have no active role during this phase. They only show results generated during the previous phases and with that help the decision maker legitimate a decision. It was pointed out that the EcoDSS is very suitable for this activity because it can determine when an area is suited for the implementation of a certain measure. This part of the research delivered some interesting results. The contacts with water managers showed that the focus at using models is mainly on hydrological models. They observe that for some aspects of water management additional models, that combine perspectives, would be very useful. The EcoDSS was therefore welcomed as very useful, although it was observed that background knowledge is necessary. In the present planning processes the water managers would have applied the EcoDSS. The EcoDSS showed that GIS is very suitable for analysing problems from different perspectives. The model is able to support the water manager in analysing potential areas for water storage and subsurface retention and with that can be of support in planning processes.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 95

8 Recommendations

In this research a GIS-model was created to analyze the relation between types of land use and measures in the water system. It wasn’t designed as a DSS, but was gradually identified as a tool for supporting decisions. While not totally suitable for contributing to all phases of interactive planning processes, the model is this flexible that easily other functions can be incorporated. Relations with other policy fields can be analyzed by integrating other models, but to make the tool more useful on its subject, other functions should be appended.

8.1 Recommendations on the EcoDSS

It was found that in the first phases of interactive planning processes non-spatial DSS are better suited for supporting the interactions between the participants. It could be interesting to combine these tools with GIS-models. In this way the positive contribution of GIS-models to these phases can increase the effectiveness of the non-spatial DSS. In the case of the EcoDSS information can be added that illustrate the perspectives of other participants, especially in relation to the water system. In a GIS-model this can be done best by showing theme maps representing the perspectives. GIS-models are especially effective in showing relations between these perspectives. These relations can be described by cost/benefit calculations and analysis of affected areas. With the results of a hydro dynamical model, flood damage can be calculated for different scenarios. Also the (unwanted) inundated areas as the result of measures can be determined in the scenarios. These numerical results contribute much to the discussion and therefore are recommended to be integrated. A useful extension of the EcoDSS is the possibility to use spatially distributed input parameters for inundation frequency, depth, duration and season. With this function specific scenarios can be generated and analysed. With the help of the numerical functions the results can be compared and ranked. The analysis of effects would be stimulated when a good topological base layer could be added.

8.2 General recommendations

GIS-models are very flexible and therefore suitable for adaptation as a result of changing conditions in the planning process, provided that relevant models are available to spatially describe the changes and that the data are available. This doesn’t mean that a GIS -model shouldn’t be well-designed before the start of a planning process. Therefore it is recommended to have knowledge about the participants of the process and the possible perspectives that are going to be analyzed. This research did not study other DSS than GIS-models. It was mentioned that in the first phases of planning processes non-spatial DSS are the main tools for structuring the discussion, but what these DSS exactly do and how GIS -models can support these DSS has not been studied. This relation can be very interesting when developing a complete DSS for use during all phases of interactive planning processes. Therefore the contribution of non- spatial DSS in relation to GIS-models should be studied.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 96

9 Sources

Literature Bakel, Dr. ir. P.J.T. van (2002). HELP-tabellen Landbouw: Aanpassingen en operationalisering van de doelrealisatie landbouw (rapportnummer 2002.40). Utrecht: STOWA (in Dutch)

Bal, D., Beije, H.M., Fellinger, M., Haveman, R., Opstal, A.J.F.M. van, Zadelhoff, F.J. van (2001). Handboek Natuurdoeltypen. Wageningen: Expertisecentrum LNV (in Dutch)

Balkenende, J.P., Schultz van Haegen, H.M., Franssen, J., Beukema, G., Deetman, W.J., Graeff, J.J. de, et al (2003). Nationaal Bestuursakkoord Water. Getekend: 2 juli 2003 (in Dutch)

Berry, J.K. (1995). Spatial Reasoning for effective GIS. Fort Collins, USA: GIS World Books

Bosma, J.J., Landman, J. (2001). Afstemming en opsplitsing: Afstemming in het provinciale omgevingsbeleid en de positie van water (rapport 2001.009) Lelystad: Rijksinstituut voor integraal zoetwaterbeheer en afvalwaterbehandeling (RIZA) (in Dutch)

Brabantse Delta (2004). Waterbergingsplan. Breda: Brabantse Delta (in Dutch)

Brundtland, G.H. (1987).Our common future. New York, USA: Oxfort University Press.

Burrough, P.A. (1992). Are GIS data structures too simpleminded? Computers and Geosciences 18:395-400

Burrough, P.A. (1995). Spatial Data Quality and Error Analysis Issues: GIS Functions and Environmental Modeling. In: GIS and Environmental Modelling: Progress and Research Issues, M.F. Goodchild et al. (eds.). GIS World Inc, Fort Collins.

By, A. de, Knippers, R.A., Sun, Y., Ellis, M.C., Kraak, M.J.Weir, M.J.C. et al. (2001). Principles of Geographic Information Systems. Enschede: ITC

Cornelissen, A.H.M., Harmsen, J., Kempenaar, C., Knol, W.C., Zweerde, W. van der (2003). Waterberging op landbouwgronden. Effecten op plant- en dierziekten, onkruiden en contaminanten. Rapportnummer 2003-19. Utrecht: STOWA (in Dutch)

Drogendijk, A. Duijn, M. (1999). LWI IP Handreiking voor Interactieve Planvorming. LWI/CUR, Gouda (in Dutch)

Ek, R. van, Stam, J., Houten, J. van, Boer, B. de (2000). DEMNAT 2.1 voor Windows 95: gebruikershandleiding (RIZA -rapport 2000.049). Lelystad: RIZA (in Dutch)

European Committee (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council: Establishing a framework for Community Action in the field of water policy.

Fuchs, E., H. Giebel, A. Hettrich, V. Hüsing, S. Rosenzweig and H.J. Theis (2003) Einsatz von ökologischen Modellen in der Wasser- und Schifffahrtsverwaltung: das integrierte Flussauenmodell INFORM (Version 2.0). Koblenz: Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde, (Mitteilung. Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde ; 25). (in German)

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 97

Geerts, G., Boon, C.A. den, Geeraerts, D., Sijs, N. van der. (2004). Groot woordenboek der Nederlandse taal. Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie (in Dutch)

Geldof. G.D. (2003). Omgaan met complexiteit bij integraal waterbeheer: Op weg naar Interactieve Uitvoering. Deventer: Tauw (in Dutch)

Godfroij, A.J.A. (1981). Netwerken van organisaties: strategieën, spelen, structuren. S’ Gravenhage: VUGA (in Dutch)

Gruijter, J.J. de, J.B.F. van der Horst, G.B.M. Heuvelink, M. Knotters en T. Hoogland (2004). Grondwater opnieuw op de kaart. Methodiek voor de actualisering van grondwaterstandsinformatie en perceelsclassificatie naar uitspoelingsgevoeligheid voor nitraat (Alterra-rapport 915). Wageningen: Alterra (in Dutch)

Helmyr, S., Weeren, B.J. van. (2002). Naar grondwatergestuurde oppervlaktewatersystemen: Samenvatting van het STOWA-programma Waternood. Utrecht: STOWA (in Dutch)

Hendriks, P., Ottens, H. (1997). Geografische Informatie Systemen in ruimtelijk onderzoek. Assen: Van Gorcum en Comp. B.V. (in Dutch)

Hengeveld, H. (1994). Integraal waterbeheer: systemen, organisaties, management. Bedrijfskunde 66 (4) (in Dutch)

Hoogerwerf, A. (1989). Overheidsbeleid. Alphen aan de Rijn: Tjeenk Willink

Hoppe, R. Graaf, H. van de (1996) Beleid en politiek: een inleiding tot de beleidswetenschap en de beleidskunde. Bussum: Coutinho (in Dutch)

Huijskes, H., Geerlink, H. (2003). Voorbeeldenboek Waternood. Enschede: Printpartners Ipskamp (in Dutch)

Jamieson, D.G., Fedra, K. (1996). The ‘Waterware’ decision-support system for river-basin planning. 1. Conceptual design. In: Journal of Hydrology 177 (1996) 163-175

Kok, J.L. de, Engelen, G., White, C., Wind, H.G. (2001).Modelling land-use change in a decision support system for coastal-zone managemant. Environmental modeling and assessment 6:123-132

Kok, J. L. de, Wind, H. G. (2002). Rapid assessment of water systems based on internal consistency. Journal of water resources planning and management, 128(4), 240-247, sins. 0733-9496.

