UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA

INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO

Information systems for groundwater management and governance

Nuno Miguel de Jesus Barreiras

Supervisor: Doctor Francisco Carlos da Graça Nunes Correia

Co-Supervisor: Doctor Maria Rafaela de Saldanha Gonçalves Matos

Thesis approved in public session to obtain the PhD Degree in Civil Engineering

Jury final classification: Pass with Distinction

2020
II
 UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA

INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO

Information systems for groundwater management and governance

Nuno Miguel de Jesus Barreiras

Supervisor: Doctor Francisco Carlos da Graça Nunes Correia

Co-Supervisor: Doctor Maria Rafaela de Saldanha Gonçalves Matos

Thesis approved in public session to obtain the PhD Degree in Civil Engineering

Jury final classification: Pass with Distinction

Jury

Chairperson: Doctor António Heleno Cardoso, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa

Members of the Committee:

Doctor Francisco Carlos da Graça Nunes Correia, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa

Doctor Joaquim Manuel Veloso Poças Martins, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto

Doctor Luis Filipe Tavares Ribeiro, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa

Doctor António Alberto Chambel Gonçalves Pedro, Escola de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade de
Évora

Doctor Maria Teresa Condesso de Melo, highly praised individuality in the scientific area of the thesis

Funding Institutions

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia

2020

III
IV
Abstract

This thesis aimed at making the characterization of water information systems and its role for
groundwater management and governance. For that purpose, three research lines were developed 1)
Governance in the context of groundwater and current status of groundwater management in some
regions of Portugal, particularly in Alentejo and Algarve; 2) Characterization and assessment of a water
information system for groundwater; 3) Integration and application of groundwater and transport
model results as an information system for management and support decision making. The two main
water governance approaches in the context of groundwater were described and discussed, namely
the OECD Water Governance programme and the Global Environment Facilities’ Groundwater
Governance project. A theoretical arrangement was developed by integrating groundwater
governance deficiencies in the gap categories, and by integrating the groundwater governance
principles in the OECD principles for water governance. A diagnosis of the governance provision and
capacity status in Alentejo and Algarve regions was made, and results were further discussed
considering the Global Environment Facilities’s four main components of groundwater governance.
An evaluation of the groundwater component of the web-based data sharing water information
system in Portugal, SNIRH, and its present status, was made, as well as a comparison to other national
relevant water information systems carried out. SNIRH gaps and problems were identified, as well as
its level of sophistication and possible development directions. Furthermore, the effectiveness and
performance of SNIRH was assessed, which resulted on the respecification of the updated DeLone and
McLean IS Success model towards measuring web-based WIS success in the context of groundwater
governance. This method allowed quantifying relationships among variables of the success
dimensions of the model to identify areas needing improvement, and its relation to the users
satisfaction/use, as well as to net benefits of SNIRH. In order to provide a baseline for the development
of a decision support system and for the definition of more integrated information systems applied to
groundwater management, a groundwater flow and transport models were developed for the case
study of Aveiro Quaternary aquifer system.

Keywords: Groundwater management, governance, information system, decision support system,

integrated data and information

V
VI
Resumo

Esta tese teve como objetivos a caracterização dos sistemas de informação de recursos hídricos e seu
papel na gestão e governança das águas subterrâneas. Para o efeito, foram desenvolvidas três linhas
de investigação 1) Governação no contexto das águas subterrâneas e estado actual da gestão das
águas subterrâneas em algumas regiões de Portugal, particularmente no Alentejo e Algarve; 2)
Caracterização e avaliação de um sistema de informação de águas subterrâneas; 3) Integração e
aplicação dos resultados de um modelo de águas subterrâneas e de transporte como um sistema de
informação para a gestão e para o apoio à decisão. As duas principais abordagens de governança da
água no contexto das águas subterrâneas foram descritas e discutidas, nomeadamente, o programa
de Governança da Água da OCDE e o projeto de Governança de Águas Subterrâneas da Global
Environment Facilities. Foi desenvolvido um arranjo teórico pela integração das deficiências de
governança das águas subterrâneas nas categorias de lacunas da OCDE, e pela integração dos
princípios de governança das águas subterrâneas nos princípios da OCDE para a governança da água.
Foi feito um diagnóstico do estado da provisão e capacidade de governação nas regiões do Alentejo e
do Algarve, e os resultados foram discutidos considerando as quatro componentes principais da
governação das águas subterrâneas da Global Environment Facilities. Foi feita uma avaliação da
componente de água subterrânea do sistema de informação de recursos hídricos (SNIRH), e o seu
estado atual, bem como uma comparação com outros sistemas de informação de recursos hídricos
relevantes a nível nacional. As lacunas e problemas do SNIRH foram identificados, assim como o seu
nível de sofisticação e possíveis direções de desenvolvimento. Além disso, a eficácia e o desempenho
do SNIRH foram avaliados, e dessa avaliação resultou uma respecificação do modelo DeLone e McLean
para medir o sucesso do sistema de informação no contexto da governança das águas subterrâneas.
Esse método permitiu quantificar as relações entre variáveis das dimensões de sucesso do modelo
para identificar áreas que necessitam de melhoramento, e a sua relação com a satisfação/uso dos
utilizadores, bem como com os benefícios perceptíveis do SNIRH. A fim de fornecer uma linha de base
para o desenvolvimento de um sistema de apoio à decisão e para a definição de sistemas de
informação mais integrados e aplicados à gestão de águas subterrâneas, foram desenvolvidos um
modelo de fluxo de águas subterrâneas e de transporte para o estudo do aquífero quaternário de
Aveiro.

Palavras-chave: Gestão de águas subterrâneas, governança, sistema de informação, sistema de apoio

à decisão, integração de dados e informação

VII
VIII
Acknowledgements

I would like to greet and thank everyone who somehow have contributed and helped to the
development of this thesis, including not only professors and colleagues, but also family and friends
that had a significant impact on the progress of my work and life.

A particular thanks goes for my supervisors, for guidance, expertise and orientation in the various
stages of development of this thesis. Professor Francisco Nunes Correia, for the long talks and
orientation during these last four years, for the friendship and also for the knowledge and shared
experience in various fields of science and life. A special thank you to Rafaela Saldanha Matos for all
the support, discussions and kindness through time.

Edite Reis (ARH do Algarve), Alice Fialho (ARH do Alentejo), José Paulo Monteiro (Universidade do
Algarve), António Chambel (Universidade de Évora), Felisbina Quadrado (APA) for the enthusiastic
contribution and expertise in their fields, that much influenced the progress of this thesis.

My colleagues and friends Teresa Melo, Luís Ribeiro, João Nascimento, Filipe Miguéns, Maria Paula
Mendes, Ana Medeiros for your daily contributions, knowledge, capability, orientation, patience,
friendship and support. Without you I wouldn’t be able to get here. A special thanks also to my ex-
colleagues and friends Ana Silva and Ana Buxo for sharing with me all your know-how, and Dulce
Fernandes for being a pillar of proficiency and organization in the department.

Carlos Ordens, for sharing all the data and information required to continue his work and for being
always available when doubts arise and opinions were needed.

Jose Darrozes, Gregory Dufrechou and HA Minh Cuong (CNRS, France), Inma Álvarez (UNIOVI, Spain),
Christelle Gramaglia and Katrin Erdlenbruch (IRSTEA), all colleagues and partners in Soil Take Care
project, that helped greatly in collecting and discussing data and results for the case study of Estarreja.

Sr. Manuel, for the infinite patience and availability to collaborate in our field work in Estarreja.
Without him this work would be much poorer.

Olowoselu “Stanley” Ayodeji for the hard field job and work to collect data that ended up being used
also here in this thesis.

A special and lovely thanks to Krisztina and Daniel, and Martim (on the way!) for being always by my
side, in the good and bad moments, and for the eternal patience, support, inspiration and love.

IX
My parents, specially my mother for working a lifetime to help in getting me here. My father, who
passed away during this time, for the memories, friendship and support.

To my dear brother and sister Igor and Érica, for putting up with me, Sandra and my nephew Afonso
for every moments spent and shared.

To João Monteiro, my long date friend, for the friendship, inspiration, respect, support, care and fun.

Last but not least, I acknowledge the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia for the PhD grant with the
reference number PD/BD/105969/2014.

The research was also supported by Soil Take Care, an international project co-financed by the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the Interreg Sudoe initiative.

X
Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objectives................................................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Brief introduction to developed research............................................................................... 5

2 Governance in the context of groundwater .................................................................................... 9

2.1 Definitions of Management and Policy................................................................................... 9

2.2 Main challenges in the water resources sector .................................................................... 10

2.3 The definition and conceptualization of groundwater governance ..................................... 15

2.3.1 Background and initial approach ...................................................................................... 17

2.3.2 Evolution of the concept in hierarchical order ................................................................. 18

2.4 Water governance approaches in the context of groundwater ........................................... 29

2.4.1 The OECD Water Governance programme ....................................................................... 29

2.4.2 The Global Environment Facilities’ Groundwater Governance project ............................ 35

2.5 How does groundwater governance matches the OECD water governance approach? ..... 42

2.5.1 Integrating groundwater governance deficiencies in the gap categories ........................ 43

2.5.2 Integrating the groundwater governance principles in the OECD principles ................... 47

3 Survey on groundwater management and governance provision and capacity ........................... 51

3.1 Brief state-of-art on groundwater occurrence in Portugal ................................................... 51

3.2 Groundwater Resources Management in Portugal: an overview ........................................ 55

3.2.1 The National Water Plan (PNA) ......................................................................................... 57

3.2.2 The River Basin Management Plans: the context of the Water Framework Directive ..... 59

3.2.3 Challenges and Next Steps towards the 3rd Cycle of the RBMPs ...................................... 61

3.3 Assessment of provisions and needs for a sustainable groundwater management and
governance ........................................................................................................................................ 67

3.3.1 Groundwater Governance Benchmarking Criteria ........................................................... 68

3.3.2 Application of the benchmark criteria to Alentejo and Algarve ....................................... 70

3.4 Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 83

XI
 3.4.1 Legal and regulatory framework ....................................................................................... 84

3.4.2 Policies, management planning and Financing ................................................................. 86

3.4.3 Actors in the groundwater governance structure ............................................................ 88

3.4.4 Data, information and knowledge .................................................................................... 89

4 Data, information and knowledge as a requirement for an improved groundwater governance 93

4.1 The role and hierarchy of data, information and knowledge in groundwater activities and
management ..................................................................................................................................... 93

4.2 Criteria for information and knowledge requirements ........................................................ 94

4.3 What categories of data and information are most relevant? ............................................. 95

4.3.1 Data and information on groundwater bodies ................................................................. 99

4.3.2 Data and information on the use, in-situ functions and benefits of groundwater ........ 100

4.3.3 Data and information on current or potential interactions and threats ........................ 101

4.3.4 Data and information on groundwater governance aspects and provisions ................. 102

4.4 The importance of the conceptual models for the monitoring design............................... 103

4.5 Brief notions on presenting, sharing and disseminating data and information through the
main target groups .......................................................................................................................... 105

5 Web-based Data Sharing Water Information Systems in Groundwater Governance ................. 109

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 109

5.2 Methodological approach ................................................................................................... 112

5.3 Review on the groundwater component of the National Water Resources Information
System (SNIRH) ................................................................................................................................ 115

5.3.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 115

5.3.2 Objectives........................................................................................................................ 119

5.4 Monitoring networks and data sources .............................................................................. 121

5.4.1 The evolution of the networks and adaptations to the monitoring needs .................... 121

5.4.2 Structure of groundwater monitoring networks ............................................................ 128

5.4.3 Monitoring frequency ..................................................................................................... 135

5.4.4 Representative Monitoring Networks ............................................................................ 136

XII
 5.5 Processes, data and integration.......................................................................................... 144

5.5.1 Data processing and integration ..................................................................................... 144

5.5.2 Characterization and evaluation of the available data and information ........................ 145

5.5.3 Transparency and trust ................................................................................................... 148

5.6 Reporting and sharing ......................................................................................................... 150

5.6.1 The Web-based Technology, Water Resources Data Sharing and Society ..................... 150

5.6.2 Recent developments in the political context with impacts in the water information
system and its use........................................................................................................................ 153

5.7 Comparing SNIRH with other water information systems.................................................. 155

5.7.1 Assessment of the stage of development of SNIRH and other national WIS ................. 155

5.7.2 Strengths, weaknesses and future developments of the assessed WIS ......................... 168

5.8 Conclusions and lessons learned ........................................................................................ 174

6 Information System Success Model............................................................................................. 177

6.1 The Delone and McLean information system success model ............................................. 177

6.1.1 Constructs and Measures ............................................................................................... 179

6.1.2 Challenges and difficulties .............................................................................................. 182

6.2 Assessment and measurement of SNIRH’s success based on a respecification of the updated
Delone & McLean model (2003) ..................................................................................................... 183

6.2.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 183

6.2.2 The refinement of DeLone and McLean IS success model towards measuring web-based
GIS success in the context of groundwater governance ............................................................. 185

6.3 Research Design – Questionnaire, Data Collection and Statistics ...................................... 190

6.4 Analysis and Results ............................................................................................................ 205

6.4.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 205

6.4.2 Structural Equation Modeling ......................................................................................... 206

6.4.3 Application of SEM to the proposed model .................................................................... 210

6.5 Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................ 226

7 A case study for the improvement of groundwater management and governance ................... 229

XIII
 7.1 Case Study ........................................................................................................................... 229

7.2 Brief characterization of the region .................................................................................... 231

7.3 Previous studies .................................................................................................................. 232

7.4 The industry ........................................................................................................................ 233

7.4.1 Industrial activities and contamination risks .................................................................. 233

7.4.2 Projects for the minimization of contamination ............................................................. 236

7.5 Geology ............................................................................................................................... 238

7.5.1 Holocene ......................................................................................................................... 239

7.5.2 Plio-Pleistocene ............................................................................................................... 240

7.6 Lithostratigraphic interpretation ........................................................................................ 241

7.7 Hydrogeology ...................................................................................................................... 245

7.7.1 Aquifers and confining units ........................................................................................... 245

7.7.2 Hydraulic properties ....................................................................................................... 250

7.7.3 Groundwater levels ......................................................................................................... 251

7.7.4 Groundwater recharge.................................................................................................... 257

7.7.5 Discharges and abstractions ........................................................................................... 266

7.8 Hydrogeochemistry ............................................................................................................. 268

7.9 Groundwater contamination .............................................................................................. 270

8 Groundwater flow and transport models for the identification of management and governance
areas needing improvement ............................................................................................................... 275

8.1 Approaches and methodology applied ............................................................................... 276

8.2 Groundwater flow modelling .............................................................................................. 277

8.3 Numerical modelling method ............................................................................................. 279

8.3.1 Governing equation for groundwater flow ..................................................................... 279

8.3.2 Boundary conditions ....................................................................................................... 281

8.3.3 Numerical model ............................................................................................................. 281

8.4 Aveiro Quaternary groundwater flow model: region of Estarreja...................................... 282

8.4.1 Conceptual model ........................................................................................................... 282

XIV
 8.4.2 Code selection ................................................................................................................. 285

8.4.3 Spatial discretization ....................................................................................................... 286

8.4.4 Time discretization .......................................................................................................... 290

8.4.5 Boundary conditions ....................................................................................................... 290

8.4.6 Hydraulic parameters...................................................................................................... 296

8.4.7 Groundwater recharge.................................................................................................... 297

8.4.8 Calibration process and results ....................................................................................... 298

8.4.9 Remarks on the model limitations .................................................................................. 307

8.5 Transport model ................................................................................................................. 309

8.5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 309

8.5.2 Objectives of the transport model .................................................................................. 310

8.5.3 Initial conditions.............................................................................................................. 310

8.5.4 Model parameters .......................................................................................................... 311

8.5.5 Definition of scenarios .................................................................................................... 312

8.5.6 Transport model results .................................................................................................. 313

8.5.7 Integration of model results for an improved management and governance ............... 323

9 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 327

10 References .............................................................................................................................. 337

XV
XVI
List of Figures

Figure 1.1 – Distribution of water resources on Earth, showing the proportions in three scales: Total
water, freshwater and surface and atmospheric water (fonte: USGS – What is Groundwater - D.W.
Clark and D.W. Briar. Open-File Report 93-643, reprinted April 2001). ................................................. 1
Figure 1.2 – Global status of groundwater bodies by hydrographic region of Portugal, according to the
RBMPs (APA, 2016). ................................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2.1 - Clusters of the most relevant topics of the challenges for water management (based on
Correia, 1998b). .................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.2 - Collective Action Areas to Challenges and Underlying Failures (Greenwood et al., 2012).
.............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.3 – Diagram from OECD Multi-level Governance Framework “Mind the Gaps, Bridge the Gaps”
(OECD, 2011a). ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 2.4 – Multi-level governance gaps in OECD countries (left); and in Latin America and the
Caribbean (right) (OECD, 2012b, 2011a)............................................................................................... 31
Figure 2.5 – Water governance cycle presented by OECD in the proceeding of the multi-level approach
(OECD, 2015). ........................................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 2.6 - Overview of OECD Principles on Water Governance......................................................... 34
Figure 2.7 – The GEF’s four main components of groundwater governance (FAO, 2016c). ................ 38
Figure 2.8 – Number of deficiencies in groundwater governance by type of gap, based on FAO (2016c)
and OECD (2011b). Deficiencies grouped by the four main components of groundwater governance:
Actors; Legal frameworks; Policies and management planning; Data, information and knowledge. .. 47
Figure 2.9 – Simplified view from the integration of GEF’s principles and desirable institutional
responses (*) within the OECD principles for water governance. ........................................................ 49
Figure 3.1 – Groundwater Bodies in Continental Portugal, defined in the Water Law 54/2005 (source:
https://sniamb.apambiente.pt/). ......................................................................................................... 53
Figure 3.2 - Distribution of groundwater bodies considered for the purposes of river basin
management under the WFD (adapted from INAG, 2005). ................................................................. 55
Figure 3.3 – Instruments for Water Planning in Portugal (source: APA, 2018) .................................... 57
Figure 3.4 – Link of water planning with sectoral strategies and plans (adapted from APA, 2018). ... 61
Figure 3.5 – Quantitative (left) and chemical (right) status of groundwater bodies in Portugal (adapted
from RBMPs, 2016). .............................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 3.6 - Global status of groundwater bodies in Portugal (adapted from RBMPs, 2016). ............. 63

XVII
Figure 3.7 - Total groundwater availability (hm3/year) and the average groundwater availability per
unit of area (hm3/km2 year) (source: Quadrado, 2019) ...................................................................... 65
Figure 3.8 – Types of water uses by origin and region: Urban use (left), and agriculture use (right)
(adapted from APA, 2019). ................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 3.9 - Distribution of the volume captured for the domestic, agricultural, industrial and livestock
sectors by surface or groundwater origin (adapted from APA, 2019).................................................. 66
Figure 3.10 - Groundwater availability in June of 2005, 2009, 2012 and 2017. Red: <20th percentile;
Green: ≥average; yellow: ≥20th percentile and <average; Grey: no data (Source: APA, 2019). .......... 67
Figure 3.11 – Assessment of groundwater governance provision and capacity in Alentejo and Algarve
regions, based on the benchmarking criteria proposed by Foster et al. (2010)................................... 84
Figure 4.1 - The DIKW hierarchy depicted as a linear chain (Clark, 2004). ........................................... 94
Figure 4.2 - A conceptual model for groundwater flow and geochemical evolution in the southern
Outaouais Region, Québec, Canada (Montcoudiol et al., 2015). ......................................................... 98
Figure 4.3 - Relationship between the conceptual model and monitoring design. ........................... 105
Figure 4.4 – Ways of presenting data and information within the three target groups related to
groundwater (Gun, 2017). .................................................................................................................. 106
Figure 5.1 - Characteristics of the web-based water data sharing systems assessed divided by
categories. ........................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 5.2 – Web Portal of SNIRH – National Water Resources Information System (SNIRH, 2015.
Translated by Google). ........................................................................................................................ 119
Figure 5.3 – Structure of SNIRH Monitoring Networks (based on Rodrigues et al., 2001)................. 123
Figure 5.4 – Structure of SNIRH Monitoring Networks according to WFD specifications. ................. 127
Figure 5.5 – SNIRH’s monitoring processes (adapted from Instituto da Água (INAG), 1996) ............ 128
Figure 5.6 – Surveillance monitoring network for the groundwater bodies of the water basin Vouga,
Mondego and Lis (Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2012). ............................................................ 140
Figure 5.7 – Operational monitoring network for the groundwater bodies of the water basin Vouga,
Mondego and Lis (Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2012). ............................................................ 140
Figure 5.8 - Quantity monitoring network for the groundwater bodies of the water basin Vouga,
Mondego and Lis (Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2012). ............................................................ 141
Figure 5.9 – Overview of the types of information filtered by observation site, given by SNIRH (Source:
www.snirh.pt, consulted 13th July 2019). ........................................................................................... 147
Figure 5.10 – Process to define and apply INTRAG (adapted from Stefano et al., 2016). .................. 149
Figure 5.11 – Overall results of the information transparency assessment undertaken in Portugal
(adapted from Stefano et al., 2016). .................................................................................................. 150

XVIII
Figure 5.12 – Report page of SNIRH displaying warning regarding data reliability (source: www.snirh.pt,
consulted in 2015. Translated by Google)) ......................................................................................... 154
Figure 5.13 – Classification summarized for each check list result. ................................................... 161
Figure 5.14 – The Dutch DINOloket information system, depicting a cross-section of the
hydrogeological model in the area of Rotterdam (source: https://www.dinoloket.nl/en/subsurface-
models, 2019). .................................................................................................................................... 164
Figure 5.15 – Overview of the data viewer of the GRUMO (source: http://data.geus.dk/geusmap/,
2019) ................................................................................................................................................... 165
Figure 5.16 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development for all the assessed
WIS. ..................................................................................................................................................... 168
Figure 6.1 – Original DeLone and McLean IS Success Model (1992). ................................................. 177
Figure 6.2 – Updated D&M IS Success Model (DeLone & McLean 2003) ........................................... 178
Figure 6.3 - Respecified DeLone & McLean model to assess web-based Geographic Information
Systems success, in the context of Groundwater Governance. ......................................................... 187
Figure 6.4 - Print screen of the questionnaire made available online, via Google Docs
(https://goo.gl/forms/qBEx5Nras2SWV9cb). ..................................................................................... 194
Figure 6.5 – Answers to the questionnaire by measured item ........................................................... 198
Figure 6.6 - Box plots of the questionnaire data ................................................................................ 199
Figure 6.7 – Number of comments for each theme identified on the free-text comments of the
questionnaire ...................................................................................................................................... 205
Figure 6.8 - Path Diagram with research hypothesis (H1-H4). ........................................................... 213
Figure 6.9 – Hypotheses testing results .............................................................................................. 220
Figure 6.10 - Scree plot of eigenvalues and percentages of inertia based on the adjusted inertia. .. 223
Figure 6.11 – Symmetric Variable Plot for axes F1 and F2: 74.23% .................................................... 224
Figure 7.1 – Location of the area of the study in Portugal, and within the Vouga River Basin .......... 230
Figure 7.2 – Area of case study next to the coastal lagoon of Ria de Aveiro, and the location of the
Estarreja Chemical Complex (ECC). ..................................................................................................... 231
Figure 7.3 –Location of the Estarreja Chemical Complex, the location of the solid waste deposits, and
the pathway of the water streams and pipes. .................................................................................... 235
Figure 7.4 – ERASE landfill and location of the monitoring points. .................................................... 237
Figure 7.5 – Geology of the study area, digitalized from the geologic maps 13 C – Ovar and 16 A –
Aveiro (scale 1:50k). ............................................................................................................................ 239
Figure 7.6 – An example of the Dune sands found nearby Estarreja. ................................................ 240
Figure 7.7 – An example of a terrace composed of fine to medium sands. ....................................... 241

