Delft University of Technology an Alternative Approach for Socio‒Hydrology Case Study Research
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Delft University of Technology An alternative approach for socio‒hydrology Case study research Mostert, Erik DOI 10.5194/hess-22-317-2018 Publication date 2017 Document Version Final published version Published in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions Citation (APA) Mostert, E. (2017). An alternative approach for socio‒hydrology: Case study research. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 22, 317-329. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-317-2018 Important note To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 317–329, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-317-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. An alternative approach for socio-hydrology: case study research Erik Mostert Department Water Management, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, the Netherlands Correspondence: Erik Mostert ([email protected]) Received: 19 May 2017 – Discussion started: 19 June 2017 Revised: 6 October 2017 – Accepted: 23 November 2017 – Published: 15 January 2018 Abstract. Currently the most popular approach in socio hy- large interdisciplinary research project to study the topogra- drology is to develop coupled human–water models. This ar- phy and geology of the basin and the formation of peat soils ticle proposes an alternative approach, qualitative case study since 6000 BC; the human interventions in the Neolithic, Ro- research, involving a systematic review of (1) the human man, and Medieval period; the 17th century drainage works activities affecting the hydrology in the case, (2) the main and the resulting peat shrinkage and wastage; the subse- human actors, and (3) the main factors influencing the ac- quent works to cope with increasing flooding problems; the tors and their activities. Moreover, this article presents a case changing governance structure to make these works possible; study of the Dommel Basin in Belgium and the Netherlands, the changing economy of the basin; and the role of politics and compares this with a coupled model of the Kissimmee and agricultural lobbies (e.g. Godwin, 1978; Richardson et Basin in Florida. In both basins a “pendulum swing” from al., 1978; Darby, 1983; Hall and Coles, 1994; Sheail, 2002; water resources development and control to protection and Purseglove, 2015; Mostert, 2017a). This would involve ex- restoration can be observed. The Dommel case study more- tensive literature study and much field work and archival re- over points to the importance of institutional and financial search. arrangements, community values, and broader social, eco- Another option would be to model the co-evolution of wa- nomic, and technical developments. These factors are miss- ter and society. Using insights from previous research on the ing from the Kissimmee model. Generally, case studies can Great Ouse Basin and comparable basins, a coupled human– result in a more complete understanding of individual cases water model could be developed, which could then be cal- than coupled models, and if the cases are selected carefully ibrated and validated in order to simulate past and predict and compared with previous studies, it is possible to general- future developments. Alternatively, the coupled model could ize on the basis of them. Case studies also offer more levers be used as an exploratory toy model to generate possible ex- for management and facilitate interdisciplinary cooperation. planations and develop scenarios for future developments. Coupled models, on the other hand, can be used to generate The most popular option in socio-hydrology currently is possible explanations of past developments and quantitative the second one, developing coupled models. In this paper I scenarios for future developments. The article concludes that, argue for more attention for the first option – qualitative case given the limited attention they currently get and their po- study research. I will first briefly review the current socio- tential benefits, case studies deserve more attention in socio- hydrological models, focusing on how society is included, hydrology. and propose a specific type of case study research as an al- ternative. Next, I will present a case study of the Dommel Basin in Belgium and the Netherlands since 1800 and com- pare this with a coupled model of the Kissimmee Basin in 1 Introduction Florida (Chen et al., 2016). Both basins are examples of the “pendulum swing” (Kandasamy et al., 2014) from water re- Suppose you are interested in how river basins and society in- sources development and control to protection and restora- teract and evolve together. And suppose you are interested es- tion. In the Kissimmee model the pendulum swing is ex- pecially in the Great Ouse Basin in the east of England. How plained in terms of community sensitivity, but I intend to would you study this basin? One option would be to set up a Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 318 E. Mostert: An alternative approach for socio-hydrology show that important elements are missing from this expla- to make voluntary contributions to the upkeep of the flood nation. In the final section, I will discuss what the best ap- defences when it seems economically rational for them to proach for socio-hydrology is. I will discuss the key differ- free-ride on the efforts of others. ences between qualitative case study research and coupled Despite their simplifications, most socio-hydrological modelling, their comparative advantages and disadvantages, models can mimic patterns that can be observed in reality. the possibilities to combine them, and whether there are any The explanation may be that the models include many vari- other approaches that could be used. ables for which no data are available and consequently have many degrees of freedom (Troy et al., 2015). It could also be that the variables not included did not vary a lot in the area 2 Socio-hydrological modelling and period covered. Or it could be a combination of both. Whatever the explanation, the result is that the validity of the The term socio-hydrology was coined in 2012 by Sivapalan models outside of the area and period modelled is unclear et al. (2012). It was defined as “a new science of people and predictions based on them are highly uncertain. and water” that aims at “understanding the dynamics and co- Socio-hydrological systems can never be modelled ex- evolution of coupled human–water system” (Sivapalan et al., haustively, but it is important to include the most influential 2012, p. 1271). Socio-hydrology treats society as an endoge- variables and processes (see Garcia et al., 2016). These de- nous part of the water cycle and studies not only the impact pend, first, on the issue of interest, which in turn depends on of people on water, but also of water on people (e.g. Pande the disciplinary background of the researchers and the polit- and Sivapalan, 2017). This would result in better understand- ical and policy context (Lane, 2014). Secondly, they depend ing of long-term developments, better long-term predictions, on the area and period studied. Societal response to hydrolog- and better support for water management than approaches ical change may be limited when the costs of action are indi- that treat society as exogenous, such as scenario-based ap- vidual but the benefits collective and when costs have to be proaches. made upstream but the benefits are downstream. Societal re- While there are some qualitative socio-hydrological stud- sponse will be bigger when there are strong community val- ies (Jr. Wescoat, 2013; Gober and Wheater, 2014; Kan- ues (Yu et al., 2017; Mostert, 2017a) and when appropriate dasamy et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2014), the dominant approach institutional arrangements are in place (e.g. Ostrom, 1990; in socio-hydrology is to develop coupled human–water mod- Brondizio et al., 2009). However, such values and arrange- els. The number of such models is slowly increasing. The is- ments are not present always and everywhere: they have to sues modelled include flooding (Di Baldassarre et al., 2013, be developed and maintained and adapted to changing con- 2017; Viglione et al., 2014; Grames et al., 2016; Yu et al., ditions and needs (e.g. Mostert, 2012). 2017; Girons Lopez et al., 2017; Barendrecht et al., 2017), The socio-hydrological literature contains several recom- water quality management (Chang et al., 2014), reservoir op- mendations for future research. A first one is public partici- eration (Garcia, 2016); water supply (Srinivasan, 2015; Ali pation (Lane, 2014; Sivapalan and Blöschl, 2015; Srinivasan et al., 2017), groundwater abstraction (Noël and Cai, 2017), et al., 2017). Public participation can be a means to obtain land degradation (Elshafei et al., 2015), subsistence farming data from the public, to educate them, and to promote buy-in (Pande and Savenije, 2016), the pendulum swing from water of model results and subsequent decisions. In addition, it can resources development and control to protection and restora- be a means to involve the public in the modelling itself and tion (van Emmerik et al., 2014; Elshafei et al., 2014; Chen give them control over what is modelled exactly exactly and et al., 2016; Roobavannan et al., 2017), and the collapse of what (policy relevant) assumptions are used.