Kok, J.L. de, Wind, H.G. (2003). Design and application of decision-support systems for integrated water management: lessons to be learnt. Physics and Chemistry of the earth 28 (2003) 571-578

Kuks, S.M.M. (2004). Water Governance and Institutional Change. Enschede: Universiteit Twente / CSTM (in Dutch)

Leeuw, A.C.J. de (1974). Systeemleer en organisatiekunde: een onderzoek naar de mogelijke bijdragen van de systeemleer tot een integrale organisatiekunde. Leiden: Stenfert-Kroese (in Dutch)

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 98

Leussen, W. van (2002a). River Basin Management (Reader). Universiteit Twente (in Dutch)

Leussen, W. van (2002b). Leven met water. Vermaatschappelijking van het waterbeheer - consequenties voor de civiel ingenieur en voor waterbeheerorganisaties. (Aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar River basin manamgement aan de Universiteit Twente). Enschede: Universiteit Twente. (in Dutch)

Loenen, A. van (2005). Modellen, methoden en geodata. Literatuurstudie ten behoeve van de afstudeeropdracht. Amersfoort: HydroLogic (in Dutch)

Loucks, D.P., J.R. Da Costa (1991). Decision support systems. Water resources planning. In: Nato Asi Series G: Ecological sciences (26). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag

Maidment, D.R. (1996). Environmental modeling within GIS. In: Goodchild, M.F., Steyaert, L.T. & Parks, P.O. (eds): GIS and environmental modeling: progress and research issues. Fort Collins: GIS World Books, 315-323.

Martinoni, D. (2002). Models and Experiments for Quality Handling in Digital Terrain Modelling. Universität Zürich, phd thesis.

Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (1998). Reconstructiewet concentratiegebieden. Den Haag: Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2000) Anders omgaan met water: Waterbeleid in de 21e eeuw (kabinetsstandpunt). Den Haag: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat / Directoraat - Generaal Waterstaat (in Dutch)

Ministerie van Verkeer en waterstaat. (1998) Vierde Nota Waterhuishouding: regeringsbeslissing. Den Haag: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (in Dutch)

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., Théoret, A. The structure of “unstructured” decision processes, in: Adminstrative Science Querterly, 21, 1976, pp. 246-275

Molen, dr. C. van der (2002). Ecologische aspecten van overstroming en inundatie. Tilburg: Dienst Landelijk Gebied Noord-Brabant (in Dutch)

Reichard, L. (2004a). Offerte voor Transboundary Studies. Amersfoort: HydroLogic (in Dutch)

Reichard, L. (2004b). Methode Quickscan. Eindrapport. Amersfoort: HydroLogic (in Dutch)

Reichard, L. (2005a). NOFDP Transboundary Studies, fase 2. Amersfoort: HydroLogic (in Dutch)

Reichard, L. (2005b) NOFDP Transboundary Studies, fase 3. Amersfoort: HydroLogic (in Dutch)

Rodenhuis, G.S., Stuip, J., (2002). Concept rapportage taakgroep ‘Reflectie op mathematische modellen’. Water-Front (in Dutch)

Rooy, P.T.J.C. van, Sterrenberg, L. (2000). Het blauwe goud verzilveren, integraal waterbeheer en het belang van omdenken (Rhatenau studie 41). Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut (in Dutch)

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 99

Rooy, P.T.J.C. van (1997). Interactieve Planvorming voor waterbeheer (Proefschrift). Delft: TU Delft (in Dutch)

Runhaar, J. R. van Ek, H.B. Bos & M. van 't Zelfde, 1996. Dosis-effect module DEMNAT versie 2.1. (RIZA nota 96.062), Lelystad: RIZA

Runhaar, J., Arts, G., Knol, W., Makaske, B., Brink, N. van den (2004). Waterberging en natuur. Kennisoverzicht ten behoeve van regionale waterbeheerders (Rapportnummer 2004- 16). Utrecht: STOWA (in Dutch)

Runhaar, J., Gehrels, J.C., Lee, G. van der, Hennekens, S.M., Wamelink, G.W.W., Linden, W. van der, et al. (2002). Waternood rapport 5: Doelrealisatie natuur (Rapportnummer 2002- 26). Utrecht: STOWA (in Dutch)

Sebus, J. (2005). Voordeel met GIS voor provincies. e-Provincies (3) (in Dutch)

Sociaal Economische Raad (2004). Nota Ruimte: Advies uitgebracht aan de minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke ordening en Milieubeheer. Den Haag: Sociaal Economische Raad (in Dutch)

Sprague, R.H., Carlson, E.D. (1982) Building Effective Decision-Support Systems. Englewood Cliffs, UK: Prentice Hall

Stoel, A.L.E.C. van der, Versteden, C.J.N., Vries, B. de, Nieuwenhuijzen, G.J. van den, Jong, P. de. (2001). Water in orde: Bestuurlijk-organisatorische aspecten van integraal waterbeleid. Den Haag: Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur (in Dutch)

Stuurman, R., Dierckx, J., Runhaar, H. (2002). Uitwerking van de methodiek voor de bepaling van gewenste grondwatersituatie voor natuur in potentieel natte gebieden in Vlaanderen. Utrecht: TNO-Grondwater (in Dutch)

Tielrooij, F., Dijk, J. van, Biercourt-Maas, J. de, Ende, A. van den, Oosterbaan, G.A., Overbeek, H.J. (2000). Waterbeleid voor de 21e eeuw: Geef water de ruimte die het verdient. Den Haag: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (in Dutch)

Verbeek, M. (1997). Integraal waterbeheer tussen ongestoorde sturing en ongestuurde storing (Proefschrift). Enschede: Universiteit Twente

Verbeek, M., Wind, H.G. (2001). Improving control in water management: meeting conditions for control with the ISI approach. Water Resources Management 15 (6), 403-422

Ubbels, A.A., Verhallen A.J.M. (2000). Suitability of decision support tools for collaborative planning processes in water resources management (RIZA rapport 99.067). Lelystad: RIZA

Wassen, M.J., 1998. Demonstration Project for the Development of Integrated Management Plans for Catchment Areas of Small Trans -Border Lowland Rivers: the River Dommel. 1. Ecohydrological Modeling and Integrated management Planning in the Catchment of the River Dommel. Utrecht: Utrecht University / Department of Environmental Science

Waterschap Regge en Dinkel (2001). Waterbeheerplan: Water beheren, ruimte creëren. Almelo: Waterschap Regge en Dinkel

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 100

Waveren, R.H., Groot, S., Scholten, H., Geer, F.C. van, Wösten, J.H.M., Koeze, R.D., Noort, J.J. (1999). Handbook Good Modeling Practice (S TOWA report 99-05). Lelystad: STOWA

Werkgroep HELP-tabel (1987). De invloed van de waterhuishouding op de landbouwkundige productie. Rapport van de werkgroep HELP-tabel (Mededelingen Landinrichtingsdienst nr. 176) Utrecht: Landinrichtingsdienst.

