WINCOMS : Water Framework Directive – Integration, Negotiation and Communication of Optimal...

WINCOMS : Water Framework Directive – Integration, Negotiation

and Communication of Optimal

Measures with Stakeholders

Michael Bruen, Mary Kelly, William Magette

WINCOMS

• WFD: a detailed assessment of available measures

• recommendations for and practical demonstrations of decision support systems

• integrate knowledge of the best available measures with the criteria and preferences of all relevant stakeholders

• can be used for decision analysis, negotiation and mediation in developing WFD policy and measures

Research Context

Objective 1Produce a comprehensive scientific and technical description of all measures available to meet the requirements of the WFD together with a ranking on the basis of all relevant criteria, using formal multi-criteria methods. [ ranked list of measures and criteria]. These results are targeted principally at RBD decision makers, but will also add to stakeholder and general technical understanding of the performance, advantages and disadvantages of all potential measures.

Objective 2Survey existing decision support systems and identify a short-list of 2 or 3 of the most suitable for WFD decision-making. Implement, adopt and test these in a case-study situation (using the ERBD project), evaluate their performance (particularly in respect of interaction with stakeholders) and recommend the most suitable system or approach. [ survey of DSS, ranked short-list and demonstration of recommended DSS in conjunction with Eastern RBD ]. The principle targets are stakeholders and decision makers involved in WFD activities.

Objective 3Identify and study the knowledge, opinions and preferences of all relevant stakeholders and integrate the results with the decision support systems implemented in objective 2.[ report on stakeholders attitudes and preferences, on practicality and value of DSS as decision, negotiation and mediating tool in developing policy/ measures.] These results will be of wide applicability in the sociology of environmental opinions and preferences and the communication and influence of science knowledge.

WINCOMS Project - people

• Engineers

• Scientists

• Sociologists

• Communication specialists

• RBD Managers

• Invited experts

Objectives / Criteria

Indicators


Indicators


Alternatives / Measures

Indicators



Simulation /Assessment

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

YES

NO

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

YES

NO

Negotiation

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Ladder of Participation*

(*Based on Watson, 1996)

Enlightened Approach

Old Command and Control Approach

Watson, R. D. 1996. Integrating catchment management: the human dimension. Proceedings, Multiple Land Use and Catchment Management International Conference, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. Pp. 125-137.

Decision Support Systems : Pressures

• Increasing quantity of data ( spatial)

• Increasing complexity of analysis ( models)

• Need for visualisation/demonstration of results ( decision makers)

• Transparent and logical decision support ( MCDA)

• Public participation ( stakeholders)

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Data

DTM - slope but also...

topographical wetness indices

flow path length

Soil P chemistry component-to ‘rank’ soil types in terms of P sorption/desorption

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Data

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Models

Data

BASINS-3 systemBASINS-3 system

Conceptual representation of the Water Dynamic Modelling Conceptual representation of the Water Dynamic Modelling in the HSPF modelin the HSPF model

UPPER ZONE

INTER FLOW ZONE

LOWER ZONE

GROUND WATER ZONE

SURFACE FLOW

BASE FLOW

INTER FLOW

LZSN

LZS

INEXP

2RTFRATIO

IBARINDIMAX

LSZ

LZSNINFILTIBAR

INFILT: infiltration parameterLZSN: nominal lower zone storageLZS: actual lower zone storageINEXP: exponent parameterIND: ratio of max. to mean infiltration capac.RTF: interflow parameter

SURFACE ZONE

Canopy interception modelCanopy interception model

Snow melt modelSnow melt model

Overland flow & Channel modelOverland flow & Channel model

Variably Saturated flow model

Variably Saturated flow model

Evapotrnaspiration loss modelEvapotrnaspiration loss model

Rain and Snow inputRain and Snow input

RootRootzone

zone

Groundwater

Groundwaterzonezone

Unsaturated

Unsaturated

zonezone

Components of the flow routine in the SHETRAN modelComponents of the flow routine in the SHETRAN model