XIX
Figure 7.8 – 3D diagram of the lithostratigraphy of the study area (Ordens, 2007). ......................... 243
Figure 7.9 – Cross-section in the direction W-E, south of the ECC. Vertical exaggeration: 10x (Ordens,
2007). .................................................................................................................................................. 244
Figure 7.10 – Cross section in the direction N-S, located west to the ECC, right over the Veiros lagoon.
Vertical exaggeration: 10x (Ordens, 2007). ........................................................................................ 244
Figure 7.11 – Location of the inventoried and selected logs for the definition of the hydrogeologic units
of the study area. ................................................................................................................................ 246
Figure 7.12 – Average thickness of each lithostratigraphic layer for the selected logs, in meters. ... 247
Figure 7.13 – Three-dimensional projection of the boreholes information through the study area. 249
Figure 7.14 – Cross-sections W-E showing the geometry of the aquifer and confining units in the study
area. .................................................................................................................................................... 250
Figure 7.15 – SNIRH quantitative monitoring network....................................................................... 252
Figure 7.16 – Longevity and timeframes of data series in SNIRH monitoring sites (source: SNIRH, 2018).
............................................................................................................................................................ 252
Figure 7.17 – Groundwater levels in Estarreja, observed in the monitoring points 163/9, 163/52 and
163/96 (source: SNIRH, 2018). ............................................................................................................ 253
Figure 7.18 – Inventoried wells in the region for groundwater levels monitoring............................. 254
Figure 7.19 – Grid for the groundwater level measurements. ........................................................... 255
Figure 7.20 – Groundwater levels based on the monitoring campaign of April-May, 2019. ............. 256
Figure 7.21 – Left: Digital elevation model (DEM); Right: Slope map, built from DEM. ..................... 259
Figure 7.22 – Groundwater depth, built from measures between 2006 and 2019............................ 259
Figure 7.23 – Landuse: Continental Portugal Land Use and Occupation Charter (COS) (left);
Reclassification to WETSPASS classes (right). ..................................................................................... 260
Figure 7.24 – Irrigation map for Wetspass. ........................................................................................ 262
Figure 7.25 – Soil type maps: Environment Atlas (left); classified according to Wetspass (right). .... 263
Figure 7.26 – Monthly precipitation data series of Espargo station (08F-02UG) (top); and Albergaria-A-
Velha (09G-01UG) (bottom) (SNIRH, 2019). ...................................................................................... 264
Figure 7.27 – Spatial distribution of the estimated recharge values for the study area, by Wetspass
method................................................................................................................................................ 265
Figure 7.28 – Histogram of the estimated recharge values for the area. ........................................... 265
Figure 7.29 – Main rivers, water streams, lakes and drains within the study area. ........................... 267
Figure 7.30 – Abstractions map, according to the data provided by APA (2018)............................... 268
Figure 7.31 - Hydrogeochemical characterization of Aveiro quaternary aquifer system (source: RBMP,
2016). .................................................................................................................................................. 269

XX
Figure 7.32 - Comparison between the groundwater contamination plume mapped by Ordens (2007)
using geophysical methods (EMF data), and the electrical conductivity values measured in
groundwater samples by Oliveira (2016). ........................................................................................... 271
Figure 7.33 – Electrical conductivity map, based in measurements made in May 2019 (Ayodeji, 2019),
in the context of Soil Take Care project. ............................................................................................. 272
Figure 7.34 – pH map, based in measurements made in May 2019 (Ayodeji, 2019), in the context of
Soil Take Care project. ........................................................................................................................ 273
Figure 8.1 - Stages of the adopted methodology for the production of tools to support groundwater
management and governance. ........................................................................................................... 277
Figure 8.2 – Conceptual model for the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System in Estarreja region (modified
from Neves, 2015). The scale is not representative of the real dimensions. ..................................... 283
Figure 8.3 – Piezometric map and groundwater flow directions. ...................................................... 284
Figure 8.4 – Active cells of the finite-difference mesh, made for MODFLOW in GMS 10.3.4. ........... 286
Figure 8.5 – Digital elevation model (DEM) for the study area (left); TIN used for the groundwater
model (right). ...................................................................................................................................... 287
Figure 8.6 – Spatial characterization of each hydrogeological unit through the model layers. ......... 289
Figure 8.7 – Cross-sections of the model grid..................................................................................... 289
Figure 8.8 – Boundary conditions in the model. ................................................................................. 291
Figure 8.9 – Location of the wells considered to simulate abstractions in the modelled region. Yellow
colour: abstraction from Upper aquifer; shaded yellow: abstraction from Aquifer C5. .................... 295
Figure 8.10 – Spatial distribution of groundwater recharge, calculated with Wetspass (m/d). ........ 298
Figure 8.11 – Groundwater levels and relation to topography, drainage and surface water bodies. The
delimited yellow area is a deep groundwater zone, between 2.1 - 4 m. ........................................... 299
Figure 8.12 – Groundwater levels observation points for the model calibration and its origin. ....... 300
Figure 8.13 – Observed vs simulated groundwater levels calculated in GMS. ................................... 301
Figure 8.14 - Observed vs simulated groundwater levels: comparison and calculation of Nash-Sutcliffe
coefficient. .......................................................................................................................................... 302
Figure 8.15 – Observed groundwater levels in GMS model. The colours are indicative of the difference
between simulated and observed heads. Red coloured bars: simulated levels with a difference higher
of 1.5 m from the observed levels; Green and yellow coloured bars: simulated levels with a difference
smaller than 1.5 m from the observed levels. .................................................................................... 302
Figure 8.16 – Simulated heads for the upper aquifer. ........................................................................ 303
Figure 8.17 - Simulated heads for the aquifer C5 (left), and for the aquifer C2 (right). These two layers
belong to the Quaternary base. .......................................................................................................... 304

XXI
Figure 8.18 – Water budget zones: Esteiro da Tojeira, Veiros lagoon, Vala da Breja, Vala S. Filipe. . 306
Figure 8.19 - Map of apparent electrical conductivity of V20 for a theoretical investigation depth of
25.3 m (Ordens, 2007): geophysical data. Hydrochemical data from Neves (2015), for various depths.
............................................................................................................................................................ 314
Figure 8.20 - Location of the simulated discharged contaminants, for scenario A. ........................... 314
Figure 8.21 – Contamination plumes for scenario A, in layers 2 and 5, for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. .. 316
Figure 8.22 - Location of the simulated discharged contaminants, for scenario B. ........................... 317
Figure 8.23 - Contamination plumes for scenario B, in layers 2 and 5, for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. ... 319
Figure 8.24 - Location of the simulated discharged contaminants, for scenario B, and location of
simulated wells in the area. ................................................................................................................ 320
Figure 8.25 - Contamination plumes for scenario B, in layers 1 and 3, for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. Yellow
point indicate an abstraction well. ..................................................................................................... 322
Figure 8.26 – Susceptibility Index (SI) map for the study area (source: Ayodeji, 2019). .................... 325

XXII
List of Tables

Table 2.1 – Summary of the most relevant definitions for water governance..................................... 25
Table 2.2 – Evolution of the definition of groundwater governance ................................................... 28
Table 2.3 – Brief description of the multilevel water governance gaps (Akhmouch and Correia, 2016;
OECD, 2011b). ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 2.4 - 12 OECD principles on water governance (OECD, 2015). ................................................... 34
Table 2.5 - Overview of the main deficiencies in groundwater governance based on five regional
diagnostics made for the Groundwater Governance project (FAO, 2016c). ........................................ 36
Table 2.6 – The GEF’s adopted principles for groundwater governance (FAO, 2016c). ....................... 39
Table 2.7 – Proposed activities towards strengthened groundwater governance listed by themes from
the GEF’s Global Framework for Action (FAO, 2016b). ........................................................................ 40
Table 2.8 - Deficiencies in groundwater governance by type of gap, based on FAO (2016c) and OECD
(2011b). Deficiencies grouped by the four main components of groundwater governance: Actors; Legal
frameworks; Policies and management planning; Data, information and knowledge. ....................... 43
Table 2.9 – Integration of GEF’s principles and desirable institutional responses (*) within the OECD
principles for water governance. .......................................................................................................... 47
Table 3.1 – Main legal framework for groundwater governance in the Portuguese legislation. ......... 56
Table 3.2 - Check-list of ‘top-20’ benchmarking criteria for the evaluation of groundwater governance
provision and capacity (Foster et al., 2010). ......................................................................................... 69
Table 3.3 – Benchmarking criteria for the assessment of groundwater governance in Alentejo, Algarve
and Azores regions. The benchmarking criteria is according to Foster et al. (2010), the assessment to
Algarve and Alentejo is based on the interviews, and the assessment to Azores region is made by Cruz
and Soares (2018). ................................................................................................................................ 83
Table 3.4 - Key indicators of the success of public participation (de Chaisemartin et al. 2017) and
present status for the regions of Algarve and Alentejo. ....................................................................... 89
Table 4.1 – Key data organized by information categories and type of information for an improved
groundwater resource management and governance ......................................................................... 96
Table 5.1 – Observation points of present monitoring networks for every groundwater bodies in
mainland Portugal. .............................................................................................................................. 129
Table 5.2 - Tables summarizing the criteria for assessing the representativeness of monitoring
networks (Nascimento et al., 2013). ................................................................................................... 139

XXIII
Table 5.3 - Representativeness of the surveillance monitoring network for groundwater bodies from
water basins of Vouga, Mondego and Lis. .......................................................................................... 141
Table 5.4 - Representativeness of the quantity monitoring network for groundwater bodies from water
basins of Vouga, Mondego and Lis. .................................................................................................... 142
Table 5.5 - Representativeness of the operational monitoring network for groundwater bodies from
water basins of Vouga, Mondego and Lis. .......................................................................................... 144
Table 5.6 – Check list to the assessment of the stage of development of a web-based data sharing
water information system. ................................................................................................................. 156
Table 5.7 – List of selected web-based national water information systems for the relative comparison
with SNIRH. ......................................................................................................................................... 157
Table 5.8 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of SNIRH (PT) (made
by the author in January 2018). .......................................................................................................... 158
Table 5.9 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of SWMS (ES) (made
by the author in June 2019). ............................................................................................................... 159
Table 5.10 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of
Waterifno/DINOloket (NL) (made by Servicedesk Data of Rijkswaterstaat in February 2018). ......... 159
Table 5.11 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of GRUMO (DK)
(made by Lærke Thorling from GEUS in June 2018). .......................................................................... 160
Table 5.12 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of NGDC (UK)
(made by the author in June 2019)..................................................................................................... 160
Table 5.13 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of AWRIS (AU)
(made by the author in June 2019)..................................................................................................... 161
Table 5.14 – Characteristics of three national web-based water data sharing systems. ................... 169
Table 6.1 - Measures of the model constructs ................................................................................... 189
Table 6.2 - Questions of the online questionnaire for the assessment of SNIRH success.................. 192
Table 6.3 - Characteristics of the questionnaire respondents ............................................................ 196
Table 6.4 - Descriptive statistics (Quantitative data) of the questionnaire data ................................ 200
Table 6.5 – Categories and themes identified on the free-text comments of the questionnaire ...... 204
Table 6.6 - Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis ................................................................................. 211
Table 6.7 - Correlation matrix for the data by measurement item .................................................... 215
Table 6.8 - Correlation matrix for the data by dimension .................................................................. 215
Table 6.9 – Covariance Matrix of the model executed in LISREL ........................................................ 216
Table 6.10 – Model-fit indexes ........................................................................................................... 220
Table 6.11 – The direct, indirect and total effect of dominants on Perceived Net Benefits .............. 221

XXIV
Table 6.12 - Eigenvalues and percentages of inertia .......................................................................... 222
Table 6.13 - Correlation matrix (Pearson) for the measures of the questionnaire. ........................... 225
Table 6.14 - List of the best correlated answers according by evaluation criteria of the questionnaire
measures. ............................................................................................................................................ 226
Table 7.1 – Aquifers and aquitards considered and corresponding lithostratigraphic layers. ........... 248
Table 7.2 – Estimated recharge values for the upper aquifer in the study area, by Oliveira (2004).. 257
Table 7.3 - Estimated recharge values for the upper aquifer in the study area, by Ordens (2007). .. 257
Table 7.4 - Land use types present in the study area and their main characteristics. ....................... 261
Table 7.5 - Soil texture type present in the study area and main characteristics. ............................. 262
Table 8.1 - Relationship between the lithostratigraphic layers and the hydrogeological units of the
Aveiro Quaternary aquifer system in the study area.......................................................................... 284
Table 8.2 – Parameters for setting the boundary conditions of Antuã river, Veiros lagoon and Esteiro
da Tojeira. ........................................................................................................................................... 293
Table 8.3 - Parameters for setting the boundary conditions of the drains. ....................................... 294
Table 8.4 – Summary and statistics of the pumping wells in the study area. The units are in m3/d. 295
Table 8.5 - Hydraulic parameters assigned to each hydrogeological unit for groundwater simulation in
the study area. .................................................................................................................................... 297
Table 8.6 – Calibrated hydraulic parameters of each hydrogeological unit of the groundwater model.
............................................................................................................................................................ 304
Table 8.7 – Water budget for the study area...................................................................................... 305
Table 8.8 - Water budget for different zones, in m3/d. ...................................................................... 307
Table 8.9 – Dispersivity values applied to transport model. .............................................................. 311

XXV
XXVI
1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Groundwater accounts for about 30% of the total volume of freshwater presently circulating on our
planet. Surface and atmospheric water only represents a merely 0.4% of the total freshwater (Figure
1.1). Groundwater accounts in average for one third of the freshwater consumed by humans, but at
some parts of the world, including Portugal, this percentage can reach up to 100%, depending on the
water resources availability and suitability. Groundwater is also the source of most of the water used
for irrigation, and supports industries and crop irrigation, and contributes to rivers, lakes, springs and
streams baseflow, moderating the influence of periods of low precipitation. But groundwater is more
than a resource. It is an important feature of the natural environment, and can provide an important
contribution to the amount of water that supports many of the country wetland ecosystems which
has a strong influence on the large variety of their habitats.

Figure 1.1 – Distribution of water resources on Earth, showing the proportions in three scales: Total water, freshwater and
surface and atmospheric water (fonte: USGS – What is Groundwater - D.W. Clark and D.W. Briar. Open-File Report 93-643,
reprinted April 2001).

1
On the other hand, can also lead to environmental problems, and may in most of the cases offer a
medium for environmental solutions. It is part of the hydrologic cycle, and an understanding of its role
in this cycle is mandatory if integrated analyses are to be promoted in the consideration of watershed
resources, and in the regional assessment of environmental contamination. It is a natural resource for
the present and future generations.

From a national perspective, the groundwater resources seem abundant, but its availability is very
much conditioned by the geologic conditions of the territory. The Ancient Massif (Maciço Antigo),
constituted mainly by systems of fissured nature whose hydraulic productivity is quite small
represents 2/3 of the territory; the Mesozoic lands in the western borders (from Espinho to Sines) and
in the Algarve, are formed by sedimentary rocks that constitute aquifers with an expressive
productivity; and the lands covered by the Tagus and Sado sedimentary basins, represent some of the
most productive aquifers in Portugal, both in quantity and quality. But these resources are frequently
put under pressure or at risk by many human and industrial activities and face increasing demands
from growing populations, urbanization (including residential sanitation and solid waste disposal) and
intensive agricultural and industrial activities. Furthermore, over pumping is threatening the
sustainability of the abstractions, and different types of contamination are producing a general decline
in the baseline quality of groundwater systems, often without any strong and effective legal action to
protect it.

For the aforementioned reasons, the degradation of the groundwater quality and quantity raised
concern among the public in general, namely on the vulnerability of this invisible resource. This
awareness was actually the driving force to the formulation of a National Plan for Groundwater
Protection and Sustainable Management by the Water Authorities, presented in 1999, considered at
the time a clear sign that the preservation of the good quality of groundwater resources was finally
constituting an environmental priority (Condesso de Melo, 2002). This document called public
attention to the importance of groundwater resources at national scale and placed emphasis on the
necessity for immediate definition of: (1) the main groundwater bodies, (2) the main groundwater
uses, (3) the wellhead protection areas, and (4) the groundwater quality and quantity monitoring
networks. At this point, the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) was under discussion and
ended up approved in October 2000 (EC, 2000). One of the objectives defined in WFD to be
implemented by 2006 was precisely the implementation of monitoring and data sharing programmes,
which ended up to be a quite successful action in the case of Portugal. The particularities and
specificities of monitoring aspects had been discussed for a long time before the restructuring of the
monitoring networks due mainly the process for the elaboration of the water resources plan, ruled in
the Decree-Law no. 45/94 of February 22 that defined the items to be included in the diagnosis of the

2
National Water Plan (PNA, 2002). Therefore, the generated data and the existing water information
system, the National Water Resources Information System, SNIRH (Sistema Nacional de Informação
de Recursos Hídricos), served the purpose of providing necessary and vital information for the
generation and revision of regulations, measures and policies towards an environmental and socio-
economic sustainable use of groundwater, in an integrated manner with all the other components,
and more closely to the surface water and groundwater-dependent ecosystems. The achievement of
the aforementioned objectives has been facilitated by three important actions carried out between
2000 and 2002. These actions included the implementation of the new Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC), the completion of the River Basin Plans (PBH, 2001) and the approval of the National
Water Plan (PNA, 2002) (D.L. no. 112/2002, Abril 17). In consequence of the transposition of the WFD
to the Portuguese legislative framework, through the Law no. 58/2005, of December 29, later
amended and republished by Decree-Law no. 130/2012, of June 22, the environmental objectives are
defined to achieve the good status or good potential status of the water bodies through the
implementation of the programs of measures specified in the eight River Basin Management Plans
(RBMPs). The first cycle of the RBMPs was defined to the period between 2009-2015, while the second
cycle for the period between 2016-2021. Comparing the global status of the groundwater bodies
between the two planning cycles, in the 2nd cycle, more than 75% of the groundwater bodies are in
good status, whereas in the 1st cycle some regions record a rate of about 60% of the water bodies
with Good status (APA, 2016) (Figure 1.2). Thus, there is an improvement in the state of the water
bodies in most hydrographic regions, between the two planning cycles, except for the Mondego and
Lis Hydrographic Region (RH4A) where there is a slight increase of groundwater bodies with a
mediocre status, from 20% to 23%, which is explained by the decrease in the quantitative status.

Also, a new version of the PNA was prepared, defining the major strategic options of national water
policy, to be applied by the River Basin Management Plans for the period 2016-2021 and associated
programs of measures. It also points out the broad outlines of that policy for the period 2022-2027
which corresponds to the 3rd cycle of the RBMPs.

3
Figure 1.2 – Global status of groundwater bodies by hydrographic region of Portugal, according to the RBMPs (APA, 2016).

1.2 Objectives

Although the previously described tools hold quite detailed studies they do not foreclose the need for
further research. With the development of new approaches to groundwater governance new forms
of data and information are fundamental to support an improved governance structure. In this
context, the work carried out a study on the areas of information needing improvement, at the light
of the OECD Principles on Water Governance (OECD, 2015) and GEF’s Groundwater Governance
project (FAO, 2016a), looking into the most relevant water information systems in Portugal, and how
they contribute to the improvement of knowledge, and groundwater management and governance.
This research was integrated in H2Doc, a PhD programme in Environmental Hydraulics and Hydrology,
which is a joint initiative of two higher education institutions – Instituto Superior Técnico, University
of Lisbon (UL), and École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne – and two Portuguese R&D institutions
– Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil and CERIS-IST, Civil Engineering Research and Innovation
for Sustainability of IST. The programme was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT).

4
In order to test the applicability of the available data and water information systems and aimed at the
integrated water management and governance a conceptualization of a Decision Support System was
developed for the Aveiro Quaternary aquifer, which is one of groundwater bodies that is presently
classified with global status of mediocre. This part of the research was supported by Soil Take Care
project, an international project co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
through the Interreg Sudoe initiative. It aims to improve the management and rehabilitation of
contaminated soils and waters in the southwestern region of Europe involving partners and
intervention sites from Spain, Portugal and the South of France. On the Portuguese side CERIS-IST was
responsible for the task GT.6: Numerical modelling of transfers of pollution through soil, air and water.
One of the goals of the project was the development of monitoring tools for water pollution in mining
and industrial sites from soil contamination through the use of low-cost devices and numerical
modelling, which were the basis to part of this PhD thesis. The input of this project contributed greatly
to enlarge the thesis scope and objectives, and provided an opportunity to compile earlier work and
carry out further investigations using new state-of-art methodologies.

Regarding the main objectives, this thesis aimed at making the characterization of water information
systems and its role for groundwater management and governance. For that purpose, three research
lines were developed:

 Governance in the context of groundwater and current status of groundwater management

in some regions of Portugal, particularly in Alentejo and Algarve;
 Characterization and assessment of a water information system for groundwater
 Integration and application of groundwater and transport model results as an information
system for management and support decision making

1.3 Brief introduction to developed research

In Chapter 2 – Governance in the context of groundwater, a survey of recent literature on the

definitions of management and policy was made. The main challenges in the water sector were
described and presented. The definition and conceptualization of groundwater governance was
elaborated through a literature review on the definitions for water governance in general, and
particularly for groundwater governance. The two main water governance approaches in the context
of groundwater were described and discussed, namely the OECD Water Governance programme and

5
the Global Environment Facilities’ Groundwater Governance project. A theoretical arrangement was
developed by integrating groundwater governance deficiencies in the gap categories, and by
integrating the groundwater governance principles in the OECD principles for water governance.

In Chapter 3 - Survey on groundwater management and governance provision and capacity, a

diagnosis of the governance provision and capacity status in Alentejo and Algarve regions was made,
and benchmarking criteria were applied, in a face-to-face discussion with selected expert people, both
from the academic and institutional spectrum. Those criteria intended to evaluate the effectiveness
of provisions that came to force, and the capacity for a proper groundwater governance, namely in
areas where groundwater is already stressed, as the case of the selected regions. Results were further
discussed considering the Global Environment Facilities’s four main components of groundwater
governance: a) legal and regulatory framework; b) policies and management planning; c) actors in the
groundwater governance scheme; and d) data, information and knowledge.

In Chapter 4 - Data, information and knowledge as a requirement for an improved groundwater

governance, the role and hierarchy of data, information and knowledge in groundwater activities and
management was characterized, as well as criteria for information and knowledge requirements was
presented. A discussion on the categories of data and information most relevant for a water
information system was developed, and the definition of the types of data and information that are
considered to be key for improving groundwater resources management and governance was
elaborated. To finalize, a theoretical schematization of the relationship between the conceptual model
and monitoring design was determined.