Werner, M. (2004). Spatial Flood Extent Modelling: A Performance-bases comparison (PhD thesis). Delft: Delft University of Technology

Winterscheid, A., Ostrowski, M., Gulik, S. van, Lambregts, R., Lauw, R. de, Slikker, J. et al. (2002). Nature Oriented Flood Damage Prevention – an INTERREG IIIB NWE funded project. Darmstadt: Institute of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering

Wolf, J. et al. (2005), The integrated modeling system STONE for calculating nutrient emissions from agriculture in the Netherlands. Environmental Modeling and Software 18, 597- 617

WL | Delft Hydraulics. (2002). Verdrogingsbestrijding door verondiepen van watergangen in vrij afwaterende gebieden. Delft: WL | Delft Hydraulics

Internetsites Instituut voor natuurbehoud. (2003). Ontstaan van de BWK. Opgehaald op 21 juni van: http://www.instnat.be/content/page.asp?pid=BWK_ontstaan

Ostrowski, M.W. (1997). Improving sustainability of water resources systems using the group decision support system Steel-GDSS. Internet: www.chi.on.cha/steeldssintroductorypaper

Informatiedesk standaarden Water (2005). Aquolex Woordenboek Water. Retrieved on 15 June 2005 from http://testidsw.vertis.nl/LMA/woordenboek/woordenboek_2.html

Software ArcMap (2004) (versie 9) [computer software]. Redlands, Californië, VS: Environmental Systems Research Institute

ArcView GIS (2001) (versie 3.2a) [computer software]. Redlands, Californië, VS: Environmental Systems Research Institute

Excel 2000 (1999) (versie 9.0.4402) [computer software]. MicroSoft

Visual Basic for Applications (2001) (versie 9108) [computer software]. MicroSoft

Wesseling, C., Deursen, W. van (2001). PCRaster (versie 30 oktober 2001) [computer software]. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, faculteit fysische geografie

Workshops 1: Workshop held on July 18, 2005, with water managers from Water Board Brabantse Delta. 2: Workshop held on July 19, 2005, with water managers from Water Board De Dommel. Of the third workshop, in which the EcoDSS was presented to the Coordination Group of the NODP, no report was made.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 101

Respondents questionnaires E. Eigenhuijzen (Water Board De Dommel)

D. van der Voort (Water Board Brabantse Delta)

R. van Nispen (Water Board Brabantse Delta)

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 102

10 Definitions

Accuracy Closeness (i.e., degree of match) of measurements, observations, computations or estimates to the (perceived to be) true values (De By et al., 2001).

Database management system (DBMS) A software package that allows its users to define and use databases. Commonly abbreviated to DBMS. A generic tool, applicable to many different databases (De By et al., 2001).

Decision support system (DSS) A computer based system that helps decision makers solve unstructured problems through direct interaction with data and analytical models. (Sprague and Carlson, 1982)

Geographic Information System (GIS) A computerised system that facilitates the phases of data entry, data analysis and data presentation especially in cases when dealing with georeferenced data (De By et al., 2001).

Georeferenced Data is georeferenced when coordinates from a geographic space have been associated with it. The georeference (spatial reference) tells us where the object represented by the data is (or was or will be) (De By et al., 2001).

GIS-model GIS-modeling involves symbolic representation of locational properties, as well as thematic and temporal attributes describing characteristics and conditions of space and time (Berry, 1995). In this report the focus is on relational GIS-models, which focus on the interdependence and relationships among factors, the main factors being represented in spatial data sets (Berry, 1995).

Integral In this research the word integral is used to indicate the analysis of coherent processes and functions in a water system. Because these functions and processes are related they influence each other. Knowledge about these relations can contribute to an optimal management of a water system.

Interactive planning process The whole of activities for developing a consistent plan, in which policy and implementation programs are described, and with which sufficient societal and administrative support is gained, as the basis for implementation of policy.

Inundation The flooding of an area with water originating from other areas. The flooding occurs when the water levels in adjacent watercourses rise above the river banks because of high discharge in the river (Runhaar et al., 2004).

Model Representation of essential aspects of a system, whereby knowledge is presented in a useable form. The system is a part of reality that exists of entities with mutual relations and a

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 103

restricted number of relations with the reality outside the system. In this report only quantitative models are considered (Van Waveren et al., 1999).

Nature Target Type A type of ecosystem, pursued in ecological policy, inhibiting a certain biodiversity and a certain naturalness as quality characteristics (Runhaar, 2001). Existing nature as well as pursued nature can be described in Nature Target Types.

Policy field A subject for which policy is formulated. Concerning water management the most important policy fields are: nature, environment, spatial planning and agriculture.

Polygon A computer representation of a geographic object that is perceived as a two-dimensional (area) entity. The polygon is determined by a closed line that describes its boundary. Because a line is a piecewise straight entity, a polygon is only a finite approximation of the actual area (De By et al., 2001).

Raster A regularly spaced set of cells with associated (field) values. The value for a cell is assumed to be valid for all locations within the cell. This subtlety is often – and can often be – glossed over, especially when the cell size is small relative to the variation in the represented phenomenon (De By et al., 2001).

Risk The risk that is spoken of in this report concerns the risk that inundation water affects the crops and cattle of the agricultural lands. It is determined as the actual danger (chance x impact) that water storage possesses for plant - and animal sicknesses and on contamination (Cornelissen et al., 2003).

River basin A river basin is that area that is drained by a river. River basins are defined at several scale levels, from room to continental level. In this report river basins at a regional level are considered.

Semi-terrestrial ecosystem An ecosystem that exists on the boundary between water and land; hydrosere situations as peat and systems which part of the year are flooded (Runhaar et al, 2004).

Spatial data In the precise sense, spatial data is any data with which position is associated. In this report the phrase is used as ‘geospatial’ data, meaning that geographic position data is part of it (De By et al., 2001).

Subsurface retention Retention of rain and seepage water on site (in the soil or in capillaries - LR), in order to reduce drought and/or slow down the discharge of watercourses. In this report conservation of water will only take place in the soil (Runhaar et al, 2004).

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 104

Temporal dimension Spatial phenomena exist in space and time. The temporal dimension is the time factor in this existence, and determines when the phenomenon is present (De By et al., 2001).

Terrestrial ecosystem An ecosystem that does not or only briefly flood (Runhaar et al, 2004).

Thematic map A map in which the distribution, quality and / or quantity of a phenomenon (or the relationship among several phenomena) is presented on a topographic base (De By et al., 2001).

Water administrators Organisational entity responsibly for the administration and the use of (a part of) a water system.

Water storage Storing surface water that originates from upstream parts of the river basin in order to protect downstream parts against flooding. Storage is (almost) entirely above the surface (Runhaar et al, 2004).

Water system A coherent geographical bound (part of a) surface water, including the related groundwater, bed, shores and technical infrastructure, including the occurring living communities and all relating physical, chemical and biological characteristics and processes. Boundaries in general are determined by the morphological, ecological and functional coherence (Informatiedesk standaarden Water, 2005).

Water test A policy instrument to ascertain that targets concerning water management are clearly and balanced taken into account in all spatial plans or decisions which are relevant for the water system, for example urban development or infrastructure. This is not only directed at the reduction of water nuisances, but also on shortages and water quality.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 105

11 Appendices

1 GIS ...... 1 1.1 Dis(advantages) of common data formats...... 1 1.2 Basic operations ...... 1 1.3 Temporal aspects ...... 2 1.4 Databases ...... 2 1.5 Types of models...... 3 1.6 Quality of spatial data...... 3

2 Decision support tools...... 4

3 Characteristics and criteria...... 5

4 Integrated models...... 7 4.1 Classification of input variables Water Storage and Nature ...... 7 4.2 Risk table Water Storage and Agriculture...... 8

5 Uncertainty...... 9 5.1 Uncertainty of the model results...... 9 5.2 Uncertainty input data ...... 9

6 Sensitivity Analysis...... 12

7 Reports workshops...... 15

8 Testing of the EcoDSS for suitability ...... 21

9 Recommendations for improvement of the EcoDSS ...... 26

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 107

1 GIS

In section 3.2 of the report aspects of GIS and GIS-models were mentioned. Some of these aspects are being explained in more detail in this appendix. For the reader interested in GIS the books written by Berry (1996) and De By (2001) are recommended.

1.1 Dis(advantages) of common data formats

There are two main data formats in which reality is being represented. These are the vector representation and the tessellation representation. The largest en most commonly used subgroup of the latter is the raster representation. In paragraph 3.2.1 the characteristics of these data formats were discussed. In the following table the advantages and disadvantages are presented.

