Groundwater: mere bureaucracy or appropriate know-how?

Not availabl

DSTS and Modeling Tools Report

MK16 Fostering Evidence-Based IWRM in the Stung Pursat Catchment (Tonle Sap Great Lake) CambodiaDecision Support Tools (DSTs) have been developed by various organisations (government agencies, international organizations, NGOs, universities, consultancy companies and think tanks) to facilitate decision making around a number of issues, including water governance and management. There are arange of DSTs, distinguished by their function, quality of services (accuracy and precision), ease of use, time of application (project planning, implementation, monitoring, etc.), data requirements, data generated and other factors. The main objective of this analysis is to assess currently available and relevant decision support tools (DSTs), and to highlight the method of selecting most appropriate tool

Working Paper on Population Growth and Natural Resource Pressures in Pursat Catchment

MK16 Fostering Evidence-based IWRM in Stung Pursat Catchment (Tonle Sap Great Lake)This project examined the linkages between population and demand for food and water. Cambodia, in general, and Pursat Province in particular, have a complex and interesting mosaic of demographic attributes and development issues. The Tonle Sap basin and Pursat catchment possess the country’s largest potential water resources. These resources have the ability to support on-going economic development, including irrigation and agricultural production, fisheries and aquaculture, energy and forest products, navigation and other modes of transport, domestic and industrial water use and tourism

Report on Conflict Analysis and Power Relations in Pursat Catchment

MK16: Fostering Evidence-Based IWRM in the Stung Pursat Catchment (Tonle Sap Great Lake) CambodiaThe MK16 report analyses stakeholder roles, relationships, and views on water resources management in Cambodia in general, and Pursat specifically, for developing good IWRM structures that incorporates a shared understanding of the reality and complexity of different stakeholder interests and relationships. The analysis is designed to examine the degree of consistency or disparity between different stakeholders, and between formal stakeholder roles and actual practices.The Conflict/Difference and Power Relation Analysis in Pursat Catchment addresses the following research questions: 1. What are the key stakeholder roles, relationships, and perceptions in existing water governance arrangements, and how consistent are these perceptions among different stakeholders at different levels? 2. What are the consistencies and inconsistencies

Multi-stakeholder Platform: An innovative mechanism for promoting integrated decision making in the Stung Pursat catchment

MK16: Fostering Evidence-Based IWRM in the Stung Pursat Catchment (Tonle Sap Great Lake) CambodiaIntroduced as an innovation in the Stung Pursat catchment of Cambodia, a MSP was piloted to promote integrated water resource management (IWRM). The “Fostering-Evidence-based IWRM in Stung Pursat catchment, Cambodia project1 (MK 16)” supported three MSP sessions in Pursat, and brought-together over 40 participants from government (national, provincial, and municipal), civil society organizations (including academic institutions), and community-based natural resource communities

Alignment of a digital watershed and land use game to national education standards

Digital games, especially simulations, have supported student learning outcomes in the areas of science and agriculture in classrooms and nonformal settings. Simulations contribute robustly to student achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and agriculture content areas, especially when they are aligned with national education standards. The People in Ecosystems Watershed Integration (PEWI) simulation is a digital game that was evaluated for fit to two national standards: the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources Standards (AFNR). The evaluation of alignment of PEWI to NGSS provided “extensive” evidence on a four‐point scale for meeting Criterion A: Explaining phenomenon/designing solutions; Criterion B: 3‐D learning, science and engineering practices, rated for three areas: (a) “extensive” for science and engineering practices, (b) “adequate” for disciplinary core ideas, and (c) “extensive” for cross‐cutting concepts. Additionally, PEWI aligned with nine high school–level NGSS student performance expectations categories. For AFNR Standards, the PEWI evaluation provided evidence for alignment to 10 standards and 17 indicators from the AFNR areas of Environmental Service Systems, Natural Resource Systems, and Plant Systems