In Chapter 5 - Web-based data sharing water information systems in groundwater governance, an

evaluation of the groundwater component of the web-based data sharing water information system
in Portugal, SNIRH, and its present status, was made. As main objective, this chapter aimed at the
identification of the most relevant aspects of SNIRH to a good groundwater governance. Two
independent but related tasks were developed. The first task was the characterization of the
groundwater component of SNIRH as a web-based data sharing water information system and its role
in the Portuguese reality. Aspects as the representativeness of monitoring networks and adaptation
to EU legislation is covered. Topics related to the groundwater data and information provided by
SNIRH as well as the link with surface water monitoring, quality and quantity of Portuguese

6
groundwater bodies are presented in order to describe and discuss its characteristics, defaults and
potential areas of improvement. The second task is a comparison of SNIRH’s characteristics to other
relevant national water information systems and assess its contribution to the groundwater
governance. The main goals of this task were to identify possible gaps and problems, as well as to
assess its level of sophistication and possible development directions. A comparison is made between
SNIRH and existing web-based water information systems for groundwater in other relevant countries,
and the criteria used for this comparison is divided in three categories: 1) Monitoring networks and
data sources; 2) Processes, data and integration; 3) Reporting and sharing.

In Chapter 6 - Information System Success Model, a methodology to assess the effectiveness and
performance of SNIRH in the context of groundwater governance was developed, which resulted on
the respecification of the updated DeLone and McLean IS Success model towards measuring web-
based WIS success in the context of groundwater governance. In order to collect data, a research
design was elaborated. To test and validate the proposed model a questionnaire was prepared and
sent to SNIRH users on the context of groundwater. The questionnaire was divided in four categories,
related to the success dimensions of the model constructs, namely System Quality, Information
Quality, Global Satisfaction, Usefulness and Suitability (in the model as System Use), and Benefits (in
the model as Perceived Net Benefits). In order to obtain quantifiable results from the empirical
respecified DeLone & McLean model, a Structural Equation Model (SEM) was applied, allowing
quantifying relationships among variables of the success dimensions of the model. To support the
analysis, a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) was applied on the questionnaire results in order
to map the relationships between the measurement items/dimensions and the characteristics of the
questionnaire respondents. This assessment is considered to be a first step to improve and achieve a
model for measuring the performance of a web-based WIS, in the context of groundwater governance.

In Chapter 7 - A case study for the improvement of groundwater management and governance, the
case study of the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System was analysed, more specifically in the northern
part, nearby the town of Estarreja, where the interaction of ecosystems, population and industry is
high, presenting various types of pressures to the aquifer. With the objective to provide an
information and data base for the development of a decision support system for a better groundwater
management and for the definition of more integrated information systems applied to groundwater
management, the following tasks were developed: a) identification of aspects from the SNIRH
monitoring networks that need improvement; b) development of a low-cost method for a more

7
effective groundwater monitoring; c) contribution for the improvement of information and
characterization related to groundwater management in contaminated aquifers, for the formulation
of vulnerability and risk maps to groundwater-dependent ecosystems and populations.

In Chapter 8 - Groundwater flow and transport models for the identification of management and
governance areas needing improvement, for the conceptualization and development of a Decision
Support System for the Aveiro Quaternary aquifer system, a methodology was adopted that covered
four implementation tasks: 1) database compilation of bibliography data and information, monitoring
and field work data, 2) groundwater flow and transport modelling, 3) integration of results into a
geographic information system, and 4) production of vulnerability maps and identification of aspects
to improve capacity and provision for better management and governance.

In Chapter 9 – Conclusions, the main methodologies and achievements for the characterization of
water information systems and its role for groundwater management and governance was made. A
discussion on the results of this thesis is made, and areas of improvement and future developments
are outlined.

8
2 Governance in the context of groundwater

2.1 Definitions of Management and Policy

A survey of recent literature on these matters was made, but since early it was found quite important
to clearly define one of the most used terms related to the discourse on natural resources and water:
‘management’. This concept, at a first glance appears to be a cacophony of terms struggling to
converge to a coherent concept. The term ‘management’ is perhaps easier to grasp intuitively than its
more layered and ambitious cousin ‘governance.’ There is a massive trend to think of management as
the “day-to-day operations” that emphasize the results of decisions (Linton and Brooks, 2011). Other
comparable notions are: “approaches, models, principles, and information used to make decisions”
(Nowlan and Bakker, 2007); “regimes based on institutions, laws, cultural factors, knowledge, and
practices” (Solanes and Jouravlev, 2006); or purposeful activities that enable the accomplishment of
goals and objectives (Pahl-Wostl, 2009), with a common caution, “by definition, based on conflicting
interests”. All these definitions share a concern for routine, practical, and effective ways to achieve
predetermined objectives.

The term ‘policy’ appears to be hard to define. A brief consult in the renowned Cambridge Dictionary
(Cambridge University Press, 2019) defines policy as “a set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular
situations that has been agreed to officially by a group of people, a business organization, a
government, or a political party”. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (van der Gun et al.,
2016) favours one very simpler phrase: “a set of decisions which are oriented towards a long term
purpose or to a particular problem.” The simplicity and succinctness of FAO’s definition captures the
centrality of the vital term, “decision”. Another definition by (FAO, 2013a), although presented in
another context, states that “policymaking is synonymous with decision making, and not just by public-
sector institutions but by any and all sectors of society, at any level, with a stake in governance”.

Once the relevant policies have been formulated, they have to be put in place through instruments,
tools, rules, protocols, and other procedures. Indeed, ‘governance’ may include pre-set and
established laws, sets of rights, processes, permits, and regulations (especially regulations that allow
those regulated to choose among alternative ways of complying with them); economic incentives and
disincentives such as subsidies, taxes, tradable pollution permits, and pricing structures; and civil-
society actions such as those that motivate voluntary actions or behavioural changes (Theesfeld,
2010).

9
These definitions for ‘management’ and ‘policy’ are considered by the present work the broader and
most interconnected descriptions with the various sectors and actors of what is the governance in the
context of groundwater. Nevertheless, the latter will be further developed and discussed in order to
establish the ground for a more specialized development of the thesis within the topic of knowledge,
data and information.

2.2 Main challenges in the water resources sector

Water is certainly the most abundant substance on the Earth’s surface and arguably the most
important in all areas of human life. It is intrinsically linked to every individual and societal activities,
playing a crucial role in the development of each economic activity and in environmental diversity
related to water. Water has the power to generate conflicts over its accessibility, availability and use
but unlike other natural resources allow us life and nothing can prosper, evolve or even exist without
its presence.

That is probably why water resources management became a relevant subject at all levels and is
considered to be a key element in so many sectors and areas of public policy (Akhmouch and Correia,
2016).

The attention that is given to it has been reinforced since it has been acknowledged that the so called
water crisis that many countries are facing nowadays is derived from the poor management, with
strong governance causes (UNDP, 2004). One of the key messages is that the problem of water crisis
is not so much related with availability, accessibility or water quality but more to the way water
resources are managed, even in countries where scarcity is importantly severe.

These ideas are nowadays considered by a broad range of experts, including scholars, researchers,
managers, politicians, economists, sociologists and also by the public in general as the baseline for the
best solutions of every problem in water governance. They all realize that water is the natural resource
that intersect more political and social boundaries. It is affected by numerous external drivers such as
population growth, changes in consumption and production patterns, climate variability and change,
lack of capacity, natural limitations, lack of appropriate technology, lack of effective financial support
to fund new and to rehabilitate existing water infrastructure. The need for improving water
governance is critical because of these many externalities and because of the link to many other
significant areas such as health, agriculture, energy, poverty alleviation and public investment.

10
Abundant literature can be found nowadays regarding the general challenges of water resources
management and governance in the form of reports, books and papers, either with a national or with
an international focus.

One important project, considered to be one of the pioneering efforts in these matters, is
EUROWATER (Akhmouch & Correia, 2016). This collaborative research project, funded by the
Environment Research Programme of the European Union and by some national agencies, was
conducted by five universities and research institutes of selected European countries: France,
Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The results were published in the book
“Water Resources Management in Europe” in 1998, and is organized in two volumes: Volume 1 –
Institutions for Water Resources Management in Europe; and Volume 2 - Selected Issues in Water
Resources Management in Europe (Correia, 1998a, 1998b). This publication addresses selected
challenges of water resources management in Europe by seeking scientific results on the comparative
analysis of the institutional systems. Based on an in-depth analysis of the institutions of the five
countries mentioned above and structured in 60 items contemplated in all country reports. These
items were considered in chapters dedicated to each country report (Correia, 1998a). Many common
problems were identified, although they may be faced differently regarding the affected areas, the
degree of significance and urgency. There were significant differences in central matters as water
availability, dominant water uses and legal and institutional structure for water management and
policy. The identification of these common challenges led to selecting a short list of ten topics and list
them as the most relevant and broad issues that are crucial to understand what water matters involve
in each society. The topics are grouped in different and broad water resources clusters corresponding
to the horizontal reports (i.e. topic based with country references serving only as illustration of
broader issues and problems deserving to be equated at an European level) and respecting the vertical
relationship (i.e. in-depth descriptions of water institutions of each country) (Figure 2.1).

11
 River Basin Focus
- Water resources information
- River basin management
- Transboundary issues

Management and
Legal and Political Environment
- Subsidiary and water policy - Water and environment
- Water rights and Administration - Regulation and enforcement
- Emerging issues in water quality

Economic Issues
- Public and private water
management
- Economic instruments and
Financing

Figure 2.1 - Clusters of the most relevant topics of the challenges for water management (based on Correia, 1998b).

Although the scheme of Figure 2.1 groups some of the most relevant and broad topics regarding the
water challenges, there are other contributions and ideas recently developed.

Some of the largest concerns nowadays are in a straight line with the demographic growth and its
direct potential implications. Since the last half of the twentieth century, the rate of water use at a
global scale has been at least twice as high as the population growth rate (United Nations, 2015) which
reflects the adoption of behaviours and practices that are more intense in terms of water
consumption. In fact, megatrends such as the demographic growth, urbanisation and climate change
increasingly affect water availability and quality everywhere, but especially in cities, where most
people live and will be living in the future (70% by 2050 according to UNDESA, 2019). By 2050, water
demand will increase by 55% compared to the year 2000, while four billion people will be living in
water-stressed areas. Moreover, 240 million people will lack access to improved water sources, and
almost 1.4 billion people are projected to lack access to basic sanitation (OECD, 2012a). In some rural
and peri-urban areas of Mexico, Greece, Italy, and Portugal, amongst others, fractions of the
population are not connected to water systems or have irregular access to water due to water scarcity
(OECD, 2016). And even if water insecurity is portrayed as an undesirable future event in a
considerable volume of publications, this risk is already materializing. Water mobilization is being
affected by reduced availability of renewable water resources, non-renewable groundwater
resources, and their variability making water supply to the population and productive sectors the

12
global challenge of the millennium for those responsible for the water sector worldwide (Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation, 2014).

Another driving force for the generation of challenges in the water sector is the climate change that
will exacerbate the risks associated with variations in the distribution and availability of water
resources, drought and desertification. The IPCC (2014) report on climate change presents alarming
prospects for the impact of climate change on water availability for the short (2030-2040), medium
(2040-2080) and long term (2080-2100), highlighting the reduction of renewable surface water and
groundwater resources in most regions that face already water scarcity problems. In Europe,
particular attention should be also given to the risks of increased damage from river and coastal floods,
as well as risks of increased water restrictions.

In some more affected regions the water demand will increase while simultaneously the water
availability will decrease, says Romano and Akhmouch (2019). This change in the water balance will
constitute a huge challenge for the authorities and management entities to meet the needs of growing
urban areas, as well as the most sensitive ecosystems, farmers, energy production and industry. In
some other regions water scarcity may be less of a problem than increasing runoff, flooding or sea
level rise. These effects can lead to reduced water quality and can damage the infrastructures that are
used for water transportation and distribution.

The OECD report on “Water and Climate Change Adaptation: Policies to Navigate Uncharted Waters”
(OECD, 2013) also provides evidence on the climate impacts on water systems. In the country profile
of Portugal the observed changes and trends list an overall decrease in annual runoff, an increased
difference between regions in terms of water availability, a decrease in surface water and
groundwater quality, and an increase in flood risk due to increased rainfall intensity.

Overall, the challenge of tackling climate change has placed more urgency on the need for a paradigm
shift in water management, coupled with mitigation, adaptation and capacity building of societies'
resilience to the effects of change.

Out of this there are two additional challenges, related to economic losses and additional pressure on
the water quality. Economic losses due to water-related hazards (floods, drought and storms) have
affected 4.2 billion people (95% of all people affected by all disasters) and caused US$1.3 trillion of
damage (63% of all damage) (UNISDR, 2012). In turn, the pressures from pollution as eutrophication
of surface water and coastal zones is expected to increase almost everywhere until 2030. Globally, the
number of lakes with harmful algal blooms will increase by at least 20% until 2050 (UNDESA, 2019).

13
In the legal and political dimension, European Union was pioneer in the implementation of water
policies with innovative and comprehensive characteristics. In 2000, the Member States approved the
Water Framework Directive (WFD) with the aim of promoting a strategic and integrated vision on the
sector based on watershed management and innovative governance approaches. The main objective
of the WFD is to enable Member States to implement measures to achieve "good ecological status of
their water bodies", on which can be said that there has been a very positive evolution. This Directive
provided indeed a basis for establishing a framework for Community action for the protection of
surface, transitional, coastal and groundwater, extended to nature conservation, to promote a new
water vision using common criteria and evaluation procedures capable of maintaining national
specificities and, at the same time, to move forward with the shared management of shared basins.
Nevertheless, the main challenges for the implementation of this Directive, as shown in some prior
research, is actually related to the failure of institutions regarding the participatory processes, which
in turn, has led to the lack of interest on the part of the citizens involved (Moss, 2008). It is also pointed
out that the lack of leadership at the level of the Basin Agencies is also reflected in the lack of political
will and commitment regarding the governments, in a process contaminated by disorder between the
State and economic interests, allowing more organized groups to negotiate directly with the public
administration. The pressure of certain economic sectors is so strong and influential that takes the
water policy to a secondary level. Added to these difficulties, is the lack of coordination between the
political will (generally concerned with the short cycle of electoral agenda) and the scientific reality
(with a vision of long and complex cycles), costly procedures to integrate processes between micro
and macro scales, time-scales and public participation (Schmidt and Ferreira, 2014). A note also for
the information area, related to the difficulties in accessing the data and information, many times in
a technical language, not accessible to most of the participants and stakeholders, and the level of trust
in the origin and published information that, in most cases, blocks the participation processes and
resolution of conflicts.

Aiming to identify in a structured way the main challenges associated to the water sector the CEO
Water Mandate Guide to Water-Related Collective Action (Greenwood et al., 2012) focuses on water-
related collective action and it targets, but not exclusive to, companies dealing to external
engagement on water issues. In fact, other parties such as governments, NGOs and institutions may
also find the strategies and insights presented in this document useful even if they do not represent
the primary audience for this publication. From the point of view of the present research the approach
presented by Greenwood et al. (2012) grouped in a well-founded way, and supported by many case-
studies, a perspective on the characterization of water-related challenges and identifies specific areas
in which collective actions have to be taken (Figure 2.2). When existent external drivers act in the

14
water management systems (Infrastructure, water management and governance) they will result in
an insufficient response to pressures and requirements, which in turn will lead to water-related
challenges (overallocation, unreliable supply, quality deterioration, flood damage and ecosystem
degradation). The 12 collective action areas are identified and displayed as indicated in the Figure 2.2,
summarizing in a very complete way the previously presented action areas to respond to the
challenges found in the literature.

Figure 2.2 - Collective Action Areas to Challenges and Underlying Failures (Greenwood et al., 2012).

2.3 The definition and conceptualization of groundwater governance

The question “Why water governance needs to be contextualized for groundwater?” is the first
question to raise in this sub-chapter. In fact, there are many reasons for that. FAO (2015) and Villholth

15
et al. (2017) pointed out some of those reasons for specifically focusing on groundwater governance,
as a subset of water governance, and they stem from a number of factors:

a. Groundwater, as the most accessible store of freshwater on the planet, has been used at
unparalleled rates over the past fifty years for the most relevant uses as agriculture and
domestic as well as industrial use. Generally, rates of abstraction have exceeded natural
recharge rates over extended periods, and environmental signs of unsustainable use and
negative socio-economic impacts are increasingly evident (Falkenmark et al., 2003;
Famiglietti, 2014). In many cases, groundwater is the water resource mostly relied on.
Throughout history its importance, especially in arid and semi-arid regions, is evident. On the
other hand, in other regions, as surface water resources either deplete, become
contaminated, or become excessively variable to satisfy neverceasing needs, groundwater
progressively became more used.
b. Groundwater possesses some natural typical characteristics that inherently complicate its
effective and efficient management. These characteristics are related to three factors:
a. It is, in fact, a hidden subterranean resource;
b. The flow rates are comparatively slow, which means that the time scales of
groundwater processes are much longer than those for surface water and
atmospheric water. It takes a long time for reserves to build up, and a long time to
recover from any deteriorated state, and
c. It has an omnipresence occurrence, accessible to almost anybody and vulnerable to
nearly any human polluting activity, with open access opportunities to all
stakeholders, as just as a common-pool resource (if included within the public domain
of the state).

In other words, this invisible-slow-distributed signature unique to groundwater entails that the
resource is susceptible to short-sighted and unaccountable exploitation under a first-come, first-
served setting with other benefits such as the ready local availability, high reliability during droughts,
regulating ecosystems and microclimate and generally delivering water of superior quality. The
numbers are worrisome: groundwater withdrawal has more than quadrupled in volume over the last
50 years, a trend that is likely to continue (FAO, 2016b). Hence, there is an urgent need to address
unsustainable trends of groundwater development and use. Today, groundwater is estimated globally
to provide 36% of freshwater, from which 42% are water for irrigated agriculture and 24% for direct
industrial water supply. In some areas, actually groundwater is the only reliable source of freshwater.
In regions with water scarcity and highly groundwater dependency for any further economic-social
development the excessive use has resulted in undesirable effects in quantity and quality, with the

16
expected environmental consequences. The intense growth of groundwater abstraction is the basis,
for example, of the extensive growing agriculture areas, such as the green revolution of Asian
agriculture bringing water issues as a serious retreating of the groundwater levels in areas where more
water is being pumped for irrigation than can be replenished (Hazell and Wood, 2007). Some of these
outcomes were inevitable as millions of largely illiterate farmers began to use modern inputs for the
first time, but the problem was exacerbated by inadequate extension and training, an absence of
effective regulation of water use and quality, and by input pricing and subsidy policies that made
modern ways of using groundwater too cheap and encouraged excessive use. Regarding quality,
groundwater is affected by contamination from various indiscriminate or uninformed land uses and
waste handling practices under a reactive management setting, rather than pro-active planning and
governance.

As it is part of a large hydrological system, it is rather vital to highlight that groundwater governance
alone is not going to be effective. There are obvious linkages across various water sources and sectors
that critically determine the physical status of groundwater. It is clear then that groundwater
governance also needs to encompass broader issues than water scarcity, water-related environmental
issues (ecosystems, land stability, conditions for and interactions with land use, use of subsurface
space, mining, etc.) as well as the socio-economic aspects.

2.3.1 Background and initial approach

The term governance is now used widely by governments, international organisations, private
operators, civil society, donors and aid agencies but it has been defined in different ways. The first
time the term was used was in late 14th century but got popular and broadly used after the 1980’s
(Ilyin, 2013). Its conceptualization is recently enrichened by a growing number of contemporary
interactions organizations and activities that occur in a decentralized state government (e.g. non-
governmental and civil society-based), which, in fact coordinate and add rules and structure to public
administration through various mechanisms such as public participation and cooperation between a
wide range of actors (Bevir, 2011). Throughout time, the term governance has been applied in various
settings, depending on the context and geography (e.g. global governance, EU governance, multilevel
governance), focused on a resource (e.g. fisheries governance, forest governance, groundwater
governance) or in the a modus operandi of governance (e.g. interactive governance, network
governance, adaptive governance). All of these different settings interpret governance in a particular

17
way following their own language and empirical cases as well as a distinct level of development and
evolution.

In order to elaborate and discuss the state-of-the-art on the concept of groundwater governance, a
comparative analysis between various definitions found in the literature related to groundwater
governance was made, looking at how the concept was originated and evolved over time, what are its
key attributes, what is its current status in terms of its development, and finally, the identification of
some key areas where related concepts would need some improvement or refinement. For the better
understanding and analysis of the origin of groundwater governance, the following presentation will
take into account the hierarchical order of the increasingly specific definitions: governance,
environmental governance, water governance, and finally groundwater governance. Special attention
and more detail is presented to the last two definitions due the degree of importance for this work.

2.3.2 Evolution of the concept in hierarchical order

2.3.2.1 Governance

With the development and increasing use of the term governance throughout the years between the
1980’s and the 1990’s, other ways of employing the term started to sprout up. Definitions highlighted
management as the central purpose of governance and positioned governance as state power e.g.
“the exercise of political power to manage a nation’s affairs” (World Bank, 1989). Nevertheless, by the
mid-to-late 1990’s and early 2000’s, the conceptualization of governance had shifted in three key ways
(Villholth and Conti, 2017):

1) Governance was conceived as being composed by three main features: as a process, as a

relationship and an interaction. As a process, Graham et al. (2003) says that “the process
whereby societies or organizations make their important decisions, determine who has voice,
who is engaged in the process and how account is rendered’’. As a relationship, Pierre and
Peters (2000) quoted in Villholth and Conti (2017) refer to relationship as “changing
relationships between State and society and a growing reliance on less coercive policy
instruments’’. Finally, as an interaction, Graham et al. (2003) stated that “the interactions
among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities
are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say.”
Which is essentially the same to say that governance is about power, relationships and

18
 accountability. In the words of the authors “who has influence, who decides, and how decision-
makers are held accountable”. Another variable could be the framework that “creates an
effective political framework conducive to private economic action: stable regimes, the rule of
law, efficient State administration adapted to the roles that Governments can actually perform
and a strong civil society independent of the State” (Hirst, 2000).
2) The geographic scope of governance moved beyond the national to include the international
and global: “Global governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public
and private, manage their common affairs” (Commission on Global Governance, 1995, quoted
in Villholth and Conti, 2017).
3) The concept of ‘good governance’ was originally applied as a derivative concept in the
governance discourse, primarily used in the international development community –
especially, development agencies such as the World Bank and United Nations Development
Program (UNDP). Typically, governance was defined in accordance with the United Nation’s
(UN) set of eight core tenets (in no particular order): (1) responsibility, (2) accountability, (3)
transparency, (4) efficiency, (5) legitimacy, (6) participation, (7) equity and inclusiveness, and
(8) rule of law.

After 2000 the trend to framing governance in terms of centralized power or authority had mostly
fallen out of vogue. The definitions of governance became more and more specific according to the
field where it was applied, namely regarding what is being governed (the ‘object’ of governance), who
is governing and being governed (the governance ‘actors’). Lately, the non-state actors have been
playing an important role on the recent definitions as they are considered to be key participants.

Nevertheless, still today the term does not gather a common definition and conceptualization, most
likely because the vast use of the term depending on the perspectives and disciplines from which
people approach the concept.

2.3.2.2 Environmental governance

In the early 1990’s the international legal frameworks addressing Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions,
climate change and sustainable development were the driving force to the development of the
environmental governance alongside with the concept of ‘global governance’. This concept was
usually extended to cover the topics of forest governance, fisheries governance, Antarctic governance,
climate governance, land use governance, water governance, etc. There are numerous important

19
actors involved in environmental governance and a range of institutions contribute to and help define
the practice of global environmental governance. The idea of global environmental governance is to
govern the environment at a global level through a range of state actors (such as governments) and
non-state actors (such NGOs and other international organisations such as UNEP (United Nations
Environment Programme).

By the 2000’s, the definition of ‘global environmental governance’ encompasses the following key
ideas:

1) The sum of the overlapping networks of inter-state regimes on environmental issues’

(Patterson et al., 2003);
2) The protection of the Earth’s ecosystems under conditions in which human actions have
become fundamental driving forces (Young, 2002).