Tessellation representation Vector representation

Advantages - simple data structure - efficient representation of topology - simple implementation of overlays - efficient for image processing Disadvantages - less compact data structure - complex data structure - difficult to represent topology - overlay more difficult to implement - inefficient for image processing Table 16: comparison of tessellation and vector representations (De By, 2001)

1.2 Basic operations

One of the most important characteristics of GIS is that spatial data representing different perspectives and policy fields can be combined to analyse locations of interest. In the report this is discussed in paragraph 3.2.4. How this analysis is being done is dependent on the format of the data. In this sub appendix an overview is given about the most important operations in GIS (for an extended overview see De By, 2001, or Hendriks, 1997).

Retrieval, classification and measurement These functions enable analysis of data without changing it. Lines can be measured, but also surfaces and volumes. Querries can be used to retrieve specific features out of the data and with classification values retrieved can be grouped to obtain a recognizable presentation of data.

Overlay operations These operations are most commonly used. Data layers are being combined and new information is obtained. This way different features that exist at the same locations can be

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 1

combined. It is possible to use arithmetic, relational and conditional operators for a large group of overlay functions.

Neighbourhood functions These functions analyse the neighbourhood surrounding a specific location. With this function the relation of these surrounding areas with the location of interest can be analysed. Examples are the creating of buffer zones and spreading of objects.

Connectivity functions These functions analyse the relations between phenomena. Especially networks can be analysed well using these functions.

1.3 Temporal aspects

As has been mentioned in paragraph 3.2.2 GIS is less capable in handling the temporal aspect of phenomena. Several methods have been developed to take time into account in spatial modelling. These models are also being refered to as spatiotemporal data models. De By (2001) categorises them in four groups:

Snapshot model In the GIS data layers are stored with information about the same subject, but at different points in time. This is based in linear, absolute and discrete time. This is the most common method to take time into account.

Space-time cube mode l This is based on a two-dimensional view on the area of interest. Objects in the 2D space move during time, which can as the third dimension. The trace of some object through time creates a worm-like trajectory in the space-time cube. This model potentially shows absolute, continuous, linear, branching and cyclic time. The model can be interpreted as an idealised snapshot model with an infinite dense snapshot sequence.

Space-time composite model In this model all objects are projected on one layer, but the attribute data are being used to store when the phenomenon took place. This is only possible by discrete objects and time steps.

Event-based model In this model each event is registered that happened since the initial state. The spatial and thematic attribute domains are secondary. The model is based on discrete, linear and relative time.

1.4 Databases

In paragraph 3.2.3 was mentioned that attribute tables of spatial data sets can be considered a simple form of a database. It was also mentioned that these attribute tables can be accessed by Database Management Systems (DBMS) which are well equipped for handling databases. Using DBSM data present in the attribute tables can be analysed, which makes it another method for analysing spatial data. The advantages of DBMS are:

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 2

· Storage and editing of large amounts of data · Checks data integrity · Supports simultaneous use of data · Supports use of queries · Supports the use of a data model. With this the database structure can constructed and data edited · Controls data redundancy

1.5 Types of models

In paragraph 3.2.1 different types of models are related to different types of spatial analyses. In this section these types of models are explained in more detail (descriptions by Martinoni, 2002).

Empirical models Empirical models are data driven and commonly based on (multivariate) regression or similar statistical methods. Because of this origin they do no guarantee causality, but often they are the only method to analyze a subject.

Deterministic models These models attempt to explain the phenomena explained in terms of basic physical and chemical laws or determined mathematical relations.

Stochastic models These models also characterize phenomena in terms of physical or chemical driving forces or mathematical relations, but at least one of the model inputs is described by a probability distribution rather than an exact value.

Rule-based models These models are based on the axioms of logic and on straightforward set theory operations. They aim at explaining or predicting a specific state and do not attempt to deal with spatial continuity in the sense of simulating continuous field behavior.

1.6 Quality of spatial data

In paragraph 3.2.7 was mentioned that the user influence concerning the quality of the model – data combination is mainly dependent on the quality of the spatial data, provided a model only uses available spatial data. Burrough (1996) enumerated a number of factors which determine the quality of the spatial data.

· Time and place of measurement · Method of measurement, recording and analysis technique · Assumptions about the kind of spatio/temporal variation (discrete or continuous) · Spatial and temporal resolution – support and scale · Spatial and temporal variability · Number or density of observations · Method used to extrapolate data from point observations to spatial data · Data representation in the computer

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 3

2 Decision support tools

In the report three groups of Decision Support Tools are mentioned, categorized by Ubbels and Verhallen (2000). Although the names of the tools provide sufficient basis about the characteristics of the tool, in this paragraph a more detailed explanation is given.

Gaming techniques The models that can be defined as gaming techniques include role playing of the participants to facilitate simulation of the decision-making process in a non-threatening setting. By letting the participants replicate the role of interdependent decision-makers the stakeholders will share the same understanding of the problem and support will be gained. Barriers to communication due to conflicting interests or differing social, cultural or technical backgrounds will be broken down. Gaming techniques also allow inputs to be made several times, often after feedback has been received and a response determined. Ubbels and Verhallen (2000) identify three uses for gaming in water resources management:

· Identify pitfalls and consensuses for preparing management alternatives in the decision making process itself · To train for operational situations and so improve performance in an emergency · To gain awareness of a decision-making process

Decision Support systems DSS are developed for either operational management or for strategic policy decisions. DSS help collect and present the information that is needed for policy makers to make decisions. In this way DSS are a method to communicate between the field experts and the policy makers. The main objective of this classic type of DSS is to support problem analysis and effect forecasting, its objective is not primarily to support decision-making processes in which conflicting interests of different stakeholders have to be taken into account. They often analyze and model complex systems using detailed models. Collaborative decision making has increased the need for DSS to support interactive decision making process involving a range of participants.

General Support Tools Ubbels and Verhallen (2000) define General Support Tools as computer programs designed to promote communication and bring individuals together. The target of the communication is to let participants get to know each others perspectives and eventually reach consensus on subjects like problem definition, objective, measures and evaluation criteria. The most common General Support Tools are:

· Group Decision Software · Video Conferencing · Cognitive Mapping · Virtual Reality · Internet · Multi-criteria analysis tools

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 4

3 Characteristics and criteria

The criteria Ubbels and Verhallen (2000) gathered are used to determine the suitability of DSS to different phases of a decision-making process. The following list is copied from Ubbels and Verhallen (2000).

Characteristics Criteria Commentary

User-friendliness Well-organized screen Important when several windows are needed to s how work progress. To avoid confusion and information overload for the user, there must not be too many windows, or too much information in each screen.

Background knowledge Background knowledge necessary to use the tool properly. This can very from none, common knowledge or more than average knowledge on the subject.

Professional language Kind of language used in the tool; is it easy to understand or very specific? Are users (NGO’s, members of the public, etc.) who are not used to scientific/professional jargon able to understand the tool? Options: use and explain professional jargon or avoid it.

Visualization Current visualization techniques fully exploited (3D, dynamic presentations). Easy to understand, not misleading, clear captions and color use.

Guidance Is it always clear to the user what to do next, which button to press, etc.

Manual or built-in help Availability of help function to answer: what is…, what if…, how to…, and so on.

Insight into modeling Is the user shielded from the model run, does the user have to need prepare input to run the model, does the user need to know about coupled models?

Collaboration Communication Does the tool encourage communication by provoking discussion (role-play), expressions of opinion or knowledge-sharing?

Storing generated Knowledge generated by the users during the process is stored in knowledge or by the tool.

Collective problem Collective definition of the problem by all participants (the problem definition scope and other aspects of the problem) is supported by the tool.

Divergent views Views of all stakeholders are incorporated in the tool (different roles) and/or expert or other knowledge of different stakeholders is incorporated in the tool.

Identifying evaluation The tools provides for collective identification of evaluation criteria. criteria

Consensus Mechanisms for consensus -building are supported by the tool. For example, it supports discussion on the scope of the problem (objectives), evaluation of the process, and dependency between stakeholders in the search for possible solutions.