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250

day

DR

Po

bs

, D

RP

es

t (k

g P

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Qo

bs

, Q

es

t (m

3/s

ec

)

Reactive P (kg)

MinPest (kg)

Qobs (m3/sec)

Qest (m3/sec)

Oona catchment : daily observed and modelled flows and loads of Oona catchment : daily observed and modelled flows and loads of dissolved reactive phosphorus (SWAT model)dissolved reactive phosphorus (SWAT model)

(1/1/2002 - 31/12/2002)(1/1/2002 - 31/12/2002)

Oona : Total Phosphorus

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Models

Data

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Models

MCDA

Data

MCDA in Mulino DSS (Giupponi & Fassio)

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Models

MCDA

Data

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Models

MCDA

NegotiationTools

Data

Group discussions

Compromise in Mulino (Giupponi & Fassio )

GOUVERNe (Quintana, Fundowicz, Periera, Blasques)

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Models

MCDA

NegotiationTools

Data

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Models

MCDA

CognitiveMapping

NegotiationTools

Data

SOCIOLOGISTS

Aspects / Reviews

• Approaches to management/decision problem

• Formal Multi-Criteria Decision tools

• Modelling Frameworks

• Existing DSS systems

• People Issues

• Other Issues

Approaches - I

• Adaptive management • Argumentative approach • Cognitive Mapping • Cooperative modelling and design• Domains of discourse • Ecosystem approach• Evidential Reasoning• Groups: Negotiation and Consensus building

Approaches -II

• Qualitative Reasoning

• Rule-based approaches

• Scenario analysis

• Social Learning

• Social multi-criteria decision support

• Soft systems approach

• Traditional Community Governance

Adaptive Management - 1

• Recognises that because of significant uncertainties in the operation and management of environmental systems and that pre-determined optimal solutions may not be appropriate.

• Policy evolves in response to better understanding based on studying the effects and effectiveness of policy changes

Adaptive Management-2

• Recognises significant uncertainty in hydro-ecological systems

• Iterative management decisions are “experiments”

• Explicit experimental learning procedure to reduce uncertainty

• Also better validation of models

• Can be “Passive” or “Active”

Adaptive Management: examples

• Water Framework Directive cycle

• “Room for the River” – the Netherlands

• “Managed Retreat” – the U.K.

• In-built flexibility (e.g. OPW & Climate Change) - Ireland

Argumentative approach

• The study of argumentation is deeply rooted in various disciplines such as philosophy, logic and linguistics,

• deals with the verbal, contextual, situational and other pragmatic factors of communication process in areas where logic cannot adequately address the situation.

Cognitive Mapping

• It is describes how people represent internally the external environment

• It clarifies people’s conceptions about their environment by recording them in diagrams showing the concepts and their interconnections. Cognitive maps are often determined from interviews.

Domains of Discourse

• If one is able to model some phenomenon or effect on a computer then this computer model can be used to argue about that topic. The model can be used to assess the pros and cons of various factual claims concerning the phenomenon as well as the pros and cons of various proposals for actions dealing with it.

• Any exchange of arguments presupposes some shared context of objects, properties, relations, and inferences. This context is often called the domain of discourse

Ecological Approach - I

• Objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice.

• Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level

• Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems

• Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context.

Ecological Approach - II

• Any such ecosystem-management program should: (a) reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity, (b) align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, (c) internalise costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

• Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach

Ecological Approach - III

• Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning

• The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales

• Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.

• Management must recognize that change is inevitable.

Ecological Approach - IV

• The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.

• The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practice.

• The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines

Evidential Reasoning

• Identify environmental factors

• Grade impacts of factors

• Belief Decision Matrix

• Utility Interval based ranking

• Methods combines probability (Bayes) with Utility theory

Modelling Frameworks

• MATLAB / Simulink

• STELLA (and similar)

• EXCEL

• Studio Expert

• Geonamica

• GIS (various)

• R (statistical type analysis)

Multi-criteria decision support methods - criteria

• Capable of dealing with large numbers of criteria.

• Capable of dealing with qualitative, as well as quantitative criteria.