As for today, a large proportion of environmental governance literature is focused on the global level
i.e. ‘global environmental governance’. This is a concept that involves political ecology and
environmental policy and that advocates sustainability (sustainable development) as the supreme
consideration for managing all human activities - political, social and economic (Dryzek and Stevenson,
2011; Earth System Governance, 2013), in a way that can be considered an expanded global
environmental governance, because it integrates sustainable development as a key norm as well as
multilevel aspects of governance (Villholth and Conti, 2017). Governance then includes government,
business and civil society as well corporations (Clapp, 2014), and emphasizes whole system
management, including geographic levels (Meadowcroft, 2002). To capture this diverse range of
elements, environmental governance often employs alternative systems of governance, for example
watershed-based management. Natural resources and the environment are perceived as global public
goods, belonging to the category of goods that are not diminished when they are shared (Earth System
Governance, 2013). This means that everyone should be able to benefit from a breathable
atmosphere, stable climate and stable biodiversity, for example.

Even if the concept of environmental governance is defined using its own terminology the object and
actors identified remained relatively consistent. Most definitions indicate that all humans or
‘humanity’ are the key actors in environmental governance and the environment is the object of
governance.

20
2.3.2.3 Water governance

Water governance in the vision of some authors (Earth System Governance, 2013; Villholth and Conti,
2017) is considered to be a type or sub-set of environmental governance. But before going into its
conceptualization it is important to highlight that the ‘water crisis’ that many countries face nowadays
is essentially a crisis of water management, with strong water governance characteristics (UN, 2009).
Many times both of the terms appear to be used interchangeably. Nevertheless, water governance is
certainly distinct from water management. The former refers to the set of administrative structures
operating in the water field with a core focus on formal (laws, official policies) and informal (power
relations and practices) institutions as well as organizational structures and their efficiency. The latter
comprises the carrying out of operational, on-the ground activities to meet specific targets or
objectives, such as aligning water resources, supply, consumption and recycling. Institutional and
policy frameworks fostering transparency, accountability, and coordination are thus part of water
governance, whilst delivering water or installing improved water resources are part of water
management (OECD, 2011a).

Water policies are affected by numerous external drivers such as population growth, changes in
consumption and production patterns, climate variability, lack of capacity, absence of effective
financial support to fund new and to rehabilitate existing water infrastructure. But the key concern is
more related to the way water resources are managed worldwide than to their availability, though
scarcity is particularly acute in several countries and cannot be neglected. Critically, the simple ‘water
scarcity’ governance nexus portrays a simplified but strong argument for a change in mind-set, from
focus on the physical expression and reasons for water problems to the more human and political
aspects.

A literature review and analysis of the topic, can be presented as an attempt to bring up how the
concepts generally evolved since the turn of the century, as well as a presentation of the most
complete definitions of water governance, although with no pretention of making an exhaustive and
complete review.

Generally, the most common idea in a vast number of publications is that water governance tries “to
do things right”, encompassing the parallel dimensions of economy, corporation, and the local,
regional, national and international affairs (Dixit, 2009).

According to Rogers and Hall (2003), in a report for Global Water Partnership, the definition of water
governance refers to the “range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in

21
place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of
the society”. Thus, water governance is the framework of political, social, economic and legal
structures within which societies choose and accept to manage their water-related affairs. It includes
governments, the market forces that help to allocate resources, and any other mechanism that
regulates human interaction.

Many renowned institutions and other agencies have adopted this very same definition, including the
World Bank, OECD, SIWI and others. Furthermore, Rogers and Hall (2003) proposed two wide-ranging
sets of principles that reinforce effective water governance:

1) Make sure the approaches are transparent, inclusive, coherent and integrative, equitable,
and;
2) Make the performance and/or operations be accountable, efficient, responsive, and
sustainable.

For UNDP (2013), water governance represents the framework of systems that control decision-
making regarding water resources development and management. It is therefore more about the way
in which decisions are made (i.e. how, by whom and under what conditions) than about the decisions
themselves. It deals with the manner in which roles and responsibilities (design, regulation, and
implementation) are exercised in the management of water and broadly encompasses the formal and
informal institutions by which authority is exercised. In the analysis of Araral and Wang (2013), the
authors argue that this definition provides good guidance principles and clear policy implications but
falls short in terms of diagnostic and prescriptive utility. This view could actually be applied to other
authors as well, where theoretical approaches are generally exposed and discussed with (sometimes)
little substantiation and validation in practice, and from their own disciplinary perspective, directly
related to the various areas of sociology, political science, institutions, behavioural science,
economics, international relations, among others (Biswas and Tortajada, 2010; Godden et al., 2011;
Hirsch, 2006; Kashyap, 2004; Mollinga, 2008; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Wiek and Larson, 2012). Many
attention to issues related to efficiency, equity, integration, sustainability and participation was given,
but only occasionally they examined their trade-offs.

Looking first at the discussion that Biswas and Tortajada (2010) raised, namely on the transition of the
terms ‘sustainable water management’ and/or ‘integrated water resources management’ (IWRM) to
water governance, around the year 2000, they claim that the former terms were unable to make any
long-term impact on the water sector. Thus, the existing definitions of water governance were limited
and in fact the terms governance and management got merged by confusion and the incapacity for
distinguishing them properly, which is the same to say that there were no clear definitions of “where

22
management ends and governance begins, or if management is subsumed under governance or vice
versa”. Independently, in the last two decades from now, IWRM has been replaced or discarded by
national water institutions and international organizations because it was very difficult to implement
at any national and regional scale (Biswas and Tortajada, 2010; Gourbesville, 2008). This failure might
have happened for two main reasons: 1) One of the major challenges that all countries face is related
to the development of laws, regulations and institutions, required for managing water resources in a
more economical way, socially acceptable and environmentally sustainable, that must be tailored to
the cultural, social, historical, environmental and economic circumstances of each country; 2) Second,
all countries face a major financial, economic and technical challenge in developing and maintaining
the water infrastructure. As a symbiosis between resource management and service sectors is
considered to happen (Gourbesville, 2008), this view was then urging to be adapted and extended to
a wider vision about the water dynamics, the social and economic environments and the
environmental assessment.

Wiek and Larson (2012) presented an approach that intended to overcome some of the challenges of
water governance, namely “a comprehensive perspective on water systems, focusing on social actors,
their actions, needs, intentions, and norms as drivers of water systems; engaging in a discourse on
tangible goals to provide direction for governance efforts; and promoting a comprehensive perspective
on water sustainability that equally recognizes depletion, justice, and livelihood issues in the long-
term”. An integrated approach to water governance regimes was outlined, and then, a holistic set of
principles by which to evaluate sustainable water governance was presented in order to reform and
innovate existing water governance regimes.

In the context of climate change, Kashyap (2004) referred to water governance as the ability to develop
adaptive capacity, Godden et al. (2011) as “adaptive and sustainable water management and Allan et
al. (2013) defends that adaptive management has potential to address this social–ecological
complexity because it supports a holistic approach”. However, it appears that under an adaptive
paradigm, water governance becomes a concept and institutionalised practice that is continuously
reviewed and reconstructed, certainly hard to achieve due to timing and scale constrains.

The feeling that the water governance paradigm was about to shift was already documented by Tropp
(2007) when he states that trends in the water sector imply that “traditional” roles of government,
such as hierarchical control and the claim of power monopoly, are de-emphasised. It has to be
determined “who gets what water, when and how”. Then he suggests that a new form of governance
needs flexibility at all levels, which naturally implies that informal institutions can be as important as
the formal ones and even more emphasis on the management of processes and people is required to

23
be implemented. Continuing on this line, the decision-making implies that bottom-up approaches
should be intensified, inevitably requiring more emphasis on the multidisciplinary production of
knowledge, which will in turn, develop capacities to respond more effectively to situations
characterized by complexity, uncertainties, change and trade-offs.

On the other hand, Saleth and Dinar (2004) makes some important contributions in terms of applying
an analytical approach and an evaluation methodology, namely by comparing water institutions and
their impact on water sector performance among countries based on 3 sets of indicators (water law,
policy and administration) and 20 sub-indicators that are commonly discussed in the literature. And
Biswas and Tortajada (2010), later on state that it would be very useful to learn what were the enabling
environment and critical factors that contributed to the implementation of good water governance in
selected countries that, consequently, could allow others to significantly improve their current
practices and processes. For that, the authors proposed the use of a specific set of indicators for water
governance through independent and objective case studies.

A project of particular relevance for the setting of the concepts and definitions of water governance
is the OECD Water Governance Programme. This initiative started in 2009 and aims at advising
governments at all levels on how to design and implement “better water policies for better lives”.
Based on a vast literature review on the concepts and values, on its analysis and discussion, and paying
attention to important inputs based on shared experiences and knowledge from several international
agencies throughout the world, OECD defines the Multilevel approach in water governance as “the
explicit or implicit sharing of policy-making authority, responsibility, development and implementation
at different administrative and territorial levels, i.e. (i) across different ministries and/or public
agencies at central government level (upper horizontally), (ii) between different layers of government
at local, regional, provincial/state, national and supranational levels (vertically), and (iii) across
different actors at subnational level (lower horizontally)” (OECD, 2011a). This approach has been
developed in order to complement the existing approaches specifically on the issue of coherence and
coordination of public action to achieve water policy outcomes such as sustainability, efficiency,
equity, rule of law, accountability and participation. Another consideration to take into account is the
OECD definition of good and bad governance. It is good governance “if it can help to solve key water
challenges, using a combination of bottom-up and top-down processes while fostering constructive
state-society relations”. It is bad governance “if it generates undue transaction costs and does not
respond to place-based needs”.

After roughly twenty years of discussion and the introduction of the definition of the term water
governance, the term continues to be a very subjective concept, even after large efforts had been

24
done through the publication of a myriad of documents or initiatives, which undoubtedly defined,
developed and improved the basic notions and associated sectors and features (Table 2.1). Water
governance is not an exact science and stands alongside social, political and organizational dimensions
which means that an axiomatic definition is very unlikely to be found. Nevertheless, many related
concepts as water management, integrated water resources management, water infrastructure,
policy enhancement, law and regulation are relatively integrated and aggregated to one full body. All
the various approaches are clearly convergent and complementary, as shown in the Table 2.1. The
main lag in the definition, in my opinion, is on how the body is formed and how the various members
and constituents articulate between themselves, and the clear consequences of its success.
Furthermore, with the exception of the OECD multilevel approach to water governance, there is no
clear evidence that the research agenda evolved in that direction. In fact, just like Araral and Wang
(2013) emphasize, “analytic tools from economics, sociology, politics and public administration are
seldom brought together despite the fact that water governance problems have multi and
interdisciplinary dimensions.”

Table 2.1 – Summary of the most relevant definitions for water governance.

Year Definition Author

2003 “the range of political, social, economic and administrative Rogers and Hall (2003):
systems that are in place to develop and manage water Effective Water Governance
resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels
of the society”
2007 “governance needs flexibility at all levels, which naturally Tropp (2007): Water
implies that informal institutions can be as important as the governance: trends and
formal ones and even more emphasis on the management of needs for new capacity
processes and people is required to be implemented. development
(…)decision-making implies that bottom-up approaches
should be intensified, inevitably requiring more emphasis on
the multidisciplinary production of knowledge, which will in
turn, develop capacities to respond more effectively to
situations characterized by complexity, uncertainties, change
and trade-offs.”
2011 “the explicit or implicit sharing of policy-making authority, OECD, 2011: Water
responsibility, development and implementation at different Governance in OECD
administrative and territorial levels, i.e. (i) across different Countries: A Multi-level
ministries and/or public agencies at central government level Approach

25
 (upper horizontally), (ii) between different layers of
government at local, regional, provincial/state, national and
supranational levels (vertically), and (iii) across different
actors at subnational level (lower horizontally)”
2012 “a comprehensive perspective on water systems, focusing on Wiek and Larson (2012):
social actors, their actions, needs, intentions, and norms as Water, People, and
drivers of water systems; engaging in a discourse on tangible Sustainability: A Systems
goals to provide direction for governance efforts; and Framework for Analysing and
promoting a comprehensive perspective on water Assessing Water Governance
sustainability that equally recognizes depletion, justice, and Regimes
livelihood issues in the long-term”
2013 “the framework of systems that control decision-making UNDP (2013): User’s guide on
regarding water resources development and management. It assessing water governance
is therefore more about the way in which decisions are made
(i.e. how, by whom and under what conditions) than the
decisions themselves. It deals with the manner in which roles
and responsibilities (design, regulation, and implementation)
are exercised in the management of water and broadly
encompasses the formal and informal institutions by which
authority is exercised”

2.3.2.4 Groundwater governance

A landmark for the definition of groundwater governance was achieved by Foster et al. (2010), under
the World Bank’s Groundwater MATE program (GW-MATE). The author defined groundwater
governance (as a subset of water governance) as “the exercise of appropriate authority and promotion
of responsible collective action to ensure sustainable and efficient utilization of groundwater resources
for the benefit of humankind and dependent ecosystems”. This definition highlights the ‘authority’ on
the definition that brings back the older governance definition presented by the World Bank (1991)
stating governance as “the exercise of political authority and the use of institutional resources to
manage society’s problems and affairs”. Foster et al. (2010) contributed with the link to the benefits,
namely for the common health and the relation to dependent ecosystems.

In 2013, the thematic paper on groundwater policy and governance for the Global Environment
Facilities’ (GEF) Groundwater Governance Project, implemented by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) jointly with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

26
(UNESCO), the World Bank and the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH) (FAO, 2013a),
presented a definition for groundwater governance as “the process by which groundwater is managed
through the application of responsibility, participation, information availability, transparency, custom,
and rule of law. It is the art of coordinating administrative actions and decision making between and
among different jurisdictional levels – one of which may be global”. On this definition the authors
added a useful thought formulated in 1995 by the Commission on Global Governance, “Governance is
the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common
affairs” highlighting as well the importance of the ‘process’ in which societies govern. On the following
digest version of the document (FAO, 2013b), written by the same authors, the definition was
expanded upon the FAO definition (FAO, 2013a), saying: “In practice, groundwater governance is the
complex and overarching framework that determines the management of groundwater resources and
the use of the aquifers. The local, regional or national governance framework establishes ‘who’
participates in formulating strategies and is responsible for their execution and “how’’ the different
actors (governmental, public sector, non-governmental, private sector, and civil society) interact”.
Comparing this proposed definition and its expansion with the previous ones it could be said that
herein is presented a much wider and complete way, where the terms of ‘governance’ (e.g.
governance as a process and a framework), ‘good governance’ (e.g. the tenets of responsibility,
participation, etc.), ‘environmental governance’ (e.g. governance as multi-level), and ‘water
governance’ (e.g. the relationships and rules in practice) are explicitly incorporated in the concept of
groundwater governance.

The proof that these concepts are fresh and discussable is that the same authors of the FAO thematic
paper on groundwater policy and governance for the GEF altered their previous and recent definition
in a paper published in 2015, where the main changes are in the conceptualization of “the overarching
framework of groundwater use laws, regulations, and customs, as well as the processes of engaging
the public sector, the private sector, and civil society’’ that “shapes how groundwater resources are
managed and how aquifers are used” (Megdal et al., 2015). Here the framework and process were
emphasized as well as who and how the actors engage and for what purpose.

In 2016, with the publication of the three key project documents of the Groundwater Governance
project, namely the 'Shared Global Vision for 2030 and A Call for Action' (FAO, 2016a), 'Global
Framework for Action to Achieve the Vision on Groundwater Governance' (FAO, 2016b) and 'Global
Diagnostic on Groundwater Governance' (FAO, 2016c) the Foster et al. (2010) definition was updated
with small variations, specifically the removal of ‘authority’ from the definition, and the inclusion of
‘framework and process’, ‘principles’ and ‘responsible collective action’.

27
Villholth and Conti (2017) propose some changes on the FAO definitions because they argue that “it
was considered normative by focusing on ‘good groundwater governance’ and thus would exclude
forms of groundwater governance, which may not meet this criterion of goodness”. Also, the removal
of normative elements in the 2015 definition by Megdal et al. might point out some consensus
between other researchers and practitioners in regard of groundwater governance being inherently
good or bad. As such, these authors proposed that “Groundwater governance is the framework
encompassing the processes, interactions, and institutions, in which actors (i.e. government, private
sector, civil society, academia, etc.) participate and decide on management of groundwater within and
across multiple geographic (i.e. sub-national, national, transboundary, and global) and
institutional/sectoral levels, as applicable.”.

Below, in the Table 2.2, a summary with the exposed definitions and its chronological order is
presented so that the reader can get a more synthetized view of the conceptual evolution. It should
be also noted that there are many definitions of groundwater governance as more projects and works
are done on this thematic. Nevertheless, just like it is for the definition of water governance, these
definitions for groundwater governance tend to converge to each other, or at least with several
crossing areas. After the Villholth and Conti (2017) there is no advancement on the topic, as far as the
literature research could tell. Presently, the most adopted definition varies from author to author, but
could be said that as far as it goes, the definitions by FAO are the uttermost utilized, perhaps due the
level of exposure and importance of the pioneer project (the Groundwater Governance project) that
originated it.

Table 2.2 – Evolution of the definition of groundwater governance

Year Definition Authors

2010 The exercise of appropriate authority and promotion of Foster et al. (2009): Groundwater
responsible collective action to ensure sustainable and governance: conceptual framework for
efficient utilization of groundwater resources for the assessment of provisions and needs
benefit of humankind and dependent ecosystems
2013 Groundwater governance is the process by which FAO (2013): Groundwater Governance
groundwater is managed through the application of project - Thematic Paper No. 5 -
responsibility, participation, information availability, Groundwater Policy and Governance
transparency, custom, and rule of law. It is the art of
coordinating administrative actions and decision
making between and among different jurisdictional
levels–one of which may be global.
2015 The overarching framework of groundwater use laws, Megdal et al. (2015): Groundwater
regulations, and customs, as well as the processes of governance in the United States:
engaging the public sector, the private sector, and civil Common priorities and challenges
society. This framework shapes ‘what’ is done, that is,
how groundwater resources are managed and how
aquifers are used.
2016 Groundwater governance comprises the enabling (FAO, 2016c): Global diagnostic on
framework and guiding principles for responsible groundwater governance

28
 collective action to ensure control, protection and
socially-sustainable utilisation of groundwater
resources for the benefit of humankind and
dependent ecosystems.
2016 Groundwater governance comprises the promotion of (FAO, 2016b): Global framework for
responsible collective action to ensure control, action to achieve the vision on
protection and socially-sustainable utilisation of groundwater governance
groundwater resources and aquifer systems for the
benefit of humankind and dependent ecosystems. This
action is facilitated by an enabling framework and
guiding principles.
2017 Groundwater governance is the framework (Villholth and Conti, 2017): Advances in
encompassing the processes, interactions, and Groundwater Governance
institutions, in which actors (i.e. government, private
sector, civil society, academia, etc.) participate and
decide on management of groundwater within and
across multiple geographic (i.e. sub-national, national,
transboundary, and global) and institutional/sectoral
levels, as applicable.

2.4 Water governance approaches in the context of groundwater

There are two international projects of particular relevance that can make the starting point for the
development of this sub-chapter. The first that should be mentioned is the OECD Water Governance
programme, a programme that has invested great efforts in an international collaborative research
on Water Governance and related subjects (OECD, 2011b). The second is the FAO’s Groundwater
Governance Project - A Global Framework for Action (2011-2016), which is a joint project supported
by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO), jointly with UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme (UNESCO-
IHP), the International Association of Hydrologists (IAH) and the World Bank (FAO, 2016b)(FAO,
2016b).

2.4.1 The OECD Water Governance programme

The OECD Water Governance programme started in 2009 and aims at advising governments at all
levels on how to design and implement “better water policies for better lives”. Relies on multi-
stakeholder engagement and bottom-up processes to produce policy analysis, policy dialogues, policy
standards and a policy forum. Since its creation, it has produced evidence-based analysis, benchmarks

29
and peer reviews that made a real input at the globe scale. The first output of this programme was
the OECD Multi-level Governance Framework “Mind the Gaps, Bridge the Gaps” (OECD, 2011a) that
identified seven categories of governance deficits related to water management that are relevant to
all countries regardless of their institutional organisations, water availability and demand. On these
categories are considered the gaps related to funding, accountability, capacity, policy, administrative
and information (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3 – Diagram from OECD Multi-level Governance Framework “Mind the Gaps, Bridge the Gaps” (OECD, 2011a).

A brief description of the multilevel water governance gaps is presented on the Table 2.3, based on
the description of Akhmouch and Correia (2016). This summary indicates, in the first column, the areas
where intervention has to be made and the main concerns in regard to bridging the gaps in water
governance.

Table 2.3 – Brief description of the multilevel water governance gaps (Akhmouch and Correia, 2016; OECD, 2011b).

Gap in water policy Description

Administrative gap Geographical “mismatch” between hydrological and administrative boundaries. This can be at the
origin of resource and supply gaps
Information gap Asymmetries of information (quantity, quality, type) between different stakeholders involved in
water policy, either voluntary or not
Policy gap Sectoral fragmentation of water-related tasks across ministries and agencies
Capacity gap Insufficient scientific, technical, infrastructural capacity of local actors to design and implement
water policies as well as relevant strategies

30
 Funding gap Unstable or insufficient revenues undermining effective implementation of water responsibilities
at sub-national level, cross-sectoral policies, and investments requested
Objective gap Different rationales creating obstacles for adopting convergent targets, especially in case of
motivational gap (referring to the problems reducing the political will to engage substantially in
organising the water sector)
Accountability gap Difficulty ensuring the transparency of practices across the different constituencies, mainly due to
insufficient users’ commitment’ lack of concern, awareness and participation

In the Figure 2.4 one can observe the number of gaps in each category, analysed in 17 OECD countries
(in the left-hand side) and the number of gaps in Latin America and the Caribbean (right-hand side),
classified as “Very important”, “Important” and “Non-important”.

Figure 2.4 – Multi-level governance gaps in OECD countries (left); and in Latin America and the Caribbean (right) (OECD,
2012b, 2011a).

Attending to the topics covered on this thesis, from these graphics it must be highlighted that the
information gap still hold a very substantial share, both in the selected OECD countries and in the Latin
America and the Caribbean. For the first case, in the OECD countries, the information gap represents
the third biggest gap, while for the Latin America and the Caribbean this gap holds the highest position,
in exequo with the policy gap. Effectively, in these regions the significance level of the information gap
is very close to the levels observed for the policy gap and they appear to be interrelated. One note
also to the administrative gap, holding the bigger number of “very important” gaps in OECD region.
This has to do mostly with geographical “mismatch” between hydrological and administrative
boundaries. The capacity, accountability and funding gaps, according to the data in the graphic also
present significative concern, as “important” challenges are on play. The gaps related to capacity are

31
intrinsically related to insufficient scientific, technical, infrastructural capacity of local actors to design
and implement water policies as well as relevant strategies. Accountability, in this context, mainly
deals with transparency, lack of concern, awareness and participation, while funding specifies
unstable or insufficient revenues undermining effective implementation of water responsibilities in
the various vertical and horizontal levels.

When it comes to groundwater governance and the importance of monitoring and collecting data and
information to achieve a better governance approach, the next diagram (Figure 2.5) represents how
these dimensions fit and might be closely interrelated. Furthermore, the figure also shows that water
governance is a cycle, from good water governance to better water governance. From the formulation
of policies and strategies the Principles are then applied, and actions taken in order to implement the
defined policies and strategies. After the implementation comes the use of indicators to monitor those
policies. This way, an assessment of the gaps is made to be able to develop new instruments or
improvements to bridge the identified gaps and close the cycle with the next step to formulation of
policies and strategies.