Tap water costs and service sustainability, a close relationship

Water is currently an essential and strategic resource for society and its importance will rise in the future due to the increasing number of threats. However, water management is not currently up to par taking into consideration this well acknowledged importance. Generally speaking, water use is not efficient and loss figures are often too high. The reasons behind this situation are complex and diverse, however, in principle, they can be divided into four categories: cultural, political, social and economic. Since the latter are of most importance, this paper focuses on water costs from source to tap. The economic analysis presented quantifies the costs of a sustainable urban water service in a structured way. The second part of the paper present a case study in which the economic losses linked to leakage are assessed as a function of how expenses are recovered. The cost of apparent losses could also be assessed in a similar way and will always be higher, since apparent losses (unlike real ones) are present throughout the whole water cycle, thus increasing the unit costs.Cabrera Marcet, E.; Pardo Picazo, MA.; Cabrera Rochera, E.; Arregui De La Cruz, F. (2013). Tap water costs and service sustainability, a close relationship. Water Resources Management. 27(1):239-253. doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0181-3S239253271Almandoz J, Cabrera E, Arregui F, Cabrera Jr E, Cobacho R (2005) Leakage assessment through water networks simulation. J Water Resour Plan Manag ASCE. Nov-Dic. 2005 pp 458–466BDEW (German Association of Energy and Water Industries) (2010) Comparison of European Water and Wastewater Prices German Association of Energy and Water Industries, BonnCabrera E, Pardo MA, Cobacho R, Arregui FJ, Cabrera Jr E (2010) Energy audit of water networks. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. ASCE. Nov–Dic. 2010 pp 669–677Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ, October 1960den Blanken M (2009) Asset Management. A necessary tool for a modern water company AWWA International Conference on Strategic Asset Management. Miami 11–13 November 2009EPO (Eurostat Press Office) (2010) Facts and figures on the environment: from environmental taxes to water resources. Eurostat Press Office, Luxembourg, December 2010EU (European Union) (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000. Off J Eur Communities 22.12.2000. Pp L 327/1 to L 327/72IWA (International Water Association) (2010) International statistics for water services. Montreal 2010. Canada. International Water Association, LondonKanakoudis V, Tolikas D (2001) The role of leaks and breaks in water networks: technical and economical solutions. J Water SRT - Aqua 50(2001):301–311Kanakoudis V, Tsitsifli S (2009) Water pricing policies in Greece: is there a Common Understanding?. 2nd International conference on water economics, statistics, and finance Alexandroupolis, Thrace, Greece, 3–5 July 2009.Kanakoudis V, Gonelas K, Tolikas D (2011) Basic principles for urban water value assessment and price setting towards its full cost recovery – pinpointing the role of the water losses. J Water Supply: Res Technol 60(1):27–39Logar I, Van den Berg J (2012) Methods to assess costs of drought damages and policies for drought mitigation and adaptation: Review and recommendations. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0119-9Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2012) Tariffs and cost recovery in water reuse. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0111-4NRC (National Research Council) (2008) Desalination a national perspective. NAP Press, Washington, D.C. National Research Council, Ottawa, CanadaOECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2010) Pricing water resources and water and sanitation services. OECD, ParisOFWAT (Office of Water Services) (2009) Future water and sewerage charges 2010-15: Final determinations. OFWAT (Office of Water Services), Birmingham UKRogers P, Bhatia R, Huber A (1998) Water as a social and economic good: How to put the principle into practice. Global Water Partnership, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.Roth A (2001) Water pricing in the EU. A review. European Environmental Bureau (EEB), BrusselsWonnacott P, Wonnacott R (1990) Economics, 4th edn. John Wiley, 1990Zhu X, van Ierland EC (2012) Economic modeling for water quantity and quality management: a welfare program approach. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0029-

Domain-based perceptions of risk:a case study of lay and technical community attitudes towards managed aquifer recharge

Despite growing water scarcity, communities in many parts of the developed world often reject technically and economically sound options for water augmentation. This paper reports findings from a study investigating risk perceptions associated with a proposed Managed Aquifer Recharge scheme in Australia. Q-Methodology was used to compare decision-making frameworks of lay community and „technical expert‟ participants. Technical expert participants were also asked to approximate the decision-making framework of a „typical‟ community member. The emerging contrasts between lay community frameworks and those approximated by technical experts suggest that there are prevailing yet errant assumptions about lay community attitudes towards new technologies. The findings challenge the characterisation of the lay community and technical experts as being in entrenched opposition with one another

DOs and DON'Ts for using climate change information for water resource planning and management: guidelines for study design

Water managers are actively incorporating climate change information into their long- and short-term planning processes. This is generally seen as a step in the right direction because it supplements traditional methods, providing new insights that can help in planning for a non-stationary climate. However, the continuous evolution of climate change information can make it challenging to use available information appropriately. Advice on how to use the information is not always straightforward and typically requires extended dialogue between information producers and users, which is not always feasible. To help navigate better the ever-changing climate science landscape, this review is organized as a set of nine guidelines for water managers and planners that highlight better practices for incorporating climate change information into water resource planning and management. Each DOs and DON'Ts recommendation is given with context on why certain strategies are preferable and addresses frequently asked questions by exploring past studies and documents that provide guidance, including real-world examples mainly, though not exclusively, from the United States. This paper is intended to provide a foundation that can expand through continued dialogue within and between the climate science and application communities worldwide, a two-way information sharing that can increase the actionable nature of the information produced and promote greater utility and appropriate use