Transparency Model assumptions and Explicitly reveals assumptions and constraints in the tool (named or constraints visualized).

Uncertainties Is uncertainty calculated? And if so, are the uncertainties visualized by way of graphics, tables and ranges in the estimated effects?

Flexibility Range of (policy) Is it possible for the user to define policy questions, alternatives or questions measures that are not yet incorporated in the tool?

Flexible architecture Can the tool easily be adapted to examine a new problem or new physical area (within a month)?

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 5

Assessment Integrated analysis The tool assesses all relevant aspects of the problem in an integrated way. All disciplines (including socio-economic) are analyzed.

Goals and objectives The tool assists in identifying goals and objectives.

Possible solutions The tool assists the search for possible solutions (e.g. it stimulates creativity and imagination or facilitates brainstorming and so on).

Initial ranking of possible Screening possible solutions (do they meet the constraints, can solutions they be implemented, are they verifiable?).

Solutions translated into Is it possible for a user to choose a combination of solutions or a alternatives possible set of actions to meet an objective (is a consistency check available?).

Effects estimated by Quantitative estimation of effects using computer models. modeling

Simple linear relations No comprehensive calculations. For example, the linear decline of and repro-functions industrial growth as a function of water shortages.

Expert systems Part of the tool calls for consultation with an expert or uses an expert system.

Detailed complex Several algorithms used, numerical methods, non-linear relations, models etc.

Comparing alternatives An effect matrix, a score-card and/or a map can be generated showing the results of the different alternatives.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 6

4 Integrated models

4.1 Classification of input variables Water Storage and Nature

P-tot (g/l), summer average Description 4 Very good < 0.05 Meets target value (VR ) Good 0.05 - 0.15 Meets standard (MTR 5)

Moderate 0.15 – 0.60 Above the standard

Bad > 0.60 Much above the standard

Table 17: Classification of input value Water quality

Hardness Bicarbonate content mMol/l mg/l Soft < 0.5 < 30 Moderately soft 0.5-2 30-120 Hard > 2 > 120 Table 18: Classification of input value Hardness

Salinity mg Cl/l Very sweet 0-200

Lightly brackish 200-1000 Brackish to salt > 1000

Table 19: Classification of input value Salinity

Sedimentation class Flow Distance to watercourse

Small Stagnant - Moderate Flowing Far from inlet / small flow gradient

Large Flowing Near inlet, large flow gradient

Table 20: Classification of input Sediment content

4 Negligible risk: standard defined in Fourth National Policy Document on Water Management (Ministerie van Verkeer en Vervoer, 1998) 5 Maximum allowed risk: standard defined in Fourth National Policy Document on Water Management (Ministerie van Verkeer en Vervoer, 1998)

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 7

4.2 Risk table Water Storage and Agriculture

In this the risks are presented for the combination of an input variable and an organism / substance.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 8

5 Uncertainty

5.1 Uncertainty of the model results

The integrated model water storage and nature shows when results are considered certain, uncertain or even speculative. This way is indicated that there is insufficient knowledge concerning the impact of the measure or that there are disputes between experts on the subject. In these cases a judgment is given with the note that it is not certain if the pronouncement is entirely correct. The makers of the model water storage and agriculture report that there is not enough information on specific aspects of the model. On the main aspects concerning the relation between water storage and agriculture, effects on crops and cattle, enough information is available. These aspects were weighted more and therefore their impact on the results has become larger. This increased the certainty of these results. In contrast to the model Water storage and nature, where a suitability is determined on the basis of a large number of factors, in the model Subsurface retention and nature the only determining factor are the groundwater characteristics. This is purely on quantitative basis. Qualitative aspects as seepage cannot be taken into account at the scale of the EcoDSS. Because of the uncertainty in groundwater characteristics, both for the Dutch GxG-values and for derived Flemish GxG-values, and the fact that the Nature Target Types are translated, some uncertainty concerning the results must be taken into account. Thanks to the classification this uncertainty is limited, but in situations where the class border is exceeded supplemental interpretation is necessary. Because in the model Subsurface retention and agriculture the detailed HELP -tables are used, the results are very precise. These precise results concern average decreases in yield for an average agricultural enterprise for several years and therefore cannot be applied to a single farm for one year’s results. The results can be considered a good directive for the suitability of agricultural land for measures inflicting the groundwater level. Because the results are categorized the results can be considered considerable certain.

5.2 Uncertainty input data

The largest part of the required information is spatial data or information transposed into spatial data. The received spatial data can be considered correct, but when spatial data is created on basis of other data, uncertainties can sneak in. In this paragraph the uncertainties in the input data are described.

Translations The Nature Target Map of the Province of Brabant has not been created according to the Dutch standard (Bal, 2001). Witteveen + Bos made a translation of the Nature Target Types as defines by the Province of Brabant, and the Nature Target Types as described in the standard. Despite this rough translation, it is not expected that the translation has a large impact on the certainty of the results. Because the translated Nature Target Types have the same properties as the original (e.g. sensitivity for inundation and nutrients), the results will be the same. For conversion of the Belgian ecotopes to the Dutch Nature Target Types no translation table was available. The Belgian ecotopes, mapped in the Biological Appreciation Map (BWK),

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 9

have approximately the same properties as the Dutch Nature Target Types. On the basis of a list with explanatory terms (see Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, 2003a), a relation has been laid between the ecotopes in the Flemish part of the river basins of the Mark and the Dommel, and the Dutch Nature Target Types. This translation has been made by Witteveen + Bos. Here too uncertainties appear, similar to the uncertainties in the translation of the Nature Target Types in the Nature Target Types Map of the Province of Brabant. In the BWK on every location up to eight ecotopes can be defined. Because it is impossible in this project to perform a detailed translation of (combinations of) ecotopes into Nature Target Types, it has been assumed that the first (most important) ecotoop exhibits the main properties concerning measures in the water system. Since results are generated on the basis of generalized data the chance is large that the properties of the translated Nature Target Types is in the same range the properties of the original ecotopes. Interpretation by experts concerning the analyzed area is however necessary. The obtain the groundwater characteristics of the Flemish parts of the river basins of the River Dommel and River Mark, a translation has been carried out from the Flemish Soil Map to a groundwater map. Since the method on which the groundwater characteristics are based is different for the two countries along the border there can be a difference between the groundwater levels. Generally this difference remains smaller than 20 centimetres, however for the GLG values in the basin of the River Mark, the difference can raise up to 80 centimetres. There are several possible causes for this difference. First the Dutch GxG map is the result of an interpolation between various survey stations, spread over the river basin. To the edges of an area however extrapolation takes place what can lead to inaccuracies. Since only in some cases there are large differences it is concluded that the generated GxG values for the Flemish part are sufficiently precise. Some uncertainty can or must be taken into account.

Groundwater Netherlands The GxG-maps produced in the Netherlands are based on inter - and extrapolation of point measurements. All point measurements have been translated using spatial coverage data as the Dutch Elevation Model (AHN) to a spatial coverage of the river basin, using regression and correction techniques (De Gruiter, 2004). The reliability of the maps depends on the density of the survey stations and the correctness of the method. The standard deviation is presented in a reliability map. It is sufficient for use in the EcoDSS.

Water parameters The spatial import data, which are required for the model Water Storage and Nature is: salinity, hardness, sediment content and phosphate content of the inundating water. The water boards monitor the watercourses and report to the province. In the report there is sufficient information to determine the salinity and phosphate content of the waters. It is however important to take into account the method how the maps have been manufactured. On several survey stations watercourses are being monitored and the information is extrapolated within the bounded parts of the water system. Since the river basins are far from the sea the salinity is most low. For the water quality there are, however, large spatial differences. For each sub basin the water quality is showed. In reality when water flows from one sub basin to another, the quality doesn’t change when crossing the border. Because of this it can happen that values do not represent real values well (certainly in the case of a inundation). When interpreting the results for this reason the input values of water quality have to be taken into account.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 10

There were no spatial data available on water hardness. The model needs the water hardness categorized in three classes. Because the basins consist mainly of sandy grounds it is assumed that the water is hard (pH > 7). It is known that this is not everywhere the case, especially not in the upper stream parts of the River Dommel. Some of the nature found in these areas is sensitive for hard water. Therefore, if the assumption is not correct the results for these types of nature will not be correct. This needs to be checked during the interpretation of the results. The model Water Storage and Agriculture requires the quality of the water expressed in the origin of the water. The model assumes that the quality is dependent whether it originates from rain, a reservoir or a river. Because the feasible storage areas are all located around the watercourses it is assumed all the inundating water originates from a river. Because at some locations this assumption might not be correct a detailed interpretation might be necessary.