Figure 2.5 – Water governance cycle presented by OECD in the proceeding of the multi-level approach (OECD, 2015).

32
In fact, what this cycle put forward by OECD (2015) shows is that the process of formulating public
policies in all areas, and consequently also in the field of groundwater, is dynamic and iterative. In
these circumstances, it is possible to speak of a cycle in which formulation, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation take place over time, and the evaluation leads in turn to a new formulation
(OECD, 2015). Needless to say that an important process in this cycle is the monitoring, mostly related
to the technical-scientific support, data and information, and level of knowledge of reality. By
monitoring not only the resource (in its various forms and uses) but also the policies and strategies
implemented at all levels it is building a strong ground to support the evaluation process (assessing
the gaps, improvement of development of new instruments and bridging the gaps) that will lead to
the formulation of policies and strategies, aiming at good water governance.

This process was also highlighted in the three mutually reinforcing and complementary dimensions of
the 12 OECD Principles on water governance (Figure 2.6), that intend to contribute to tangible and
outcome-oriented public policies (OECD, 2015). The dimensions are the following:

 Effectiveness, relates to the contribution of governance to define clear sustainable water

policy goals and targets at all levels of government, to implement those policy goals, and to
meet expected targets.
 Efficiency, relates to the contribution of governance to maximise the benefits of sustainable
water management and welfare at the least cost to society.
 Trust and Engagement, relate to the contribution of governance to building public confidence
and ensuring inclusiveness of stakeholders through democratic legitimacy and fairness for
society at large.

These OECD Principles on Water Governance are expected to contribute to improving the “Water
Governance Cycle” from policy design to implementation, so they should be considered in every of the
several water sectors requiring governance, whether it is groundwater or not. An overview of the
OECD Principles on Water Governance are shown in the Figure 2.6, wherein four principles are applied
to each of the three dimensions described above. These principles are based on the assumption that
“there is no one-size-fits-all solution to water challenges worldwide, but a menu of options building on
the diversity of legal, administrative and organisational systems within and across countries”, as well
as the recognition that water governance is highly contextual and needs to be tailored to different
water resources and places.

33
Figure 2.6 - Overview of OECD Principles on Water Governance

The 12 OECD principles on water governance are defined in the Table 2.4. More details on each
principle, namely on action lines within each topic, can be read in the original publication in OECD
(2015).

Table 2.4 - 12 OECD principles on water governance (OECD, 2015).

Enhancing the effectiveness of water governance

Principle 1 Clearly allocate and distinguish roles and responsibilities for water
policymaking, policy implementation, operational management and
regulation, and foster co-ordination across these responsible authorities
Principle 2 Manage water at the appropriate scale(s) within integrated basin governance
systems to reflect local conditions, and foster co-ordination between the
different scales
Principle 3 Encourage policy coherence through effective cross-sectoral co-ordination,
especially between policies for water and the environment, health, energy,
agriculture, industry, spatial planning and land use
Principle 4 Adapt the level of capacity of responsible authorities to the complexity of
water challenges to be met, and to the set of competencies required to carry
out their duties

34
 Enhancing the efficiency of water governance
Principle 5 Produce, update, and share timely, consistent, comparable and policy-
relevant water and water-related data and information, and use it to guide,
assess and improve water policy
Principle 6 Ensure that governance arrangements help mobilise water finance and
allocate financial resources in an efficient, transparent and timely manner
Principle 7 Ensure that sound water management regulatory frameworks are effectively
implemented and enforced in pursuit of the public interest
Principle 8 Promote the adoption and implementation of innovative water governance
practices across responsible authorities, levels of government and relevant
stakeholders
Enhancing trust and engagement in water governance
Principle 9 Mainstream integrity and transparency practices across water policies, water
institutions and water governance frameworks for greater accountability and
trust in decision-making
Principle 10 Promote stakeholder engagement for informed and outcome-oriented
contributions to water policy design and implementation
Principle 11 Encourage water governance frameworks that help manage trade-offs across
water users, rural and urban areas, and generations
Principle 12 Promote regular monitoring and evaluation of water policy and governance
where appropriate, share the results with the public and make adjustments
when needed

2.4.2 The Global Environment Facilities’ Groundwater Governance project

To consolidate global knowledge and formulate action needs, the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
partnered with FAO, World Bank, UNESCO, and the International Association of Hydrologists to
analyse the state of groundwater resources and propose solutions to address the challenges in the
Global Groundwater Governance project (2011-2016). Working at a global level, a 2030 Shared Global
Vision for Groundwater Governance was elaborated through a worldwide process of consultation to
act as an urgent call for collectively responsible action. In order to achieve the goals established on
the previous document, the joint project launched a Global Framework for Action. Designed to raise
awareness about the importance of groundwater resources, and identify and promote best practices
in groundwater governance, the project finds ways to achieve the sustainable management of
groundwater resources. The first phase of the project consisted of a review of the global situation of
groundwater governance and aimed to develop a Global Groundwater Diagnostic integrating regional
and country experiences with prospects for the future. This first phase was built on a series of case
studies, thematic papers and five regional consultations. The second phase of the project has

35
developed the main project outcome, a Global Framework for Action consisting of a set of policy and
institutional guidelines, recommendations and best practices designed to improve groundwater
management at country/local level, and groundwater governance at local, national and transboundary
levels.

2.4.2.1 The first phase of the Groundwater Governance project

The first phase, the groundwater diagnostic, summarized and highlighted the key deficiencies (gaps)
in groundwater governance identified in the five regional diagnostic reports (Table 2.5). Several of
these elements reflect what they call the “general conditions for good governance” and are grouped
by what authors consider to be the four main governance components: 1. Actors; 2. Legal Frameworks;
3. Policies and management planning; 4. Data, information and knowledge (Figure 2.7). Most of these
include a degree of subjectivity, since qualifications like “lack of”, “poor” or “insufficient” result from
comparing the present situation with certain assumed minimum requirements that in most cases are
difficult or impossible to specify. The types of gaps and flaws that really matter vary considerably from
case to case, depending on the local setting and the stage of groundwater development and
management. For example, in industrial or agricultural areas the most critical gap in groundwater
governance may often relate to effective pollution control.

Therefore, the findings of this project, at this point, are (FAO, 2016c):

1) the state of groundwater governance largely depends on the groundwater management stage
and on the economic conditions in the country
2) the focus required of groundwater governance varies with the local needs and conditions.

Table 2.5 - Overview of the main deficiencies in groundwater governance based on five regional diagnostics made for the
Groundwater Governance project (FAO, 2016c).

Component Identified deficiencies or flaws

1. Actors 1.a. Lack of awareness/understanding of groundwater and its role, problems and
opportunities (potentially applicable to all categories of stakeholders)
1.b. No sense of urgency for governing groundwater properly
1.c. Low political commitment related to groundwater issues
1.d. Reactive rather than proactive attitudes
1.e. Poorly defined mandates or responsibilities of government agencies

36
 1.f. Insufficient capacity of government agencies
1.g. Poor budgets of government agencies, or dependency on foreign parties
1.h. Lack of initiative and commitment of mandated government organizations
1.i. Poor accountability and transparency of mandated government organizations
1.j. Lack of cooperation between involved government agencies (or even
rivalries)
1.k. Poor law enforcement or implementation of certain instruments (e.g.
licensing)
1.l. Poor stakeholder involvement in groundwater governance
1.m. Lack of trust between the different categories of actors
1.n. Lack of adequate communication between all relevant partners
1.o. No balanced and smooth cooperation between all relevant partners
2. Legal 2.a. Fragmentation and inconsistencies in legislation
Frameworks 2.b. Old groundwater legislation out of line with current views
2.c. Groundwater quantity and quality in separate laws
2.d. Groundwater law separate from laws governing surface water, land use,
mining, subsurface use, environment, etc.
2.e. Institutional mandates and responsibilities not clearly defined
2.f. Overlapping institutional mandates and responsibilities
2.g. Laws ignoring customary rights
2.h. Laws inconsistent with realities on the ground (e.g. institutional capacity or
perceptions of local groundwater users)
2.i. Draft Articles on the Law on Transboundary Aquifers not yet endorsed by
countries
2.j. Legal instruments existing for very few TBAs only
3. Policies and 3.a. Limited scope (single use sector and/or neglecting obvious linkages)
management 3.b. Inconsistencies with policies of related domains
planning 3.c. Potentially vital role of groundwater overlooked or undervalued
3.d. Waste of money due to pursuing unrealistic goals
3.e. Short-sightedness (due to time mismatch between political and
hydrological/environmental cycles, or ignorance)
3.f. Overlooking the importance of involving stakeholders
3.g. Lack of practical instruments and approaches for transboundary aquifer
management
3.h. Wrong ‘solutions’ due to insufficient knowledge of human behaviour
3.i. Negative impacts of some categories of incentives
3.j. Inadequate design of certain types of instruments (e.g. licensing systems,
pollution fines)

37
 3.k. Lack of regular systematic planning for groundwater management and
protection
4. Data, 4.a. Lack of sufficiently detailed groundwater assessments (especially in Africa
information and and in Latin America & the Caribbean)
knowledge 4.b. Monitoring of time-dependent variables is rare and often only fragmentary
4.c. Sharing data and information is still in its infancy
4.d. Presentation of information not tailor-made for the different categories of
actors

Figure 2.7 – The GEF’s four main components of groundwater governance (FAO, 2016c).

This inventory is considered to be particularly useful for guiding efforts in order to enhance better
governance. Furthermore, it brings also the chance to create opportunities and chain of activities and
tasks to execute for tackling the detected deficiencies. One first task could be thought on elaborate
on what principles should be applied for groundwater governance. And that is exactly the final stage
of this phase, side-by-side with recommendations on pathways to follow. Based on the shortcomings
of groundwater governance and adding some requirements from surface water (not ignoring the need
for an IWRM), the principles presented by GEF are the widely-accepted water governance principles

38
based on “equitable access, sustainability, accountability, transparency, participation and
representation, accountability, integration with overall water resources management”. Thus, those
principles also need to be complemented with the “precautionary principle” and a “knowledge
management principle”, two principles of special relevance to groundwater. All these principles are
listed in the Table 2.6 and are expected to be applied at all levels of management, from local to global.

Table 2.6 – The GEF’s adopted principles for groundwater governance (FAO, 2016c).

Principle Short description

Equitable access Direct users of aquifers protected in the public interest
Sustainability Incorporate aquifer response time and renewability
Transparency Making groundwater and groundwater management visible
Participation and Engaging groundwater stakeholders at aquifer scale
representation
Accountability Stress economic benefits and consequences of groundwater use
Integration Functional integration with water policy & management
Precautionary Protecting aquifer water quality and assuring recharge
Knowledge management Popularize groundwater information and groundwater dynamics

Applying the precautionary principle in this context means that inaction cannot be taken as acceptable
in cases of significant vulnerability of aquifer systems to surface processes and external stresses. “It is
hard to improve upon natural processes of recharge for augmenting groundwater and improving water
quality, and maintaining the integrity of the land-aquifer coupling will continue to be a key concern in
a crowded world”, so it urges to identify and protect recharge areas for economic, environmental and
public health reasons. “It also makes sense to regulate the direct injection of pollutants and the
disruption of aquifer fabric” as it is widely known that these events involve irreversible impacts (FAO,
2016c).

The knowledge management principle applied to groundwater governance is supported by the idea
that more could be done to popularize groundwater information and groundwater dynamics. Due to
its characteristics, the hydrogeology of an aquifer can be very complex. The detailed description of the
aquifer system and the processes between supply (recharge) and demand (abstraction) mostly the
times are only possible through the development of models, in order to assess the quantity and quality
effects and impacts in the aquifer, over time and space. Therefore, must be assured that the
interpretation of these sophisticated methods do reach the understanding of the layman,

39
groundwater users and managers. The use of information and knowledge by groundwater managers
to assess the risks of groundwater depletion and pollution are essential in assigning and applying
groundwater management criteria, as well as to anticipate the evolution of groundwater quality and
hydraulic state over time.

2.4.2.2 The second phase of the Groundwater Governance project

The second phase of the GEF Groundwater Governance project, the “Global Framework for Action to
achieve the Vision on Groundwater Governance”, elaborates on the main project outcome, and lists
and recommends the steps to be taken towards strengthened groundwater governance, adapting
those steps to what is possible in time and space. This Framework for Action proposes several and
multi-level tasks/activities on five themes, as listed in the Table 2.7.

Table 2.7 – Proposed activities towards strengthened groundwater governance listed by themes from the GEF’s Global
Framework for Action (FAO, 2016b).

Theme Activities
Creating a basis for a. Conducting an initial groundwater governance diagnostic
governance b. Identifying, fostering and developing leadership
c. Making provisions for data, information and knowledge
d. Conducting awareness raising programmes
e. Making provisions for stakeholder involvement

Building effective a. Provide a regulatory framework consistent with the fundamentals of

institutions groundwater governance
b. Strengthen the capacity of government to implement, administer and
enforce groundwater legislation and regulations
c. Secure national leadership through a national groundwater unit (or
dedicated team in a larger environmental or water-resource agency), and
vertical integration of national and local level of government
d. Provide such unit with specialist staff of specific training in groundwater
resource evaluation and management, environmental policy formulation,
and national and international groundwater law

40
 e. Facilitate conjunctive management through consolidation or coordination
of surface water and groundwater responsibilities, and through the removal
of institutional and regulatory obstacles
f. Pursue integration of the responsibilities for groundwater resource
conservation and quality protection, but if these functions are separate
establish a mechanism for collaboration between the responsible sister
agencies
g. Engage with stakeholders via regulatory mechanisms and financial support,
and consider promotion of formal groundwater management associations
h. Provide for cross-sector coordination of policies, starting with an inventory
of uses of the entire subsurface space, and provide consistent regulatory
mechanisms, in closely related fields such as rural land use, urban
construction, environmental health, hydrocarbon exploitation and mining
activities
i. If the circumstances allow, negotiate treaties/agreements for collaboration
over groundwater shared across the political boundaries of countries, or of
states or provinces forming a federal country
Making essential a. Identifying the interdependencies between groundwater and other
linkages components intensive enough to be taken into account in groundwater
management and governance.
b. Defining area-specific groundwater management issues and groundwater
governance goals and priorities, in order to enable effective and efficient
groundwater resources management.
c. Adopting an integrated water resources management approach (IWRM),
specifying how they are linked through integrated water management and
governance approaches.
d. Linking groundwater management to sanitation and to waste and
wastewater management, as a logical consequence of adopting a holistic
view on the water system in an area, with the focus on pollution control.
e. Linking groundwater management to land use and land use practices,
having into account that this is one of the most relevant and essential key
to groundwater pollution control.
f. Linking groundwater management to the use of subsurface space and
subsurface resources, particularly relevant in urbanized areas and areas of
intensive mining and hydrocarbon exploitation.
g. Linking water and energy in groundwater management and governance.

41
 h. Mainstreaming groundwater in other policies, identifying how potential
interactions with groundwater are to be factored into the policies and
programs of other sectors.
Redirecting finance a. All public finances as they relate to groundwater use need to be re-assessed
and brought in line with the priorities for sustainable groundwater
management within overall national policy frameworks.
b. Imagination is required to develop new financial systems to encourage
private investment in sustainable groundwater management, such as
payment for recharge services or for real water savings.
c. New billing systems making use current information technology such as
swipe cards and mobile money may be introduced to improve the efficiency
of service delivery and to regulate the use of groundwater.
d. More and regular financing for the basic functions of groundwater
governance should be secured, including for monitoring, regulation,
innovation and capacity building. An assessment in each country of the
institutions in place, the services they need to provide and the resources
allocated to them can provide the basis for a structured increase in budgets.
e. Governments and international financing institutions should develop
investment portfolios in sustainable and productive groundwater
management — be it large recharge programs, water use efficiency
measures, remediation of polluted sites, smart billing systems, participatory
planning and management or others.
f. The important financial nexus between energy provision and groundwater
should be systematically developed both in the way energy for groundwater
use is charged and the way it is delivered
Establishing a a. identification and characterisation of groundwater management units
process of b. assessment of resource status, opportunities and risks
groundwater c. reaching consensus on required aquifer services and plan objectives
planning and d. drawing up the management strategy (including specific measures,
management monitoring needs and associated finance)
e. planning implementation over a specified period, with systematic
monitoring, review of effectiveness, and adjustment of the next cycle

2.5 How does groundwater governance matches the OECD water governance
approach?

42
2.5.1 Integrating groundwater governance deficiencies in the gap categories

The objective of this sub-chapter is to integrate and analyse the governance aspects of the
Groundwater Governance project highlighted in the previous sub-chapters according to the OECD
approach, namely the multi-level approach and the OECD principles on water governance.

The first analysis was made by grouping the deficiencies identified in the groundwater governance
project (FAO, 2016c), presented in the Table 2.5, according to the OECD water governance multi-level
gaps (Table 2.3). The resulting output is presented on the Table 2.8. For every gap category there is a
set of deficiencies in groundwater governance, presented by groundwater component. This crossed
table shows that each component of the groundwater governance in a country might suffer from
deficiencies in several gap categories. Or, from another perspective, each gap category cross several
components of the groundwater governance.

Table 2.8 - Deficiencies in groundwater governance by type of gap, based on FAO (2016c) and OECD (2011b). Deficiencies
grouped by the four main components of groundwater governance: Actors; Legal frameworks; Policies and management
planning; Data, information and knowledge.

GROUNDWATER
GAP CATEGORY
COMPONENT

Administrative gap

1.e. Poorly defined mandates or responsibilities of government agencies

1.j. Lack of cooperation between involved government agencies (or even rivalries)
Actors
1.n. Lack of adequate communication between all relevant partners
1.o. No balanced and smooth cooperation between all relevant partners
Legal 2.e. Institutional mandates and responsibilities not clearly defined
Frameworks 2.f. Overlapping institutional mandates and responsibilities
Policies and
3.g. Lack of practical instruments and approaches for transboundary aquifer
management
management
planning

Policy gap

Actors 1.k. Poor law enforcement or implementation of certain instruments (e.g. licensing)
Legal 2.a. Fragmentation and inconsistencies in legislation
Frameworks 2.c. Groundwater quantity and quality in separate laws

43
 2.d. Groundwater law separate from laws governing surface water, land use, mining,
subsurface use, environment, etc.
2.g. Laws ignoring customary rights
2.h. Laws inconsistent with realities on the ground (e.g. institutional capacity or
perceptions of local groundwater users)
2.j. Legal instruments existing for very few Transboundary Basin Administratios only
Policies and
management 3.b. Inconsistencies with policies of related domains
planning

Information gap

Policies and
management 3.h. Wrong ‘solutions’ due to insufficient knowledge of human behaviour
planning
4.a. Lack of sufficiently detailed groundwater assessments
Data, information 4.b. Monitoring of time-dependent variables is rare and often only fragmentary
and knowledge 4.c. Sharing data and information is still in its infancy
4.d. Presentation of information not tailor-made for the different categories of actors

Funding gap

Actors 1.g. Poor budgets of government agencies, or dependency on foreign parties

Policies and
management 3.d. Waste of money due to pursuing unrealistic goals
planning

Capacity gap

1.a. Lack of awareness/understanding of groundwater and its role, problems and

opportunities (potentially applicable to all categories of stakeholders)
Actors
1.b. No sense of urgency for governing groundwater properly
1.f. Insufficient capacity of government agencies
Policies and 3.c. Potentially vital role of groundwater overlooked or undervalued
management 3.j. Inadequate design of certain types of instruments (e.g. licensing systems, pollution
planning fines)

Accountability gap

Actors 1.c. Low political commitment related to groundwater issues

44
 1.h. Lack of initiative and commitment of mandated government organizations
1.i. Poor accountability and transparency of mandated government organizations
1.l. Poor stakeholder involvement in groundwater governance
1.m. Lack of trust between the different categories of actors
Legal
2.i. Draft Articles on the Law on Transboundary Aquifers not yet endorsed by countries
Frameworks
Policies and
management 3.f. Overlooking the importance of involving stakeholders
planning

Objective gap

Actors 1.d. Reactive rather than proactive attitudes

Legal
2.b. Old groundwater legislation out of line with current views
Frameworks
3.a. Limited scope (single use sector and/or neglecting obvious linkages)
Policies and 3.e. Short-sightedness (due to time mismatch between political and
management hydrological/environmental cycles, or ignorance)
planning 3.i. Negative impacts of some categories of incentives
3.k. Lack of regular systematic planning for groundwater management and protection

In terms of numbers or dimensional perception of these deficiencies, the graphics displayed on the
Figure 2.8 show the relative importance of each component for each gap category. The weight of some
components in some gaps is quite evident. For example, the deficiencies in Legal Frameworks play a
major role in Policy. Thus, the deficiencies identified in the Actors are mainly related to Administrative,
Capacity and Accountability gaps. As expected, the Data, Information and Knowledge is the main
component in the Information gap and, the Objective gaps are characterized by deficiencies in Policies
and Management Planning. From the relative point of view, the Actors are apparently one of the
groundwater governance components needing more attention, and one of the most relevant in a
cross-categorical perspective. On the other hand, the deficiencies of Data, Information and Knowledge
represent almost the totality of the gaps related to Information. It seems therefore that the
Information gap is almost completely independent from the other components, although that is not
true. For example, the structure that supports all the groundwater monitoring, and consequently all
the data processing, harmonization, and data sharing is mainly based on: 1) the financial support, as
the monitoring networks are costly, as well as the human resources to process and maintain the
structure; 2) the capacity, mainly technical and infrastructural of local actors to design and implement

45
monitoring networks and strategies; 3) the objectives, and targets adopted by the water sector
policies. Consequently, caution must be taken when interpreting these graphics, as they serve mainly
to account and identify the major deficiencies in each category, but not to identify consequential
relationships between categories. This cross-sectorial relationship of Data, Information and
Knowledge and the effect in other dimensions can be observed in Figure 2.2, from where the
accumulation of deficiencies in this category would cause unreliable water supply, water quality
deterioration and ecosystems degradation, resulting in an ineffective groundwater management and
in poor aquifer (groundwater) governance.

46
Figure 2.8 – Number of deficiencies in groundwater governance by type of gap, based on FAO (2016c) and OECD (2011b).
Deficiencies grouped by the four main components of groundwater governance: Actors; Legal frameworks; Policies and
management planning; Data, information and knowledge.

2.5.2 Integrating the groundwater governance principles in the OECD principles

The objective here is to integrate the groundwater governance principles presented in (FAO, 2016c)
within the 12 Principles for water governance by (OECD, 2015). In order to do so, a comparison
between the principles of both the GEF and OECD approaches was made, namely the principles
presented in the Table 2.4 (The - 12 OECD principles on water governance (OECD, 2015).) and in Table
2.6 (– The GEF’s adopted principles for groundwater governance (FAO, 2016c).). This comparison
comprised the detailed description of each principle and the matching of similar concepts/targets,
resulting on the Table 2.9. The direct correspondence between the principles from both approaches
is shown in the Figure 2.9.

Table 2.9 – Integration of GEF’s principles and desirable institutional responses (*) within the OECD principles for water
governance.