• Widely accepted with clear and robust logic

Decision Methods

• Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)• Utility and Multi Attribute Utility (MAUT)• Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)• Concordance methods (e.g. ELECTRE)• NAIADE \• Linear or Goal Programming• Prospect Theory• Fuzzy logic methods

Existing Systems - I

• AFOPro• Aquarius• CITYDRAIN• COSIMA• DanubeDSS• Decisionarium• DRIPS• ECOBAS• EDSS

Existing Systems - II

• ElbeDSS• e-participation• GEMSS• GOUVERNe• GREATER• Groove• ICES• Hermes• IDSS-C

Existing Systems - III

• INCA• JavaAHP• LandInformationSystem• LF2000-WQF• MAGICPEARLS• MikeBASIN,MikeSHE• MOIRA• MULINO• PALM

Existing Systems - IV

• PALMOLARE• ProDEX• RIBASIM• STREAMS-1• STREAMS-2• SWAT• TeamSpirit• TowardsElectronicDemocracy(TED)

Existing Systems - V

• ThemeParkEnvironment

• TRANS-POL

• WaterWare

• web-HIPRE

• WildSpace\hline

People Issues

• Involving the public

• Visualisation

• Communication

• WWW based DSS

Other Issues

• Sustainability• Uncertainty• Risk• Climate Change• Optimisation methods (parameters and

policies)• Database requirements• Optimum scales for management• Maintenance / updating

Categories of Indicator

• Economic

• Social

• Ecological

• Physical/Chemical

• Sustainability

• Aesthetic

Implementation factors for the design of DSS for the RBDs

• Easy integration of available mathematical models;

• Multi-criteria analysis approach for evaluating alternatives;

• Transparent and logical methods for ranking alternatives;

• An accessible web-based interface allowing the participation of stakeholders;

• Self-updating mechanism in order to accept new information and update the relevant database(s).

TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR USE IN THE DSS FOR THE RBDs

• Well-established GIS database;

• Web-based tool allowing of public consultation;

• Web-site for each RBD;

• Development of a number of state-of-the-art mathematical models;

• Monitored data with the most advanced instruments.

Progress in Public awareness and participation in decision making process.

• Irish people now seem more aware of and concerned with environmental issues than they were a decade ago.

• According to the EPA, Irish people priorities the environmental problems as follows:

• Nuclear activities;• Tap water contamination;• Chemical products;• Air and river pollution.

IMPORTANCE OF USING DSS IN THE RBDs

• Decisions on policy and measures :• Use of an unbiased, independent and logical methodology;• Taking account of all stakeholders concerns, both quantifiable

and non-quantifiable, in a transparent manner.

• The environmental management cycle is best described by the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DSPIR) framework an this requires:

• Existence of mathematical models;• Existence of uncertainty analysis tools.

• Design of data monitoring programme:• Filling the gaps identified in the RBDs characterisation phase;• Cost-effective justifiable.

Nasr and Bruen, Multi-criteria and Decision Support Systems in support of the Water Framework Directive in Ireland, 3rd Harmoni-CA Forum & Conference - (5-7 April 2006, Osnabrück)

Group Negotiation tools

• NAIADE

Systems Approach – Classical Paradigm

1. Definition of Objectives

2. Measures of Effectiveness (Indicators)

3. Generation of Alternatives (Measures)

4. Evaluation of Alternatives

5. Decisions (Programme of Measures)

Need for Decision Support Systems

• Data quantity (spatial)

• Analysis complexity

• Visualisation Stakeholders

• Transparent, Logical Decisions MCDA

• Public Participation GUIs and WWW

Indicators




Decision /Programme

Agreement ?

Revise Priorities

More alternatives

Refine Objectives

YES

NO

Negotiation

Compromise

Reflection

Models

MCDA

CognitiveMapping

NegotiationTools

Data

WINCOMS : Water Framework Directive – Integration, Negotiation and Communication of Optimal...

Documents

Transcript of WINCOMS : Water Framework Directive – Integration, Negotiation and Communication of Optimal...