Land Use Map In this map is, among other types of land use, indicated what crops are grown. This is a snapshot of the situation when the aerial pictures were made on basis of which the map was created. It is likely that in the mean time changes in type of grown crops have taken place. Often it doesn’t matter what crop type is inundated. It does matter whether it is grassland or field cropping. These types of land use don’t change much because they are dependent on the local situation. Therefore changes in land use probably have not much effect on the results.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 11

6 Sensitivity Analysis

A model is a schematisation of reality. Both in the input data and at creating and adapting the used models choices have been made with respect to simplification, used information and accuracy. In this appendix is described how sensitive the used models are for small modifications in the input data. This knowledge is important for the interpretation of the results. Because of the characteristics of the methods it is not possible to carry out a quantitative uncertainty analysis within the framework of this project. Therefore in a qualitative manner is described for which aspects the different models are sensitive.

Water Storage and Nature As described in paragraph 4.5.1 for five aspects is determined if a Nature Target Type can be combined with water storage. For a storage of water with certain characteristics the most negative results determines the final result. In this paragraph is per aspect the sensitivity of the analysis discussed.

Suitability flora The characteristics of the Nature Target Types, which are important for this aspect, are inundation tolerance and recovery period. The characteristics of inundation, which determine the suitability of a Nature Target Type for combination with water storage are season, period, frequency and depth. It is striking that inundation in the winter gives hardly any problems, except for Nature Target Types, which are small to moderately tolerant in combination with long, frequent inundations. In the summer the inverse is the case. Only Nature Target Types that tolerate inundations are for some degree combinable with short but not too frequent inundations. It is interesting that the depth of the inundation has little influence. When the input variable shallow is changed to deep, the result changes from unsuitable to very unsuitable, and a value of very suitable changed to suitable. The method is therefore not very sensitive for change of the water depth. Also recovery time hardly plays a role, only for long and incidental inundations in the summer.

Suitability fauna For the suitability of fauna concerning inundation the same factors are of influence as at the suitability of flora. The suitability of flora nearly shows the same picture as the suitability of fauna, except that there are much more uncertainties in the results. Moreover the lengths of the inundation periods play a larger role. Also for long inundation in the winter intolerant Nature Target Types are not suitable for combination with storage.

Suitability nutrients The characteristics of the Nature Target Types, which are important for this aspect, are its productivity and the type of system (aquatic or terrestrial). Since in the EcoDSS only terrestrial systems are being become examined only the productivity of the Nature Target Type is of importance. The sensitivity of the Nature Target Type depends on water quality, the sediment content and the frequency of inundation. Storage of water with a small sediment concentration and a good quality can be combined with all Nature Target Types. Low productive species are at a moderate to small sediment concentration well combinable with inundation with good quality water. These types don’t tolerate an inundation with a large sediment concentration. Moderately and high productive Nature Target Types can be combined with inundations with all kinds of sediment concentration, water quality and

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 12

frequencies. For low productive Nature Target Types the model is therefore reasonable sensitive concerning the sediment concentration and water quality. Attention is needed for these parameters.

Suitability acidity For the assessment of the suitability of the combination of Nature Target Types with storage concerning the hardness of the water, the sensitivity for acid of the Nature Target Types and the type of system are of importance. Since only terrestrial systems are considered this last variable is not taken into account. The sensitivity of a Nature Target Types is then dependent on the hardness of the inundating water and the frequency. It appears that weak acid and neutral-basic Nature Target Types can be combined with all water hardnesses and frequencies. A frequent inundation with hard water cannot be combined with a (weak -)acid Nature Target Type. Acid Nature Target Types can only be inundated with moderately hard water if the inundation occurs incidentally. For this reason the model is only sensitive in the case of acid Nature Target Types for uncertainties in the hardness of water.

Suitability salinity For determining the suitability concerning salinity the sensitivity of the Nature Target Types and the salinity of the inundating water are of importance. The relation between these two variables is linear: salt-loving Nature Target Types tolerate a flood with brackish water well, and sweet Nature Target Types tolerate inundations with sweet water. The sweet Nature Target Types are sensitive to a change in the salinity.

Results for the Rivers Dommel and Mark As can be expected the Nature Target Types in the stream valleys are mainly moderate to very tolerant concerning inundations. The Nature Target Types which are mainly found in the lower stream valleys are the most tolerant, because these are nutrient-rich areas. This means that the moderately tolerant Nature Target Types are reasonably sensitive for the season in which the inundation occurs. This is the same for the tolerance concerning inundation of the fauna. It must be added that the fauna in the winter is more sensitive for longer inundations. Mainly low productive Nature Target Types are sensitive for inaccuracies in the values of the sediment concentration and water quality. There exist however only a few low productive Nature Target Types in the stream valleys so that the sensitivity of nature on inaccuracies in general has little influence on the final result. It is striking that especially weak-acid Nature Target Types exist in the stream valleys. There are however some trajectories where neutral-basic Nature Target Types exist. This means that the Nature Target Types are only sensitive for frequent inundations. A second striking matter is that the map indicates that the translated Nature Target Types in Flanders are very acid. There is a large contrast with the Nature Target Types just over the border, that are mainly weak-acid. It is unclear if this is a result of the translation of the Nature Target Types, or that there is definitely acid nature because of different circumstances in Flanders.

Water Storage and Agriculture As explained in paragraph 4.5.2 the model Water Storage and Agriculture determines for several aspects of agriculture the effects and risks related to inundation. In the EcoDSS these risks are grouped into two results: agriculture and contaminants. In this paragraph the uncertainty concerning the sensitivity of these aspects to the relevant variables is discussed.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 13

Suitability agriculture The manner in which risks for several aspects concerning agriculture and livestock-farming are joined leads to the fact that a lot of agricultural areas are determined unsuitable to serve as storage areas. It appears that it is a large difference if an agricultural area serves for crop farming or for livestock-farming. The model indicates that in general agricultural areas are never very suitable to store water. Only in the winter short infrequent inundations can take place on agricultural areas. Because it is assumed that the inundating waters originate from rivers the result is that model judges inundations in the summer are always negative, except for short period inundations on grasslands.

Suitability contaminants Inundation with river water produces no problems if it is a short inundation that takes place in the winter. The method proves be mainly sensitive for uncertainties in the duration.

Results for the Dommel and the Mark Of the main points of the EcoDSS is that storage water originates from the rivers. The only other spatial variable is the type of crop, and that is fixed. For the Rivers Dommel and Mark this means that in the summer only grassland are suitable to store water. In the winter also for short, non-frequent inundations also plough land can be inundated.

Subsurface retention and nature The only variable in this model is the Mean Spring Groundwater level. In a graph, belonging to the relevant Nature Target Type, the model looks up for each location how suitable the present groundwater conditions are for the Nature Target Type. The next step is that it analysis the change in suitability when the groundwater level is changed. How sensitive the method is for inaccuracies in the input data and the used information depends on the location of the current GVG in the graph. The more near the GVG value is to a class border, how larger the chance that the real GVG is located in the adjacent class. Moreover the class borders are also uncertain what increases the total uncertainty. If there are quantitative values for the uncertainty the sensitivity can be determined. If the chance that a GVG value is located near the border of a class boundary is compared with the inaccuracy of the model and the GVG values, can be concluded that the EcoDSS concerning this model is not very sensitive for inaccuracies.