OECD Short Enhancing the effectiveness of water

GEF Principles Short description
Principle description governance

Clearly allocate and distinguish roles and

responsibilities for water policymaking, policy
Clear roles & Stress economic benefits and
1 implementation, operational management Accountability
responsabilities consequences of groundwater use
and regulation, and foster co-ordination
across these responsible authorities
Manage water at the appropriate scale(s)
Appropriate
within integrated basin governance systems Incorporate aquifer response time
2 scales within Sustainability
to reflect local conditions, and foster co- and renewability
basin systems
ordination between the different scales
Encourage policy coherence through effective
cross-sectoral co-ordination, especially
Policy Functional integration with water
3 between policies for water and the Integration
coherence policy & management
environment, health, energy, agriculture,
industry, spatial planning and land use

47
 The use of information and
Adapt the level of capacity of responsible
knowledge by groundwater
authorities to the complexity of water
Knowledge managers to assess the risks will
4 Capacity challenges to be met, and to the set of
management be essential in assigning and
competencies required to carry out their
applying appropriate
duties
groundwater management criteria

Enhancing the efficiency of water

governance

Produce, update, and share timely,

consistent, comparable and policy-relevant Popularize groundwater
Data & Knowledge
5 water and water-related data and information and groundwater
Information management
information, and use it to guide, assess and dynamics
improve water policy
It is necessary to establish the
specific policy and investment
Ensure that governance arrangements help
‘space’ for groundwater
mobilise water finance and allocate financial Facilitating
6 Financing management at scales suited to
resources in an efficient, transparent and investment*
the grouping of groundwater
timely manner
interests and the effectiveness of
mitigation measures
Ensure that sound water management
Regulatory regulatory frameworks are effectively Protecting aquifer water quality
7 Precautionary
frameworks implemented and enforced in pursuit of the and assuring recharge
public interest
Governance arrangements can be
used to manage or relax aquifer
Promote the adoption and implementation of
under pressure; Imaginative use of
Innovative innovative water governance practices across Sustainability;
8 economic and technical
governance responsible authorities, levels of government Integration
instruments and imaginative
and relevant stakeholders
collaboration with other water
sector players

Enhancing trust and engagement in water

governance

Mainstream integrity and transparency

practices across water policies, water
Integrity & Making groundwater and
9 institutions and water governance Transparency
Transparency groundwater management visible
frameworks for greater accountability and
trust in decision-making

Promote stakeholder engagement for

Stakeholder informed and outcome-oriented Participation & Engaging groundwater
10
engagement contributions to water policy design and representation stakeholders at aquifer scale
implementation

Trade-offs
across users, Encourage water governance frameworks
Direct users of aquifers protected
11 rural and urban that help manage trade-offs across water Equitable access
in the public interest
areas, and users, rural and urban areas, and generations
generations
Promote regular monitoring and evaluation
Making an A working system of
Monitoring and of water policy and governance where
12 institutional home arrangements to an improved
Evaluation appropriate, share the results with the public
for groundwater* framework
and make adjustments when needed

48
Figure 2.9 – Simplified view from the integration of GEF’s principles and desirable institutional responses (*) within the OECD
principles for water governance.

This comparison shows that the OECD principles are more descriptive and less subjective than the
principles used by GEF. At first sight, GEF principles seem to fall short when contrasted with the OECD
principles but, in fact, the numerical difference of principles and a close analyses of the description of
each principle leads to the conclusion that GEF principles are broader. For example, there is no
direct/clear match to the OECD principles Financing, Innovative governance, and Monitoring and
Evaluation, although if the repetition of GEF principles would be possible within this grid, it would
contain GEF principles distributed by various OECD principles. Although the GEF’s Global Framework
for Action (FAO, 2016b) has proposed activities to strengthen governance within the field of some of
the broader principles, there were some areas ignored by the set of GEF principles that might be of
vital importance, such as the Financing and Monitoring and Evaluation. Just like it is referred in the
Table 2.7, when building effective institutions strengthening the capacity of government to
implement, manage and enforce groundwater legislation and regulations is required, as well as the
engagement of stakeholders via regulatory mechanisms and financial support. The financing has to be
strengthened and regular financing should be secured for the basic functions of groundwater
governance, including for monitoring, regulation, innovation and capacity building. Therefore, to

49
improve this comparison, the desirable institutional responses, described in FAO (2016c), were taken
into account in order to fill the gaps. To correspond to the OECD Principle 6 – Financing, the item
‘Facilitating investment’ was added, embracing the idea that “it is necessary to establish the specific
policy and investment ‘space’ for groundwater management at scales suited to the grouping of
groundwater interests and the effectiveness of mitigation measures”. It is believed that interest and
investment in groundwater governance is typically limited and sporadic. Identifying and facilitating
investment in groundwater management has rarely become a priority or habit. It is also known that
the financing gap is one of the major gaps for an efficient and effective groundwater management and
governance. Without revenues undermining the implementation of water responsibilities as
requested at all the vertical levels the results might be quite poor. Therefore, financing has to be
highlighted here as one of the pillars of governance and not only as a “desirable institutional response”
just like attributed by GEF.

Regarding the Principle 8 – Innovative Governance, it must emphasized here that the innovation
character is actually a driving force and incentive for tailor-made frameworks, regulations and policies
to the country, regional or local characteristics, where the best adaptation to specific and local
conditions will result in an improved governance approach. For this OECD principle, two GEF principles
were corresponded, according to their original description: Sustainability, as governance
arrangements can be used to manage or relax aquifer under pressure; and Integration, as imaginative
use of economic and technical instruments and imaginative collaboration with other water sector
players.

About the Principle 12 – Monitoring and Evaluation, one of the proposed activities on structuring an
approach to strengthened groundwater governance, within the theme ‘planning and management’
GEF (FAO, 2016c) has suggested that planning implementation over a specified period, with systematic
monitoring, review of effectiveness, and adjustment of the next cycle is required. So, once again,
although no entry in Monitoring and Evaluation has been matched, GEF considered activities to bridge
the difficulties encountered in that area. Nevertheless, the desirable institutional response presented
by GEF “Making an institutional home for groundwater” seems to fit in within the concept of
Monitoring and Evaluation, because points out the relevance of creating dedicated groundwater
management agencies working in arrangements to an improved framework.

50
3 Survey on groundwater management and governance provision
and capacity

The objectives of this sub-chapter are 1) to discuss the current status of groundwater management in
some regions of Portugal, which is driven by the WFD and Groundwater EU directives, and 2) to make
a diagnosis of the governance provision and capacity status in those same regions. A comprehensive
analysis of groundwater management and governance at the level of river basin districts, can be
considered a tool to enhance the adoption of best practices though a comparison of lessons learned
along the process (Cruz and Soares, 2018), and through the opinion and report of people who actually
work and deal with groundwater management on the day-by-day basis. An expertise contribution to
identify the challenges, opportunities and future developments would certainly bring an important
input to the formulation of better general and tailor-made policies, for all levels of governance.

To start off, a state-of-art about groundwater occurrence in Portugal is made, followed by an insight
view on the groundwater availability, as well as a brief summary of its uses by sector, the legal
framework, and the groundwater abstraction licenses.

In order to make a diagnosis of the governance state-of-art, the regions of Alentejo and Algarve were
selected, and the benchmark criteria proposed by Foster et al. (2010) were applied, in a face-to-face
discussion with selected expert people, both from the academic and institutional spectrum. Those
criteria intents to evaluate the effectiveness of provisions that came to force, and the capacity for a
proper groundwater governance, namely in areas where groundwater is already stressed, as the case
of the selected regions.

Results are further discussed considering the GEF’s four main components of groundwater governance
(FAO, 2016b): a) legal and regulatory framework; b) policies and management planning; c) actors in
the groundwater governance scheme; and d) data, information and knowledge (Figure 2.7).

3.1 Brief state-of-art on groundwater occurrence in Portugal

In this chapter, a state-of-art on the Portuguese groundwater bodies and occurrence is presented,
based on a synthesis of the work carried out along the technical and scientific contributions, since the
1980s, that focused on the identification, characterization and investigation of groundwater and
hydrogeological processes. For that, the contribution and summary made by (Ribeiro, 2004) and later

51
by Monteiro et al. (2011) were an added value. For this matter, 91 groundwater bodies are considered
in Portugal, according to the cartographic support currently used for the elaboration of the first
generation of the RBMPs. The 91 groundwater bodies considered for PGBH development replace the
62 aquifer systems considered in the National Water Plan (PNA, 2002), for the purposes of water use
planning and management, and the current status of the hydrogeological knowledge of each of these
aquifer systems is very variable. From the analysis of the older references, prior to the 1980s, it is
verified that knowledge about groundwater was originated predominantly from public administration
bodies (Monteiro et al., 2011). As for today, the knowledge about groundwater is originated mainly
from academic contributions, way more frequent than works from other origins, or from public
administration bodies. It is also noted that knowledge about groundwater prior to the 1980s shows a
trend, which is still today a much higher incidence of hydrogeological studies south of the Tagus River
in Portugal than north of this international river basin (with the exception of the region of Aveiro,
which constitutes a significant part of the western Mosocenozoic border, due to works initiated in
public administration bodies (Peixinho de Cristo, 1985), which were later deepened by several more
recent academic works. The knowledge accumulated up to the end of the 20th century culminated in
the synthesis presented by (Almeida et al., 2000), which is still considered the most complete
descriptive synthesis of hydrogeology in Portugal, making an individualized approach to the most
important aquifer systems in the country. This report became the basis for the definition of the aquifer
systems taken into account in the National Water Plan (PNA, 2002), which subsequently evolved into
the current concept of Groundwater Bodies (Figure 3.1).

The detailed division of the groundwater bodies through the various river basins, under the WFD, and
to be applied in the RBMPs, is possible to consult in the SNIRH website (SNIRH, 2019a), and the number
and distribution is possible to be visualized in the graphic of the Figure 3.2.

52
Figure 3.1 – Groundwater Bodies in Continental Portugal, defined in the Water Law 54/2005 (source:
https://sniamb.apambiente.pt/).

53
The delimitation of the groundwater bodies consisted of individualizing the rocky substratum, where
the volume of groundwater, i.e. the groundwater body, is found. In this sense, the individualization
took into account the three hydrogeological media - porous, karstic and fractured.

For the delimitation of the groundwater bodies for porous and karstic media, INAG applied one
methodology based in the definition of aquifer systems as operating units, that is, the various parts or
subsystems must be dynamically connected and any change in the state of one of the parties will have
repercussions on the rest, in proper observable cartographic scale. Adding to this, the delimitation
also take into account three types of boundaries: 1) geological limits, coinciding with boundaries
between lithological units with different hydraulic behaviour. The boundaries of a system may deviate
more or less from the geological boundaries for design reasons (there will be smoothing) or because
the available information so advises; 2) based on information from surveys (these types of limits
correspond essentially to the extension of aquifer systems under recent deposits); 3) limits based on
geological, structural, geophysical or other criteria. This type of limits may have a considerable margin
of uncertainty and may be revised as soon as information is available. It should also be noted that in
these porous and karstic environments small groundwater bodies were delimited because of their
significant productivity.

As for the fractured media, INAG adopted the principle that any geological formation likely to yield an
average flow of more than 10 m3/day shall be regarded as aquifer. This premise implies that all
geological formations can be considered aquifers, even those of less permeability. Are in this situation
the formations of the Old Massif (“Maciço Antigo”) which comprise igneous and metamorphic rocks
of poor aquifer characteristics but which represent an extension of 2/3 of the area of Portugal.

Therefore, the greatest difficulty in the delimitation of groundwater bodies lies in the formations of
the Old Massif, given the lack of hydraulic continuity in these fractured media. Two aspects were then
taken into account: 1) the number of bodies of groundwater to be considered; 2) the limits of
groundwater bodies in these fractured media.

Regarding the number of groundwater bodies to be considered, INAG decided to analyse the
groundwater chemistry in distinct formations, since this reflects the water-rock interaction. From the
carried out analysis, the southern Portuguese zone, which mainly covers metamorphic rocks, was
separated from the igneous formations, and whose composition is significantly different from the rest
of the country, with very high mineralization. Thus, two large groups were created:

- Undifferentiated Old Massif (igneous and metamorphic rocks);

- South Portuguese zone (metamorphic rocks).

54
The establishment of the boundaries in these fractured media was made based on the drainage basin
of the main water courses, considered as a geomorphological unit, and the groundwater body limit
corresponding to the main basin summit line. According to this, for management purposes of the
groundwater bodies of the Old Massif and the Southern Zone, the grouping of several groundwater
bodies was considered to be made by corresponding river basins where they were geographically
integrated.

In Figure 3.2 it is possible to verify the 91 groundwater bodies distributed in the 8 hydrographic regions
of Continental Portugal. At this stage no transboundary groundwater bodies have been established.

Figure 3.2 - Distribution of groundwater bodies considered for the purposes of river basin management under the WFD
(adapted from INAG, 2005).

3.2 Groundwater Resources Management in Portugal: an overview

Groundwater governance comprises both the framework and the principles to achieve a collective
and sustainable groundwater management, observing equity as well as efficiency as targets, based on
four main domains: legal and regulatory framework; policies and management planning; actors in the
groundwater governance scheme; and data, information and knowledge (FAO, 2016b). In fact, very

55
few publications address groundwater governance in Portugal or region, despite several studies
present groundwater governance state-of-art in worldwide locations.

In this chapter, an overview on the groundwater resources management in Portugal is made. The main
legal framework for groundwater governance in the Portuguese legislation is in the Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 – Main legal framework for groundwater governance in the Portuguese legislation.

Publication Legislative Description Objectives Related

date documents
22nd February Decree-law 45/94 Establishes the Integrated water planning and Regulate the water resources planning process and the
1994 management preparation and approval of water resources plans

3th September Decree-law 235/97 Adaptation of the EU Nitrates Directive to the Prevents water pollution by nutrients through Decree-Law
1997 national legislative framework (latter amended by identification by each member state of the Nitrate 68/99
the decree-law 68/99) Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) and the application of Good
Agricultural Practices; the latter are applied in a
voluntary basis, but for the NVZ are complemented by
compulsory action programmes.

1st August 1998 Decree-Law 236/98 Water quality normative Establishes quality standards, criteria and objectives Decree-Law
for the protection of groundwater, as well 306/2007
recommended and permissible values appropriate for
human consumption (normative framework is
established by the Decree-law 243/2001, from 5th
September 2001, latter amended by the Decree-Law
306/2007 from 27th August 2007)

22st September Decree-Law 382/99 Legislation on wellhead protection areas (latter Protection of groundwater abstracted to human supply Ordinance
1999 followed by the Ordinance 702/2009, from 6th July through the adoption of three areas (enlarged, 702/2009
2009) intermediate and close) surrounding wells or springs
with a discharge higher than 100 m3/day or serving
more than 500 people

23st October Directive Water Framework Directive Establish a common framework to an integrated
2000 2000/60/CE management of water resources in the EU, with
implications for the protection and conservation of
groundwater through a set of general provisions
29th December Law 58/2005 Adaptation of the EU Water Framework Directive to The same of the EU Water Framework Directive Decree-Law
2005 the national legislative framework (complemented 77/2006
by the Decree-Law 77/2006)
31th May 2007 Law 54/2005 Establishes a new framework to the appropriation of Regulates the process to be allowed to abstract Law 31/2016;
water resources through permits groundwater, as well as artificial recharge and injection Law 34/2014;
Law 78/2013
31st May 2007 Decree-Law 226- Regime for the use of water resources Reinforce the rights granted to the user and defines Decree-Law
A/2007 the terms under which the administration may use the 245/2009
mechanism for revocation of a right to use; and
encompass the abstraction rates, so as to ensure, in a
rational and efficient manner, the quality standard for
the management of water resources

22nd August Decree-Law Legal Regime of the National Ecological Reserve Areas of protection and recharge of aquifers Decree-Law
2008 166/2008 239/2012
28th October Decree-Law Adaptation of the EU Groundwater Directive to the The same of the EU Groundwater Directive Decree-Law
2008 208/2008 national legislative framework 34/2016
29th September Ordinance Regulation for the evaluation and monitoring of the Procedures defined following the EU Water
2009 1115/2009 quantitative status of groundwater bodies Framework Directive and the Law 58/2005
requirements
16th March Ordinance Legal framework to protect waters from pollution Definition and delimitation of the nitrate vulnerable
2010 164/2010 caused by nitrates from agricultural sources zones

20th June 2011 Decree-Law Transposition into the national legislative framework Establishes technical specifications for chemical
82/2011 of the Comission Directive 2009/90/EC analysis and monitoring of groundwater status,
ensuring that the quality objectives set out in Directive
2000/60/EC are achieved.
12th December Ordinance Stipulates that APA should review the river basin The period for review and preparation of the Water
11955/2018 management plans for the 2nd cycle of the WFD Resources Management Plans is 36 months from the
planning date of publication of this order

In order to make this overview, is necessary to go a bit back in time, when the Decree-Law no. 45/94
approved the water resources planning in Portugal. As stated in the DL, "a proper water resources

56
management is attached to an appropriate planning policy, based on an integrated territorial
approach and a qualitative and quantitative perspective of the environment" (Decree-Law No. 45/94).

In Portugal, the water resources plans are divided into three action areas: the National Water Plan
(PNA – Plano Nacional da Água); the River Basin Management Plans (RBMP - Planos de Gestão de
Região Hidrográfica); and the Specific Water Management Plans (PEGAs – Plano Específico de Gestão
de Águas) which range of the proposed measures varies according to their scope:

a. The National Water Plan (PNA), of national territorial scope;

b. The River Basin Management Plans (RBMP), whose territorial scope covers the hydrographic
basins integrated in a hydrographic region;
c. Specific Water Management Plans (PEGAs), complementary to the MAPs and whose scope
may be territorial, covering a specific sub-basin or geographic area; or sectoral, covering a
problem, category of water body, specific aspect or sector of economic activity with significant
interaction with the waters.

Figure 3.3 – Instruments for Water Planning in Portugal (source: APA, 2018)

The main action plans are presented and described in the next sections, namely the National Water
Plan, and the River Basin Management Plans.

3.2.1 The National Water Plan (PNA)

The PNA, approved under Decree-Law No. 112/2002 of 17th April, aims at protecting, recovering and
controlling the water resources quality. With its implementation, national legislation will comply with
the international commitments assumed by the State. There are several topics covered by the PNA,
which includes the treatment and reduction of pollutant discharges, and the conservation of nature
and its biodiversity, and the ecological quality of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The degradation

57
of the hydrological regime, ensuring the minimum environmental impact and compensation is meant
to be minimized. Among other aspects, the importance of ecological flows for the maintenance of
water resources is highlighted. The PNA promotes the productivity of water use, through a greater
rationality of its consumption. The aim is to increase the level of population satisfaction with water
quality and the regularity of its supply.

The PNA also establishes the guidelines for the first River Basin Plans (RBP) and other planning
instruments. Along the realization of these RBPs, in the late 1990s, beginning of the 2000s, there was
an intention to value, protect and manage national water resources in a balanced way, thus
contributing to regional development. In general terms, it is a sectoral plan with multidisciplinary
characteristics, integrating economic, environmental and institutional aspects. The preparation of this
first generation of PBH, envisioned then the general characterization, to define the environmental
objectives, to establish the norms of program orientation and to present solid proposals for the pursuit
of the best policies.

The RBPs were then the first integrated basin water resources planning and management tool for the
entire country. It represented an important moment of technical-scientific debate, involving a
significant part of the scientific and technical community more or less directly related to water
resources. RBPs should, in principle, involve all water stakeholders, such as economic actors, local
institutions, NGOs and populations. As has been mentioned several times in the scientific literature
produced from the experience of elaborating the RBPs, a failure in the culture of participation of this
process of support to the decision making is clearly detected. The success of the RBPs implied the
involvement of more critical mass, thus speeding up the process of updating the information base
already produced. The very implementation of the actions proposed in the RBPs benefited greatly
from stakeholder involvement, and monitoring more closely the activity of the entities responsible for
implementing the proposed actions.

Since the early 2000s, recognition of the ecological value of water increased considerably. The
systematisation of the multidisciplinary information contained in the RBP pretty much contributed to
this. Through the diagnosis made in the RBPs, the main problems and their causes were identified,
taking into account the river basin unit. For this, different approaches of water resources management
were considered, such as waste water, flood control, prevention of droughts and pollution,
reinforcement and rehabilitation of irrigation systems and drinking water supply.

Alongside RBPs, a database was created, first, in the Regional Coordination and Development
Commissions (CCDR), later transferred to the ARH, which is fundamental for the implementation of
space-based decision support instruments (mainly Geographic Information Systems). However, this

58
database, and all the benefits inherent to it, rarely reached the local authorities and other
stakeholders for whom this information could have become a fundamental tool. The failure to
implement the first generation of RBPs arises mainly from the lack of coordination with the other
instruments of the plan in force in this region, in particular the MMPs (Municipal Master Plan), making
it very difficult to operate. The economic and financial analysis contained in the PBHs did not
adequately address the financing needs of the proposed actions, thus creating additional difficulties
in their implementation (Cerqueira Rodrigues, 2012). The absence of an economic and financial
regime has prevented the creation of own revenues, so important to improve the decision-making
capacities of the entities responsible for the planning and management of water resources, as
advocated in the RBPs.

3.2.2 The River Basin Management Plans: the context of the Water Framework Directive

The Water Law (Law no. 58/2005, of 29 December) transposed the Water Framework Directive (WFD
- Directive 2000/60 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council , of October 23) into national
law, amended and republished by Decree-Law no. 130/2012, of June 22, stipulates as environmental
objectives the good state, or good potential, of the groundwater bodies, which must be reached by
2015, through the implementation of the programs of measures specified in the River Basin
Management Plans (RBMP).

The competence to draw up river basin management plans, as water planning instruments for the
management, protection and environmental, social and economic valuation of groundwater at the
level of the integrated river basins in a river basin district, is committed to the Portuguese Environment
Agency (APA).

The environmental objectives of the WFD for groundwater are as follows:

a. Prevent or limit the discharge of pollutants into groundwater bodies and prevent
deterioration of the condition of all groundwater bodies
b. Maintain and achieve good groundwater status - good chemical and quantitative status
ensuring balance between abstraction and recharge
c. Reverse any significant persistent trend to increase the concentration of pollutants.

59
Regarding the protected areas the goal is to comply with the standards and objectives set out in the
WFD, except where legislation establishing protected areas provides for other conditions.

Under WFD and the Water Law, water management planning is structured in 6-year cycles. The first
RBMPs developed under this legal framework regard the period from 2009 to 2015, corresponding to
the first cycle, while the second planning cycle (2016–2021) was completed in December 2015. The
number and the geometry of the groundwater bodies were kept unchanged from one planning cycle
to the other, but, currently, studies are ongoing in order to evaluate the actual delineation of
groundwater bodies and proceed to a new one whenever necessary.

As a result of the RBMPs advance, a number of measures were proposed to be developed, organized
along and projects, grouped according thematic areas. Groundwater issues were directly and
indirectly reflected in several projects, the most important of which were the further characterization
of groundwater bodies’ status, monitoring, water supply sources protection, groundwater abstraction
licensing, diffuse pollution control, and sealing of uncontrolled municipal waste disposal sites, among
others. Nevertheless the number of measures, the level of satisfaction regarding the implementation
of these measures is still very low. In the top of this, supplementary measures were set, being several
directly associated with groundwater issues, namely the definition of the regulatory framework to be
applied to the groundwater recharge areas in order to prevent or constrain human activities, therefore
preventing pollution and enhancing water quality protection, the need to develop studies to re-
evaluate groundwater bodies’ boundaries and geometry, as well as the interactions with
groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and the increase of scientific knowledge in order to sustain
science-based policies. The characterization of particular polluted sites is also pointed out, in order to
assure groundwater monitoring and remediation, if necessary, namely in airport and military base
facilities. Other supplementary measures are also listed that, despite an indirect connection to
groundwater, are also of importance, such as the empowerment of the general public and the access
to information by all stakeholders (RBMP, 2016) (Cruz and Soares, 2018).