Subsurface retention and Agriculture. The variables in this method are next to the Mean Lowest Groundwater Level (GLG) and the Mean Highest Groundwater Level (GHG) the crop and soil type. The chance exists that the actual crop type is different than the crop type indicated in the Land Use Map. The sensitivity of the EcoDSS for this uncertainty is however not particularly large. The reason is that if a crop type is replaced by another crop type, this crop type will require the same groundwater characteristics as the replaced crop type. Is this not the case then the profits will be less. The sensitivity of the model for inaccuracies in the GLG and GHG on the other hand is particularly small. Since the method is based the percentage decrease in yield, which is reflected in a semi-continue field, the percentage will at small inaccuracies hardly change. The chance that because of this inaccuracy the result is found in another class than the real class is therefore very small. For this reason the model is most sensitive for changes in the type of agriculture.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 14

7 Reports workshops

Three workshops were held that contributed to the validation of the EcoDSS (see section 4.8) and the assessment of the suitability of the model (see section 5.3). Here the reports of two of the workshops are presented. 1: Workshop held on July 18, 2005, with water managers from Water Board Brabantse Delta. 1: Workshop held on July 19, 2005, with water managers from Water Board De Dommel. Of the third workshop, in which the EcoDSS was presented to the Coordination Group of the NODP, no report was made.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 15

Dommel 1

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 16

Dommel 2

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 17

BD 1

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 18

BD2

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 19

BD3

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 20

8 Testing of the EcoDSS for suitability

In the following paragraph the EcoDSS will be tested to the criteria of Ubbels and Verhallen (2000). The score for each criterion is presented next to the heading, ranging from bad to good. A criterion is scored good when the EcoDSS contains that feature. Is that not the case, but with some simple adjustments or supplemental tools the criterion can be reached, then it is scored medium. Otherwise it gets the value bad.

8.1.1 User friendliness A tool can be considered user-friendly when it is easy to use by all kinds of users. This is especially important when groups of participants with different features are involved. A user- friendly tool is also easy to learn and remember and should provide the information needed in a meaningful form and in a timely manner (Loucks 1995, form Ubbels and Verhallen, 2000).

Well organized screen The organization of the screen of the EcoDSS is partly dependent on the program in which it is incorporated, ArcGIS. This program offers a lot of opportunities to open extra toolbars to analyse and edit data layers. For the EcoDSS the main options are the pan, zoom and identify6 option. The other toolbars can be turned off. The EcoDSS itself has only one toolbar in which the user can enter input variables, result maps and additional map layers (see also paragraph 4.7.3). An extra window is present in which the legend is shown. Therefore, provided that the unnecessary toolbars are closed, the screen is well organized.

Background knowledge To use the tool background knowledge is necessary (see paragraph 5.1.2). The results that are shown are generated by models of which is important to know the characteristics. Only then the results can be interpreted correctly.

Professional language In some parts of the tool not much professional terms are used. With the use of hyperlinks or information icons these terms can be explained so the language used is interpretable for non- professionals.

Visualization The results of the tool are presented in the form of maps (see for examples section 4.8). The main characteristic of the presentation is the difference in color. The values of the results are presented in a color that is recognizable for the user. For values like good and bad, colors are used like green and red (difference in hue). For variations concerning certainty a saturation change is applied. The use of colors is therefore well understandable. Next to the result maps extra map layers can be opened for reference. Color use is also according to standards. The use of extra maps makes the interpretation easier because situation and input values can be shown. It is the choice of the user what information he would like to see on the screen.

6 With this tool information on a point in a particular layer can be requested.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 21

Guidance The toolbar of the EcoDSS is very simple. The user just has to check every option and then press the show button. No real guidance is needed here.

Manual or built-in help No built-in help exists. A manual is only necessary for providing the background information. This information is available in the report published together with the model. Because this background information is necessary for a sound interpretation of the results it is important for users to have knowledge about this. This means the tool can only be used by experts.

Insight into modeling need The EcoDSS scores well on this criterium. The user has nothing to do with the modeling. This has all been done in advance. So he doesn’t have to prepare input, adjust parameters or couple models. According to this criterium the EcoDSS is very user-friendly.

8.1.2 Collaboration Characteristic for this aspect is that communication must be extremely well supported. To score well on this criterion a DSS should be able to store knowledge generated by the process and make it easy accessible. To involve participants the DSS should be able to represent their perspectives and make them explicit. It is helpful if the DSS can support achieving final consensus (Ostrowksi, 1997, from Ubbels and Verhallen, 2000).

Communication The tool encourages communication by provoking discussion, expression of opinion and knowledge-sharing. The results that are shown are generated on the basis of certain assumptions and (simplified) input maps. These results can be compared with the knowledge of experts on the subject and area experts. Therefore information is shared, discussions can be held and opinions are expressed. In that way the EcoDSS can be very valuable.

Storing generated knowledge The tool doesn’t provide the option to store information generated during the process. This is considered to be a large flaw.

Collective problem definition The EcoDSS offers the opportunity to have a look at the different aspects concerning the suitability of ecology for certain measures. This can clarify the problems that exist in a certain area. There is also the option to have a look at the possibilities for solving the problem, which can contribute to the problem definition. It should be kept in mind that the tool is designed for the phases after the problem definition phase.

Divergent views Characteristic for the EcoDSS is that it shows the link between a number of policy fields concerned with water management. Other perspectives on the situation are difficult to show because of the characteristics of the EcoDSS. Information can only be shown in maps, which are very objective. It is possible to show maps with themes that are of interest for the other stakeholders (eg history, ownership). Combining these different themes in one view makes it possible to get some insights in the other parties’ stakes.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 22

Identifying evaluation criteria There is no explicit function to collectively identify evaluation criteria. Implicit the EcoDSS can contribute to the definition of evaluation criteria but this requires supplemental tools.

Consensus There are not explicit mechanisms for consensus-building in the tool. Implicitly the EcoDSS can attribute to the process of consensus-building, but only as an objective view on the situation after taking measures. Because there is no active support for activities for consensus building the tool does not score well concerning this criterium.

8.1.3 Transparency A DSS is considered to be transparent when it is visible under what assumptions and constraints the tool operates. Also visualization of uncertainties contributes to the transparency (Ubbels and Verhallen, 2000).

Model assumptions and constraints The assumptions and constraints in the tool are not showed explicitly. These can only be found in the background information. Therefore the tool concerning this criterion is considered not user-friendly.

Uncertainties Uncertainties are only visualized in the integrated model Water Storage and Nature. This is not the case for the other models. Still the results should not be taken for granted because there are uncertainties in input data and in de methods on which the EcoDSS bases its results. Because of the use of classified input data and the logical character of the model uncertainties cannot be expressed clearly. Uncertainty can only be reasoned with the help of background information and expert knowledge.

8.1.4 Flexibility If a DSS can be applied to various differing policy questions it is flexible. Also when changes in boundary and other conditions can easily be incorporated a tool is considered flexible.

Range of policy questions The tool is designed for specific relations within a water system. Policy questions can only be defined in the range of the relation between ecology, agriculture and the water system. Within this range different policy questions can be formulated. Because of the level of the tool (regional scale), it is to some extent possible for users to define alternatives and measures and to retrieve the results of those alternatives and measures. These alternatives and measures themselves cannot be entered into the EcoDSS, but the results of those measures and alternatives can. Therefore the tool is quite flexible in policy questions within the band of water management and ecology.

Flexible architecture The tool can easily adapted to examine new problems or physical areas. Because of the GIS- character of the model new areas are no problem, provided that the input data is available. New problems can be examined if a suitable model is available that can use input data available.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 23

8.1.5 Assessment What role a DSS can play in an interactive planning process is dependent on its goal and the way it operates. These characteristics help to clarify the potential of the tool by revealing what the tool assesses and how.

Integrated analysis Not all relevant aspects of a problem can be assessed in in the EcoDSS. The tool focuses on the relation between two important aspects, namely ecology and hydrology. Other aspects, like history, economy etcetera are not taken into account and should indirectly be part of the analysis. If spatial information on these aspects is available, there is the possibility to assess them because of the GIS character of the model.

Goals and objectives The tool does not actively assist in identifying goals and objectives. By using the tool a better insight into the problems and the situation can be gained which can contribute to defining the goals and objectives. This is not an integrated part of the EcoDSS.

Possible solutions The tool is designed to assess the results of possible solutions. This is an iterative process in which solutions can be invented, assessed and with the help of the assessment new solutions can be designed. This process is not actively stimulated, the tool merely forms a help during the process.

Initial ranking of possible solutions Possible solutions can not be screened and/or ranked.

Solutions translated into alternatives Solutions and actions can be combined at the regional level. The measures on a local level that are part of these solutions and actions and that have to be taken are not part of the model (see paragraph 4.2.2) and therefore combination of these measures is not possible. The results of these combined measures can be analysed.

Effects estimated by modeling There is no quantitative estimation of effects because of the logical character of the EcoDSS. The tool gives a qualitative estimation of effects and that is also the strength of the model. By giving a qualitative effect the results are open for discussion. Also because of the use of classified input and output data uncertainty is decreased.

Simple linear relations and No comprehensive calculations take place because of the logical characteristic of the model. Classified input data is combined which gives a result using lookup tables. Therefore the results can very easily be regained using the input data and the analysis methods.

Expert systems The tool itself is not made up of expert systems and can be used totally by non-experts. However for interpretation of the results experts are indispensable.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 24

Detailed complex models Detailed complex models can have generated some of the input data but are not part of the EcoDSS itself. Concerning this criterion the EcoDSS is very user-friendly.

Comparing alternatives There is no method incorporated in the EcoDSS to compare different alternatives. Because the EcoDSS is GIS-based, with the help of GIS -programs alternatives can be compared. The tool doesn’t have this function itself so experts should carry out this comparison.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 25

9 Recommendations for improvement of the EcoDSS

Figure 18 and Figure 19 can help determine how the EcoDSS can be improved to make it better applicable in a phase of the planning process. In this Appendix these extensions will be the matter of discussion. Because the scope of this research is on GIS -models, and not on other tools, these tools will not be discussed in detail.

9.1.1 General The tool scores well in encouraging communication because of the visual display of effects, which are the results of measures input by the user. The tool on the other hand is incapable of storing any information that is the result of this communication. Acording to Ubbels (2000) these two aspects should be the main characteristics of a Decision Support Tool and be present in all phases of a planning process. Therefore to improve the suitability of the EcoDSS in general, functions should be added to store generated knowledge. The main functions that should be added are a whiteboard function (for writing down notes of discussions) and a save function (to save a combination of input parameters and map extent). Also useful for the collaboration process could be a function to generate an objective tree (possibly for each phase).

9.1.2 Problem analysis The EcoDSS is not well suited for problem analysis as stated in paragraph 5.3.1. To make the tool suitable for use in this phase, improvements have to be made for support in the activities collective problem definition, incorporating divergent views, identifying objectives/goals, consensus building and identifying evaluation criteria. For these activities non-spatial tools are required, possibly supported by a GIS -model.

Collective problem definition To improve the tool for support in collective problem definition the tool should be able to show the situation from different perspectives. Since the tool is designed for problems concerning the relation between ecology and water management, the problem definition should focus on this relation. The main objective of the extension should be to make clear what the problem is. This can be done with comprehensive and clear animations, figures and pictures. In this case it could be the (dynamic) results of hydrodynamic models (which show the water management problem), hyperlinks to pictures of the situation under discussion, and graphs showing relations between aspects of the problem.

Incorporating divergent views GIS is the ideal platform for combining different aspects of a problem. These different views on a problem can best be diverged by showing theme maps, characteristic for the perspectives, together. This way the perspectives of stakeholders can be visualized to other stakeholders and discussion and acceptance can be improved. In the EcoDSS the incorporated perspectives are the water system, nature and agriculture. Because of the flexibility of GIS-models it is possible to incorporate other perspectives, provided that suitable models are available.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 26

Identifying objectives/goals As mentioned before, a function should be added that supports discussion between participants. This could be an objective tree, a role playing game etcetera. There should also be a possibility to visualize in some way the different aspects of a problem. This is related to the incorporation of divergent views. It makes it possible to take all aspects into account during the collaborative problem definition.

Consensus building For improving consensus building, some functions should be added to the EcoDSS that are difficult to incorporate in a GIS-based model. Goals and accomplishments of the process should be visualized and discussion on those aspects should be supported. This could be done using an adaptable objective tree (non-spatial) and maps in which bottlenecks and consensus-areas are marked (spatial). A useful extension would be a tool to evaluate the process.

Identifying evaluation criteria The EcoDSS does not support the comparison of alternatives. Often numerical comparisons take place to choose between different alternatives. Because of the existence of different perspectives on problems stakeholders together should identify the evaluation criteria. This process already starts during the problem analysis phase. The EcoDSS doesn’t support the generation of numerical results, which makes it difficult to compare different scenarios. Therefore functions like a damage function, cost-function, area-calculator and a profit function should be included. With these functions comparisons can be made and for which evaluation criteria have to be determined.

9.1.3 Search for solutions Some activities that take place during the phase in which solutions are being sought also take place during the problem analysis phase. These activities are incorporating divergent views, identifying objectives/goals, consensus building and identifying evaluation criteria. The improvements needed to make the EcoDSS suitable for supporting these activities have already been mentioned in the preceding paragraph. During the search for solutions phase the other activities are the seeking of possible solutions, the initial ranking of possibly solutions and the translation of solutions into alternatives.

Seeking possible solutions The solutions that have to be found are on a regional scale and are a combination of input parameters. To have a good view on changes as a result of differing input parameters there should be a function to store scenarios. The EcoDSS only supports the input of parameters for a whole area. In reality, the parameters will be spatially distributed. Therefore the EcoDSS should be able to use spatially distributed input parameters to analyze the area under view.

Initial ranking of possible solutions The EcoDSS does not support the initial ranking of possible solutions. Using a hydro dynamical model solutions can be screened on the feasibility. To verify if the constraints from other perspectives than the hydrological are being met, the numerical functions mentioned earlier (cost-function, damage-function, profit-function, area calculator) should be incorporated.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 27

Translation of solution into alternatives This activity also requires the ability to use spatially distributed input parameters and to store alternatives.

9.1.4 Analysis/modeling Next to the translation of alternatives, for which the ability to input spatially distributed input parameters and the option to store alternatives are necessary, during this phae the activity in which the effects of alternatives are estimated takes place. Because the EcoDSS is designed to show the effects of certain measures the tool is well capable to perform this activity. Because parameters are input for a whole area a spatially distributed input would be a good improvement. For a numerical effect analysis the earlier mentioned numerical functions should be added. In the present state, the EcoDSS is best suitable for use in this phase of the planning process.

9.1.5 Discussion of results According to Ubbels (2000) the activities consensus building and identifying evaluation criteria (improvements discussed in section 5.4) also take place during this phase. Important in this phase are the new activities visualization of effects and comparing alternatives.

Visualization of effects The EcoDSS is very-well able to visualize the effects. The tool is GIS -based which is a very good method for presenting spatial information. Because of the classified output presentation effects of a combination of input parameters the effects are visualized clearly. A good addition would be the incorporation of a good topographic base layer to show clearly where output is located. During the analysis of an area it can be handy to review the input parameters. Therefore these should be visible all time.

Comparing alternatives This activity requires some numerical data which should be the result of the earlier mentioned numerical functions. For this activity also support for spatially distributed input parameters and storage of alternatives is necessary.

9.1.6 Policy choice The main activity during this phase, next to the all-present activities of communication and storing generated knowledge, is the choice for an alternative. This activity is the result of a comparison of alternatives, which is dealt with in the previous paragraph. Because the EcoDSS lacks most of the functionality to compare alternatives, choosing an alternative can only take place if an extension to compare alternatives is added.

Suitability of the GIS-model ‘EcoDSS’ to support interactive planning processes 28