Water management as whole implies a cohesive and structured articulation with other sectoral
policies, taking into account its transverse character to all sectors of activity and being affected, often
negatively, by these same sectors. The interdependencies and the necessary linkage between
Community rules on water, marine strategy and the conservation of nature and biodiversity should be
considered by the national authorities as being of particular importance in ensuring the optimization
of national reporting obligations, the implementation of measures and access to Community funding.

60
Figure 3.4 – Link of water planning with sectoral strategies and plans (adapted from APA, 2018).

3.2.3 Challenges and Next Steps towards the 3rd Cycle of the RBMPs

The next step of the RBMPs cycle implies, an updating and review of each RBMP, wherein the
completion of the following phases of work within the deadlines provided for in the Water Law are
required:

1. The definition of the calendar and work program for the preparation of the RBMP, with a
public consultation phase of 6 months;
2. An update of the characterization of water bodies with the identification of pressures and
description of significant impacts resulting from human activity on the status of water bodies,
as well as an economic analysis of water uses (Article 5 of the WFD and Article 29 of Water
Law);
3. A summary of significant water management issues (QSiGA – “Questões Significativas
Relativas à Gestão da Água”) identified in the river basin district (Article 14 of the WFD and
Article 85 of the Water Law) with a public consultation phase of 6 months;
4. The elaboration of the RBMP project, including its program of measures, with a public
consultation phase of 6 months;
5. Elaboration of the final version of the RBMPs and reporting to WISE - The Water Information
System for Europe (http://water.europa.eu/).

61
Regarding the diagnostic of the groundwater bodies’ status in the 2nd cycle of the RBMPs, more than
75% of the groundwater bodies present good status. The quantitative status of 4 groundwater bodies
is poor, namely the PTO2 – Cretácico de Aveiro (R.B. Vouga, Mondego and Lis), PTO3 – Cársico da
Bairrada (R.B. Vouga, Mondego and Lis), PTO31_C2 – Condeixa-Alfarelos (R.B. Vouga, Mondego and
Lis), and PTM18 – Canpina de Faro: Subsistema Vale de Lobo (R.B. Ribeiras do Algarve). The number
of groundwater bodies with this status increased from the 1st cycle to the 2nd cycle (Figure 3.5). About
the chemical status, there are 11 groundwater bodies with poor status, namely the
PTA0X4RH2_ZV2006 - Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado do Baixo Cávado/Ave (R.B. Cávado, Ave e Leça),
PTO01RH4_C2 - Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado da Bacia do Vouga (R.B. Vouga. Mondego e Lis),
PTO1_C2 - Quaternário de Aveiro (R.B. Vouga. Mondego e Lis), PTA11 - Elvas - Campo Maior (R.B.
Guadiana), PTA9 - Gabros de Beja (R.B. Guadiana), PTA4 - Estremoz - Cano (R.B. Tejo e Ribeiras do
Oeste), PTO23 - Paço (R.B. Tejo e Ribeiras do Oeste), PTM3 - Mexilhoeira Grande - Portimão (R.B.
Ribeiras do Algarve), PTM19 - Campina de Faro - Subsistema Faro (R.B. Ribeiras do Algarve), PTM9 -
Almansil - Medronhal (R.B. Ribeiras do Algarve), and PTO35 - Sines - Zona Sul (R.B. Sado e Mira). A
decrease in the number of groundwater bodies with poor chemical status was observed between the
1st cycle and the 2nd cycle of the RBMPs (Figure 3.5).

The global status of a groundwater is attributed as “good” if both quantitative and chemical status are
“good”, otherwise it will be attributed as “poor” in case one of the quantitative or chemical is “poor”.
According to this, the resultant map from the groundwater bodies presenting a “poor” status is
represented in the Figure 3.6. For this case, a total of 15 groundwater bodies need urgent intervention
to accomplish with the WFD objectives.

62
Figure 3.5 – Quantitative (left) and chemical (right) status of groundwater bodies in Portugal (adapted from RBMPs, 2016).

Figure 3.6 - Global status of groundwater bodies in Portugal (adapted from RBMPs, 2016).

63
In this context, a thematic session was organized by APA, in the 9th May 2019, subordinated to the
theme “Groundwater: strategies to its management”. In this session were involved several people
related to APA, ARHs, and other institutes/entities that collaborated in the development of
methodologies and strategies for the improvement of knowledge in some areas related to the
groundwater bodies status. When confronted with the fact that there are about 16% of the
groundwater bodies with the global status of “poor”, and considering that measures need to be taken
upon these challenges, another barrier was identified, namely regarding the water domain, referring
to the ownership of water resources established in the Law no. 54/2005, of November 15, amended
and republished by Law no. 31/2016 of August 23, the groundwater resources remain in the private
domain. In fact, APA stated that this condition “hinders its management and operationalization,
especially in critical periods”. Nevertheless, groundwater is traditionally privately appropriated in
Portugal, depending on the land ownership rights and on licensing and taxation by the public
administration nowadays. The so-called public water domain (PWD) comprises coastal waters, rivers,
lakes, and lagoons, both navigable and not-navigable channels, as well as groundwater on public land.
Under a permit/title of use, emitted by the competent water authority, water use by private entities
in the PWD is allowed, which may imply a fee payment. For example, artificial recharge or injection
operations have to be preceded by a permit process. Under the same law, the exploration of
groundwater on private land, which is considered to be a private resource, has to be subject of a title
of use whatever the objective of the water user (human supply, irrigation, industrial and recreational
uses). Nevertheless, all wells equipped with a pump up to 5 hp only need to be communicated by the
owner to the water authority, independently of their depth and if no major impacts are expected to
occur. If the pump has more than 5 hp a title of use is required, following registration and authorization
issued by the water authority, which may imply the payment of a license if the well is located in
designated sensitive areas, which also requires a permit application.

Beyond this management and operationalization challenge, APA is also concerned with the drought
periods and water scarcity that became more frequent in Southern countries, particularly in Portugal.
In the context of climate change, it is likely that there will be an increase in the frequency and intensity
of periods of drought and water shortages. The compatibility of sectoral needs with existing water
resources constitutes a double challenge in water management. This double challenge is to ensure
efficiency in supply and to stimulate demand efficiency. For this, an assessment of the water
availability and the water demand has to be accounted and balanced.

64
Groundwater availability is understood as the volume of water that a groundwater body can provide
annually under natural conditions. This volume is intrinsically associated with direct recharge by
precipitation. As for the volume of groundwater availability for the various river basin districts,
Quadrado (2019) presented the total groundwater availability (hm3/year) and the average
groundwater availability per unit of area (hm3/km2 year) based in the most recent available studies .

Figure 3.7 - Total groundwater availability (hm3/year) and the average groundwater availability per unit of area (hm3/km2
year) (source: Quadrado, 2019)

As for the groundwater uses, a great portion of the abstracted volume is to satisfy the agricultural
demand, representing 73% , followed by the domestic water supply with 19%. The types of water uses
by origin and region is presented in the Figure 3.8, according to APA (2019). The distribution of the
volume captured for the domestic, agricultural, industrial and livestock sectors by surface or
groundwater origin is presented in the Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.8 – Types of water uses by origin and region: Urban use (left), and agriculture use (right) (adapted from APA, 2019).

65
Figure 3.9 - Distribution of the volume captured for the domestic, agricultural, industrial and livestock sectors by surface or
groundwater origin (adapted from APA, 2019).

Adding to this, APA (2019) made a comparison of water availability, stored in groundwater, for June
2005, 2009, 2012 and 2017 showing that in 2017 there is a greater number of groundwater bodies
with lower levels than the 20th percentile, especially in the interior of the country. Due this situation,
the allowance of construction of new abstractions must take into account the availability and
sustainability of existing uses and the quantitative status of the groundwater body. However, these
results are contrasting with the results published in the RBMPs of 2016, which indicates only four
groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status. In fact, a trend analysis was made in every RBMP for
the assessment of the quantitative status and the data used comprehends all the available data
provided by each regional administration. Therefore, must be said that a clarification of these results
presented by APA in 2019 are needed, in order to understand the criteria and data beyond the
assessment that contradicts the said official assessment made in the RBMPs.

66
Figure 3.10 - Groundwater availability in June of 2005, 2009, 2012 and 2017. Red: <20th percentile; Green: ≥average; yellow:
≥20th percentile and <average; Grey: no data (Source: APA, 2019).

3.3 Assessment of provisions and needs for a sustainable groundwater management

and governance

In this chapter, an assessment of provision and needs for a sustainable groundwater management and
governance is made. For that purpose, the southernmost Portuguese regions of Alentejo and Algarve
where the focus of this assessment, corresponding to the administration areas of the ARH do Alentejo
and ARH do Algarve, respectively. Attention was given to these areas for the significant importance
that groundwater holds in these regions, in terms of water management, water supply, and active
pressures, such as over abstraction by some society sectors as agriculture (irrigation, industry), climate
change (groundwater availability) and contamination problems. Adding to this, in both regions there
are groundwater bodies in “poor” status, both for quantitative and chemical status. Furthermore, the
present groundwater bodies in these regions also represent a large share of the total bodies in the
country.

In order to proceed to an assessment of this sort, a methodology was applied, based in the
Groundwater Governance Benchmarking Criteria (Foster et al., 2010). The data was gathered by face-
to-face interviews to selected expertise people, both from the academic and institutional spectrum.
Those criteria intents to evaluate the effectiveness of provisions that came to force, and the capacity

67
for a proper groundwater governance, namely in areas where groundwater is already stressed, as the
case of the selected regions.

Results are further discussed considering the GEF’s four main components of groundwater governance
(FAO, 2016b): a) legal and regulatory framework; b) policies and management planning; c) actors in
the groundwater governance scheme; and d) data, information and knowledge.

3.3.1 Groundwater Governance Benchmarking Criteria

According to Foster et al. (2010), the application of a Groundwater Governance Benchmarking Criteria
in assessing the effectiveness of existing provisions and capacity for the exercise of adequate
groundwater governance (in areas where groundwater resources are experiencing significant stress
from intensive development and/or pollution pressure) can be made into a priority list of
benchmarking criteria. The benchmarking proposed the criteria listed in the Table 3.2. For each type
of provision, namely Technical, Legal & Institutional, Cross-section Policy Coordination, and
Operational, there are criterion in the form of a check list that should be individually ranked in relation
to considerations of “existing provisions” and “institutional capacity to implement”. The coloured dots
on the left of each criteria rather indicates the primary relation, in terms of groundwater extraction,
groundwater quality or, groundwater extraction and quality simultaneously.

This benchmark criteria was composed to be ranked individually, from the point of view of an expert
assessor, to present a single rank for each criteria. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the method is versatile
enough to adapt to other circumstances and could be applied in many ways. For example, could be
used as a questionnaire to gather large datasets, in order to make a proper statistic study from the
stakeholder point-of-view. Or, could be used as a guideline for a discussion with experts in order to
assess the challenges, provisions and capacity of the institutions to the groundwater governance. The
advantage of this adaptation is that, while checking-up each criteria other matters might rise up in
discussion. It is considered here that, is rather important to assess the governance provision and
capacity in quantitative terms but, knowing the meanders, the reasons and the real local/regional
conditions is also fundamental to make this assessment. For example, knowing how the legal &
institutional capacity covers all the local needs, and how well adapted is to a given reality constitutes
paramount information to be used at the highest level of governance.

68
Table 3.2 - Check-list of ‘top-20’ benchmarking criteria for the evaluation of groundwater governance provision and capacity
(Foster et al., 2010).

Therefore, in order to make an assessment of the governance state-of-art in the regions of Alentejo
and Algarve where the groundwater play an important role in the satisfaction of the water needs and,
simultaneously with some present issues, namely the existence of groundwater bodies in “poor”
global status, the benchmark criteria proposed by Foster et al. (2010) were applied by making face-to-

69
face interviews, in the form of discussion, to selected groundwater professionals from the academic
and institutional spectrum. This way, two different perspectives could be documented, for two
different management regions.

3.3.2 Application of the benchmark criteria to Alentejo and Algarve

To apply Foster’s et al. (2010) benchmark criteria, three groundwater experts from the academic
spectrum were contacted, namely Professor Luís Ribeiro (LR) from Instituto Superior Técnico of the
University of Lisbon, Professor José Paulo Monteiro (JPM) from the Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia
of the University of Algarve, and António Chambel (AC) from the Escola de Ciências e Tecnologia of
the University of Évora. All of them are owners of a vast knowledge and experience in the scientific
areas of hydrogeology and groundwater, and share identical experience levels in management of
groundwater associations, research centres, etc, although with different scopes and contexts (both
geographical and organizational). For example, AC is the President of the International Association of
Hydrogeologists (IAH), and JPM is the President of the Specialized Comission for Groundwater (CEAS),
of the Portuguese Association of Water Resources (APRH), while LR was the founder of CVRM – Centre
of Geosystems - of one of the most important research centres in Portugal, in the area of hydrogeology
and groundwater resources.

As for the institutional point of view, experts from the Public Administration body were contacted,
namely Edite Reis (ER), from the ARH do Algarve, for the region of Algarve, and Alice Fialho (AF) from
the ARH do Alentejo, for the region of Alentejo. Both of them have a deep insight view and knowledge
of the groundwater resources management, procedures, issues, developments, user conflicts
management, water demands, institutional views and perspectives, that could eventually describe in
a more real way the true feeling that is lived in situ. Their experience and testimony are extraordinarily
important to understand the perspective of those who work directly for the groundwater
management, and how groundwater governance provides conditions and capacities to make their job.

Luís Ribeiro – Universidade de Lisboa

In the discussion with Luís Ribeiro, when asked about the greatest challenges of the groundwater
governance he points out two groups: data & monitoring, and the human resources capacities.
Regarding the first group, LR believes that one of the keys aspects to keep up the good work in
management and governance is the existence of data. In that context, LR highlights the difficulties

70
recently faced at the level of monitoring capacity, and data & information integration, for several
reasons already mentioned in this work (namely the economic and financial crisis) that certainly
developed into an acute drawback for the governance in Portugal.

The aspects to mention on the other group of difficulties (human resources capacities) has to do with
the consequences of the very same crisis, which provoked a divestment in the human resources as
well, especially in specialized staff, related to the data collecting, processing and integration. LR
considers that presently a training of technicians at the national (APA), regional (ARH) and local levels
(parish council) should be fostered, in order to respond the monitoring needs. LR claims that an
adaptation of technical staff to the previous level of sophistication is now required. A lot know-how
was lost in the cuttings and interruptions observed that developed into an information gap, mainly in
terms of long data series and interpretation range. An example of the necessity to hiring and training
technical staff is the case of São Pedro do Sul (Viseu, central Portugal), where the president himself of
the municipality is in charge of monitoring the mountain water mines, without any specific training to
manage the water supply for human consumption at the municipal level. So, in this case LR is of the
opinion that a specialized water technician would be required to every municipality and would be
responsible for monitoring water levels, flow rates, operating conditions, defining new catchments
and monitoring points, according to the demands and following national, regional or local norms, as
required.

Regarding the legal and institutional type of provision, when asked about the waterwell drilling
permits and groundwater use rights, LR support the idea that the licensing of new watewells should
be substantiated and approved through an assessment using groundwater models, implemented and
used by the administrative agency, in this case the ARHs. In fact, the models are developed, made
from a scientific and management perspective, but which are effectively not used by managers or
policy makers. Associated to this, he dares even to say that the number of people licensing and
supervising from Minho to the Azores regions, is significantly small compared to what should be the
reality, at the levels of the ARHs. In fact, related to the lack of specialized staff, from his perception
there aren’t really enough human resources for it, for the amount of work it implies, with all the
permits emission, environmental impact studies, and other hydrogeological and technical studies.

LR also testimony about the former General Directorate of Hydraulic Resources (DGRAH - Direção
Geral dos Recursos e Aproveitamentos Hidráulicos), a division of technical staff related to groundwater
and hydrology in Portugal, in the 1980s, with several specializations that aren’t possibly to find in any
current state body: "That know-how has been lost". In fact, (Pato, 2008) presented on his work a list
with the following responsibilities for DGRH, which also comprised various technical directorates such

71
as the Hydrology Services Directorate, which was divided by the Hydrometry Division, Hydrological
Studies Division and Geo-hydrology Division. It was also with that direction that the first abstraction
well permits were registered:

 Studies and works

 Hydrology and river hydrography
 Pollution Control
 Laboratory
 Inspection
 Administrative services
 River basin council

Afterwards, LR claims that Portugal's entry into the European Union had an impact in this area, and
the attention given to water resources was rekindled, as it had to respond to various requests, such
as the issue of groundwater contamination. From then on, “a groundwater monitoring network began
to be developed and new specialized technical staff formed”. That was when the need arose to
develop integrated systems that encompass data and information management, including data
integration for hydrogeological units. Thus, “for the Tejo-Sado Basin Hydrogeological Unit, where
there was a great demand for water for urban, industrial and agricultural supplies, was carried out by
the Portuguese government, and through the then Directorate General of Hydraulic Resources
(DGRAH), a cooperation project with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). This resulted
in the Setubal Peninsula project (UNDP/POR/77/015), which developed a mathematical model
(DGRAH, UNDP, 1980) in which the Right Bank, Left Bank and Tagus Alluvium systems are integrated”.
And this, LR states, is the origin of the structure of the basic information to be integrated in the
National Water Resources Information System (SNIRH), which was made publicly available on the
Internet in 1995.

Presently, LR believes that much remains to be done with regard to data and information, including
the provision of more information on SNIRH, particularly hydrogeological information on existing
observation points and abstractions in the country. LR says that data from the overwhelming majority
of existing funding are not digitalized, and are scattered across various regional administrative bodies,
at this time unable to organize and make them available. Several reports and works developed over
several years, with hydrogeological information such as lithological profiles, hydraulic and exploration
parameters, etc. will even be archived and spread across the country's various ARHs, which, mostly
still in paper format, are completely out of reach of anyone who want to consult them, or process it.
In fact, there is often no proper and complete cataloguing of files, which makes it even harder to figure

72
out what data might be in the files. Basically, just like LR states, “fundamental information for the
characterization and knowledge of an aquifer exists, but is scattered, unavailable, not processed and
not catalogued for consultation in paper or digital format, either by bibliographic or other digital
information system, like a GIS”. In addition, there is also a problem of cooperation between regional
administrations and management entities which mostly work on an individual basis. In fact, "within
the administrations there are different databases across departments".

Concerning management and planning, LR responds that “the management plans are satisfactory and
there is a program of measures for the protection of groundwater bodies. But the vast majority of
measures are not or have been implemented, so as to reverse some situations that require
intervention. LR believes that "were not implemented for financial and political decision-making".

Asked about the criteria on public participation in groundwater management, LR is of the opinion that
there are “lobbying associations and organizations, particularly in the area of agriculture. Usually
those who go to public consultations always have interests in areas related to water use.”

Edite Reis – ARH do Algarve

According to Edite Reis, the major problem at ARH do Algarve is the lack of means (mainly vehicles)
and human resources to ensure proper monitoring. “Every month measurements are made for 200
points in the Algarve region”. Lacks technical staff to do this work, and also to monitor water springs
for example. In a way to minimize the short means the measurements are made in a much less
frequent basis than it should be. Nevertheless, the ironic aspect is that “this data is critical for us to
manage. We cannot manage what we do not know. Knowledge is necessary to be able to manage, and
the 30-40 year historical series is of immense interest”. For example, some piezometer data series
show piezometric drop and rise cycles of some years, probably related to climate cycles, which
analysed individually would have a more alarming effect. With regard to decreases in piezometric
levels it could be attributed to an increase in operating flow rates (short-term effect), or in fact may
be attributed to a drought period which is cyclical and which should be taken into account in a long-
term water resources management.

Asked about legislation and instruments for management, ER replies that “the main challenges are
not so much at the legislation level, because in that context, even if there are some gaps things can
be adjusted locally”. She also considers that the level of transparency has even been achieved, and a
water information system like SNIRH, at the level of data and information sharing, the things pretty
much work fine.

73
In terms of environmental education and public participation, related to water resources, ER mentions
that APA has people working in this field, and in the Algarve there is even the project Environmental
Volunteering for Water (Voluntariado Ambiental para a Água,
http://voluntariaambientalagua.apambiente), which promotes various activities in the area of water
resources dissemination in the region directly with schools and the general public, but at groundwater
level there is no one with enough time in the ARH side to provide promotional content.

Edite Reis cannot tell if the lack of financial resources, which actually limit all ARH functions and its
best performance, or because the available funds are poorly distributed. It also says that hiring of
technical staff is not on ARH do Algarve, but at the central level, at APA in Lisbon. Therefore,
questioned about the possibility of hiring technicians to work at ARH do Algarve in case of need, Edite
believes that at this time “it is not possible. That is something that is under the APA's Finance and
General Resources Department responsibility and here there’s no power to move forward in hiring”.
And to give an example, she says that 20 years ago ten people were doing technical work at ARH do
Algarve and by now there is only one person working in various tasks related not only to groundwater
but also to surface water (either monitoring-related or not). To worsen these issues, in this specific
case, the technical is going to retirement. So, to fill this vacancy, they will have to make a transfer
request from someone with technical qualifications and interest who is already a state employee in
order to fill the gap and avoiding to get completely deprived of technical human resources. At the level
of superior technicians, in regard to groundwater resources, ARH do Algarve counts only on herself
and on another colleague at the licensing department. Regardless all the limitations, the quality and
quantity network data are all available through SNIRH, that are sent to APA after collection and
processing at ARH, and then made available online.

ARH Algarve does not use numerical models to manage the Algarve groundwater bodies. However,
SNIRH data are used to feed numerical models developed by other entities, namely the University of
Algarve, with researchers linked to CERIS-IST, but only from a scientific perspective, and not yet
directly linked to ARH do Algarve for its use as a management tool. Nonetheless, ER says that it would
indeed be interesting to have at her disposal a well-calibrated numerical models to respond to some
of the challenges they face, notably in terms of issuing authorizations for groundwater abstraction, or
even defining the maximum infiltration zones, to give some examples. With regard to these maximum
infiltration zones, ER says that the water law requires legislation for the delimitation of these zones,
describing their constraints and preservation measures, but in fact nothing has been legislated for
these zones yet. As far as it is known, these sort of delimited zones are rarely applied, and Algarve is
a rare example, where a critical zone have been defined and studied.

74
The implications of these zones keep only defined at the regional/local management, and not
legislated are the following:

 the non-protection of these areas, which are essential for aquifer recharge, and therefore the
assurance that there are conditions for the aquifer to replenish from infiltration from both
precipitation and runoff;
 These areas may be subject to breakdowns which replace the karstified surfaces with clay soil
thus reducing the recharge in those areas. In addition to the quantity implications, quality
issues can also cause problems, as this technique is commonly applied in areas where
agriculture is intended, which, due to nitrate infiltration, may also affect the water quality of
the aquifer. Legally, there is no possibility of limiting agriculture zones, not even the type of
crops and agricultural activities in these recharge zones. These karst zones have very high
infiltration rates, and have a strong influence on both groundwater quantity and quality, but
legally nothing could be done to avoid the aquifer degradation without proper legislation.

As for the monitoring of abstractions and activities related to water resources, this is almost non-
existent. There are about 30 000 licensed abstractions in the Algarve. To ensure the minimum (though
really rare) inspection, help is asked to SEPNA-GNR for the inspection actions but even though, these
actions are mostly taken to respond to situations of complaint toward other user. Sometimes the
inspector is also who is in charge of licensing.

In some cases, water well owners are also required to have an installed a meter, to control and register
the volumes of abstractions. By regulation, these measurements have to be sent in a monthly basis to
APA through their own means, one of which SILIAMB. And the truth is that this happens very rarely,
and according to ER's, is precisely because of inspection actions are inexistent.

In ER’s opinion, the water well owner should obliged to be have installed an automatic process that
would record the readings to be sent automatically to the competent entities. Consequently, the
owners would need to remember to make the measures and the data would be processed and
integrated for better management of the groundwater availability in the region.

Presently, even if water well owners are obliged (as a condition in the water well permits) to install
meters and send the readings to APA, inscribed in authorizations and titles for the exploration of
groundwater, the truth is that very few people is doing it. There is probably no widespread culture on
this, neither nobody who obliges them to do so. Therefore, efforts should be made to disclose this
obligation and explain the reasons to groundwater users for the importance of information from these
measurements, particularly from the perspective of management and protection of the natural

75
resource always combined with enforcement actions. This type of inspection necessarily implies more
human resources, which again is limited by the financial gap. Is it also a matter of political conscience?
That is, do the decision makers have the perception of the structure that is needed to make the current
legislation be enforced? ER says it is quite possible that this happens and she does not believe it is just
a financial matter. Perhaps the question, once more, is even how financial resources are distributed.

At the level of instruments to reduce groundwater extraction and to prevent the construction of
catchments, ER says that the delimitation of the Critical Groundwater Extraction Area (ACEAS) is
indeed a fundamental tool in the control of saline intrusion. This area has been respected and
controlled and any new abstraction within this area will be allowed only if there is going to be another
water well that is going to be deactivated, or to replace another abstraction. Adding to this, the
abstraction cannot be larger than the abstraction that is going to replace.

From the perspective of groundwater abstraction management and control, there are also several
challenges in years of severe drought. In one hand, it is very difficult, to control abstractions from
private water wells in drought years, just as it is to completely cease groundwater abstraction in case
of groundwater-dependent farms or some other groundwater-dependent economic activity. The right
of abstraction is set in the permits, and the owners that actually need the groundwater, won’t
understand (or wouldn’t accept) to be deprived of their right precisely in moments when they most
need the groundwater resources. On the other side, the inability of the inspections to intervene in
these cases, either for lack of means or because the water wells are located in inaccessible private
domains are also considered to be paramount in this situations.

When asked about the measures of the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and whether they had
been implemented in the Algarve region ER says that, like Lisbon and the rest of the country, very little
has been done in this regard. There are some studies developed to respond to some established
measures, for example the development of a methodology for calculating the recharge that would
apply to the country, but apart from some initiatives, almost no measures have been implemented.
There is, however, work at management level, such as ACEAS management, which takes into account
all seasonal and over time variations, notably in the delimitation of the protected area, which varies
spatially over time. It is an internal work though, which is not available for consultation, and is
intended as a management plan to be included in the RBMP as provided for in the Water Law.

José Paulo Monteiro – University of Algarve / APRH

76
When José Paulo Monteiro (JPM) was asked about the biggest challenges for groundwater governance
in Portugal, he highlights the issue of human resources and the know-how, which is being lost due to
the divestment policy currently in the public administration. He is well acquainted with the work of
ARH Algarve, and the difficulties that exist precisely in this field, which have implications for various
sectors, with greater visibility in aquifer data and monitoring. "Institutions are not the walls, but the
people who work there." JPM claims that what is happening at a general level is a structural
degradation that may have a no return point. The reason may be financial strangulation as a result of
a crisis or political option, and may even be corrected in the future, but that, if the situation reaches
a certain final stage of degradation, the solution may turn unmanageable.

“What is the way to minimize this juncture?” asks JPM: “It is to bring the intentions that are on paper
closer to the reality on the ground”. He is of the opinion that the planning that is being done nowadays
is nothing more than a political agenda accomplishment (“because it has to be done”). The actual
implement is not really made (“it's not done because people believe it's good for something”).
Furthermore, “Our management is much more advanced on paper than on the ground. We are not at
the same stage in terms of intent and legislation compared to practice. These are two completely
different stages”. So, I dare to say that there is a gap between what is produced at the legislative and
implementation levels. And the driving force behind the development of this gap may even be the lack
of means nowadays observed on the ground.

“There is no relationship between causes and effects. The RBMP supposedly should recommend
measures based on a state analysis. This is what is on paper, but that is not what happens”, explains
JPM. What happens is that there is a planning of investments, for example, in sanitation, and this plan
is considered as a measure plan belonging to the RBMP, when it is something independent of the
results that were obtained. Nowadays, “if you make an investment in a waste water treatment plant
(WWTP), it is not because a groundwater body is in ‘poor’ status, but because there are other reasons
why you should invest in a WWTP”. Hence, there is no cause-effect relationship between the
monitoring and status of the groundwater body, which in JPM’s opinion, the classification of a
groundwater body status is also very vague and dispersed.

Another issue that may have a bearing on the way in which groundwater management is done at
regional level is that local decision-making power has been lost and has been replaced to Lisbon, in
APA. Concerning the use of numerical groundwater models developed by the University of Algarve
(UAlg), JPM says that this kind of work took root with the first years of JPM's work, and lasted for
several years. This work resulted into various publications and aquifer models developed through the
years. In the Algarve region, there was an engagement between UAlg and ARH Algarve to develop

77
models and other related products for aquifer management. But not anymore. The previous
collaboration happened because ARH had the autonomy to hire the UAlg team. At this time, this does
not happen. And what happens is that APA, with its centralized power, ends up detaching itself from
local institutions and people who know local and regional conditions best. Expert knowledge,
information, and resulting products of several years of research and effort to be done are now
stagnant and lost in these cases. In fact, the central government does not know people at the local
level, and when this happens the tendency is to search for technical staff that might not be the most
indicated to do the job, in case of need. The idea here is that eventually local professional do know
best the regional conditions and specificities on the ground than a professional that is not familiar
with that same region, such as the ARHs and the local institutions. Therefore, "one is going
backwards".

António Chambel – University of Évora / IAH

AC, since closely linked to IAH, realized that groundwater is practically ignored at international level
and the number of representative international organizations is very small. From his perspective, this
is reflected in the countries and an inheritance of the international practices and guidelines. For
example, the resulting documents from international debates such as the World Water Forum, which
are accounted as guidelines for many governments in various countries, do not take into account
groundwater matters. Nevertheless, a gradual and progressive awareness of its importance
throughout the last few years has been raised, maibe because of the IAH intervention in that direction.
However, IAH is the only international organization representing groundwater the World Water
Forum, out of about 500 organizations/institutions. "The message of groundwater does not pass" he
says, because its strength is very little and governments usually lack people able to actually understand
the groundwater issues.

Asked about why some aquifers characterized and described in the PNA do not take part of the RBMP,
he says that the aquifer systems considered for the RBMP as groundwater bodies are those that were
contemplated in the work of Almeida et al. (2000). The criteria for “the definition of aquifer systems
have been oriented so that they can constitute inventory and management units. To this end, the
defined systems must correspond as much as possible to units of operation, i.e. the various parts or
subsystems constituting them must be dynamically related to each other so that any change in the
state of one of the parts will have repercussions on the other parts. On the other hand, they must be
of sufficient size to be representative on the working scale and of sufficient importance at least
locally”.

78
Regarding instruments for the management of groundwater bodies AC considers that there are some
instruments well implemented, namely the wellhead protection perimeters, even though some
problems of implementation have been occurred, or the inexistence of information in situ, for
example.

As for the monitoring networks, and after the economic crisis that Portugal went through originating
a divestment and deactivation of several monitoring stations, AC says that there seems to be a
reactivation of this monitoring to much more acceptable levels. However, he is of the opinion that a
more adequate data analysis should be made locally, in order to improve the aquifer management at
the local level as well.

AC considers that the Portuguese legislative water framework is not bad, although part of the
legislation should have been better adapted to the Portuguese reality. In this case, he refers the
adaptation of parameters and local circumstances that were not adapted to the characteristics of the
Portuguese groundwater bodies. For example, the temperature of groundwater for human
consumption, which in the Water Law says that should have the maximum recommended
temperature of 12ºC, when in fact, it is known that in southern European countries the water
temperature is higher. Therefore, he supports the idea that the transposition of the WFD into the
Portuguese legislative framework was not made with a proper analysis and adapted to our reality.

Finally, another pointed out situation that he believe to be crucial is the improvement of the water
well inspections, which he considers to be non-existent. This fact, allows freedom enough to have
several illegal actions to be taken, specially in the construction of illegal water wells in the region.

Alice Fialho – ARH do Alentejo

When asked the icebreaking question, regarding the main challenges for groundwater governance in
Alentejo, AF answers that the “main focus and objective would be an improved quantitative
monitoring network. There is a good quality network, but this is not the case for the quantity, and it
is crucial now to make some decisions on the aquifers’ management, in particular on the issue of new
abstraction permits, if there is a need to condition the farms, or even if it is necessary to reduce the
number of permits.”

The network has been modernized for 20 years, even for climate change adaptation. Resources have
so far been mainly channelled to the main groundwater bodies, but the monitoring network in the
groundwater bodies of the Old Massif is at this moment very insipient. Thus, it is necessary to have

79
financial resources allocated, to implement the most effective monitoring network in these water
bodies.

Regarding the state of the monitoring data, AF replies saying that “the inventories must be updated
via remote sensing and satellite imagery, which is the most effective way to manage water bodies. It
has to be a dynamic analysis according to the occupation of the territory, namely in agricultural areas.
This is also the way that ARH has found to monitor abstractions, which would be rather impossible
given the number of active abstractions in the order of the thousands over such a large area. Thus,
supervision is directed to large irrigation hubs and public irrigated areas, and a careful crossing of
information about land use, makes the calculation of the available and necessary volumes for local
activities. The calculation of the demands for groundwater abstraction from the analysis of the
available databases is also possible, either for an alternate use with surface water, either for situations
when the surface water sources dry up, or among other identifiable situations”.

In short, AF bold that the management and implementation of good governance are dependent of a
consolidated, reinforced and autonomous piezometry network, prospected to large time horizons,
and through the management of water budgets between availability and use. The measures must be
very objective as to whether they can be abstracted in all or only a few water bodies. Restriction to
where necessary or reducing according to availability analyses is also an option.

The groundwater bodies’ management in the ARH do Alentejo is strictly integrated with the surface
water bodies and that is how they plan to continue their activities, because in this region the water
use is also integrated. There are only a small number of rare cases in which only surface water is used,
or only groundwater. One of the exceptions is perhaps the T3 - Left Bank of the Tagus, which practically
only uses groundwater.

AF states that ARH do Alentejo did not find it difficult to continue with normal monitoring tasks in the
years of the economic and financial crisis in Portugal, especially since 50% of the quantity network
monitoring points have automatic instrumentation. Field travel is only necessary for maintenance
actions or to perform manual measurements. AF presents another reason for the absence of
difficulties in the field of financial and human resources: since she started working in the Planning and
Information Division of ARH she realized that water management problems would arise in the region
if data, information and human resources wouldn’t be available. Therefore, work has been done to
allocate both financial and human resources to monitoring networks, which has led to a very good
sustainability situation with regard to network maintenance and management. In this division, in
addition to managing the monitoring networks, all the work related to the licensing of groundwater
for public supply is also done, which is considered to have been a major contribution, as they hope to

80
be able to extract a lot of information about the water bodies, mainly in terms of quality. She also says
that it is an increment for the quality monitoring network, because the number of public supply
abstractions in the Alentejo region is around 700, in a very wide area, complementing in a very positive
way the existing network. It further states that, there is an internal goal to regularize these situations
by the end of the year (2019), which are pending, in many cases, on the issue of the land ownership.

The campaigns on the quality network are semi-annual (twice a year), alternated between wet season
and dry season, and the waters are sampled and analysed by technicians specialized in this sort of
routines in articulation with the ARH laboratories. In the last 3 years, ARH do Alentejo have intensified
their research into hazardous and priority substances, namely pesticides, metals and hydrocarbons,
which until now were only monitored in a few specific locations (mainly for pesticide analysis). This
intensification was essentially done in preparation for the third generation of management plans, and
this is made considering the integration with surface water bodies, in order to obtain more
information for the characterization and assessment of the water bodies status.

At the same time the wellhead protection perimeters have been published, depending on the
situations and according to the land title regularization. It is not possible to have a wellhead protection
perimeters published that are in private land without finding a solution to assign these lands within
the perimeters. As for compensation, AF says it is case-dependent and analysed in each municipality,
but in most situations there is compensation for landowners, who for the same reasons are deprived
of it, restricted by the perimeter zones. In the case of companies, like Águas de Portugal, the land is
bought, usually corresponding to the immediate intervention areas, while in the case of municipalities,
some have used the method of usucaption (acquisitive prescription), while others make agreements
with the owners, make arrangements or lease agreements. In any case, ARH has no intervention.
When the land is in the state, a concession agreement is obtained for the funding, which is valid for at
least 25 years. When it is a municipal land, and if the municipality is the user, in this case no title is
required. The abstraction is solely registered and the wellhead protection perimeter is published, as
well as the monitoring plan defined.

When asked whether the use of numerical models for the management of water bodies would make
sense, AF said that “it makes perfect sense but they do not use it at this time”. However, she says that
perhaps by the time of the 4th cycle of the river basin management plans they will be already in this
phase, assuming that “this is where they are heading”. However, this objective is only possible because
they have gone all the way to fill all the gaps that exist, with major investments, not only in networks
but also in laboratories, in all components. Subsequently, there must be investment in skills and
capabilities, involving what will be an investment in the training of technicians specialized in numerical

81
modelling. However, AF assumes that due to the multidisciplinary character of a daily-basis work of
the collaborators at ARH do Alentejo, and the variability of tasks they perform every day, it should be
difficult to have technicians dedicated to numerical modelling alone. So, perhaps the best solution
right now, with this management model, would allocate technicians centrally, at APA, for the tasks of
numerical modelling so that they can work on all major aquifers in the country, followed by the other
aquifers of the country. The need to develop this work in groundwater bodies such as the T3 is
highlighted, and considered fundamental for the area of ARH do Alentejo. This model would
necessarily have to be an integrated model for surface and groundwater, as it is understood that
otherwise wouldn’t make sense.

Indeed, a strong collaboration between universities and APA would be desirable to establish an
information sharing strategy and, on the other hand, to ensure that APA retains information, data and
numerical models to use them effectively, and to update them as appropriate. One of the problems
identified in this collaboration is precisely the inability of APA to use the models that are developed at
the universities. In addition, after work is completed, APA struggles to access these models in case of
need. For many reasons, for example the model author may no longer be available at the university
or institution after some time.

Therefore, for these reasons, a possible solution for improved management and decision support
would be to hire technicians who specialize in numerical modelling of water resources at the central
level, in APA, and not at the regional level. Although indications on Valuable information and
important references could be the responsibility of the HRAs who know the terrain, the conditions
and the specialist professionals in their regions better than anyone else.

Another interesting issue is the “maximum infiltration zones of aquifers”, which are foreseen in the
Water Law and have not yet been defined in the legislation. There is indeed a need to harmonize these
areas with the “strategic aquifer protection and recharge areas” (AEPRA), which were also provided
for in REN (Decree-Law 166/2008 as amended by Decree-Law 239/2012). In fact, these areas should
not be different from what will be established as maximum infiltration zones. So right now, in this
matter, AF thinks that the decision of these areas should have been made at the central level at APA,
and then applied at the local level. However, what happens is that the municipalities define it in the
PDM the strategic areas of aquifer protection and recharge with APA approval and recommendations.
But then, between two neighbour municipalities, incongruities may be found regarding the AEPRAs,
which are independently defined for the same aquifer.

82
3.4 Discussion

Despite the modernity regarding the water legislation framework, shown by the integrative approach
and the introduction of tools for planning and monitoring (Mechlem, 2016), some of which were
already provided for in legislation prior to the adoption of the WFD, the majority of the laws and
regulations are of national and EU origin. Thus, the needed adaptation of the groundwater legal
framework to the financial, technological, and institutional capabilities, as well as to the geographical
and environmental specificities, customs, culture, political system, and usual practice (Mechlem,
2012), is lacking in the country, in which the local government has, by the Portuguese Constitution
and the autonomous government power, specific legitimacy to manage water resources at the
regional level, idea also shared by Cruz and Soares (2018).

The Table 3.3 and Figure 3.11 present a benchmarking criteria for the assessment of groundwater
governance in Alentejo and Algarve, based on the interviews made for the experts of ARH Alentejo
and Algarve. In Table 3.3 there is also a column for Azores autonomous region, made by Cruz and
Soares (2018), applying the very same benchmarking criteria of Foster et al. (2010), for comparison
purposes and discussion.

Table 3.3 – Benchmarking criteria for the assessment of groundwater governance in Alentejo, Algarve and Azores regions.
The benchmarking criteria is according to Foster et al. (2010), the assessment to Algarve and Alentejo is based on the
interviews, and the assessment to Azores region is made by Cruz and Soares (2018).

Type of
Ref. Criterion Algarve Alentejo Azores
Provision/Capacity
1 Existence of basic hydrogeological maps 1 2 3
2 Groundwater body/aquifer delineation 2 3 3
3 Groundwater-piezometric monitoring network 2 1 0
Technical
4 Groundwater-pollution hazard assessment 2 2 3
5 Availability of aquifer numerical management models 1 0 0
6 Groundwater-quality monitoring network 2 2 2
7 Waterwell drilling permits and groundwater use rights 2 2 2
8 Instrument to reduce groundwater abstraction 1 2 2
9 Instrument to prevent waterwell construction 1 1 2
10 Sanction for illegal waterwell construction 1 2 2
Legal and
11 Groundwater abstraction and use charging 1 2 1
institucional
12 Land-use control on potentially-polluting activities 1 1 1
13 Levies on generation/discharge of potential pollutants 1 1 1
14 Government agency as ground-water-resource guardian 1 2 2
15 Community aquifer management organizations 0 0 0
16 Coordination with agriculture development 1 2 1

83
 Type of
Ref. Criterion Algarve Alentejo Azores
Provision/Capacity
Cross-sector 17 Groundwater-based urban/industrial planning 0 0 0
policy
coordination 18 Compensation for groundwater protection 0 2 0
19 Public participation in groundwater management 1 1 1
Operational
20 Existence of groundwater-management action plan 3 3 3
0=non-existent, 1=insipient, 2=acceptable, 3=optimum.

Figure 3.11 – Assessment of groundwater governance provision and capacity in Alentejo and Algarve regions, based on the
benchmarking criteria proposed by Foster et al. (2010).

3.4.1 Legal and regulatory framework

It is unanimous that water legislation framework in force, provided by national and European laws and
regulations, is adequate for the regional setting, as well as for an integrative approach and the
introduction of tools for planning and monitoring (Mechlem, 2016). Some few flaws where identified
though, namely the political deadlock of the critical area for groundwater abstraction, described in
the ARH do Algarve. In fact, the case is not alone in Europe, as one of the emerging trends point in the
direction of growing attention to facets of groundwater governance which have traditionally escaped
the radar screen of mainstream groundwater regulation, and of linking non-groundwater areas of
governance and regulation with mainstream groundwater governance and regulation (Burchi, 2017).
Groundwater regulation recourse to zoning the recharge areas of aquifers for controlled land uses
(zones of maximum infiltration), and regulation of discrete land uses – notably, cultivation and
livestock rearing – impacting on groundwater quality. In the case of the critical area for groundwater
abstraction in Algarve, the zoning prevents the aquifers to go depleted to a level that saline intrusion

84
would be irreversible and irrecoverable. These two examples are signals of significant advances in the
direction of recouping the connection with land use regulation. Nevertheless, these protection and
regulated zones are apparently difficult to manage and control, for the incapacity of trade-offs
negotiation with the landowners. There are economical and regulatory instruments to reduce and
prevent groundwater abstraction, but according to the opinion of the experts, its implementation is
difficult. Cruz and Soares (2018) mention that an adaptation of the groundwater legal framework to
financial, technological and cultural customs is needed, as well as the consideration of the
geographical and environmental specificities.

The Decree-Law No. 226-A/2007, establishes the non-obligation to communicate or apply to licensing
for existing (old) but unused abstractions (of any kind), creates a void regarding the knowledge of all
the abstractions disabled. Faced with these legal requirements, water management agencies are
unaware of the existence and status of a significant number of abstractions. According to Reis (2017),
in the APA-ARH Algarve area of jurisdiction, approximately 50 000 requests for regularization of
groundwater abstraction were submitted, of which around 5 000 to 7 000 were declared as
deactivated. However, the implementation and eventual enforcement of domestic groundwater
regulation remain to-date largely un-mapped groundwater governance territory, with examples given
by Ramos (2019), for the northern region of Portugal. Burchi (2017) highlights the importance of
building up a government’s administrative response capability for these situations in order to
groundwater governance arrangements advance to a new level.

For the protection of the groundwater, the RBPs established some measures to be implemented,
namely the restriction of direct discharges of pollutants into groundwater and control of artificial
recharge. A measure that is planned as well is the restructuration of groundwater monitoring
networks and the application of the Vulnerable Zones Action Program. Supplementary measures
include the definition of areas of maximum infiltration and restrictions on land use in conjunction with
the National Ecological Reserve Legal Regime. To face the challenges related to licensing and uses, the
RBPs proposed the improvement of regulation of groundwater resources (replacement of the previous
commencement of underground water use by the authorization). According to Lopes (2019), the
remediation of the southern part of groundwater body of Sines, located in the western region of
Alentejo, is planned. As this is not implemented yet, the land-use control on potentially-polluting
activities criteria, as well as the levies on generation/discharge of potential pollutants are only score
as insipient.

Implementation, administration and enforcement of domestic groundwater regulation are critical

aspects of groundwater governance, if often neglected. In this matter, evidence available suggests

85
that the chances of success increase with the involvement of water/groundwater users. A good
example of an effective engagement by groundwater users of negotiated groundwater extraction
limits has halted the depletion of Spain’s largest aquifer, feeding the Daimiel Tablas wetland in Central
Spain, which is a Ramsar site (Castaño-Castaño et al., 2008). Another example in India, is the approach
to groundwater depletion through community-based management actions the aquifer of drought-
prone Andhra Pradesh (Garduño et al., 2009). In Algarve or Alentejo, and for all matters in Portugal,
as far as it is reported, there are no community aquifer management organizations of any kind. In
comparison to the Azores region, can be said that the scoring for the legal and institutional capacity is
quite similar, given the present assessments.

Considering the proposed activities towards strengthened groundwater governance listed by themes
from the GEF’s Global Framework for Action (Table 2.7) (FAO, 2016b), the following activities must be
highlighted:

a. Strengthen the capacity of government to implement, administer and enforce groundwater

legislation and regulations,
b. Facilitate conjunctive management through consolidation or coordination of surface water
and groundwater responsibilities, and through the removal of institutional and regulatory
obstacles,
c. Engage with stakeholders via regulatory mechanisms and financial support, and consider
promotion of formal groundwater management associations,
d. Provide for cross-sector coordination of policies, starting with an inventory of uses of the
entire subsurface space, and provide consistent regulatory mechanisms, in closely related
fields such as rural land use, urban construction, environmental health, hydrocarbon
exploitation and mining activities,
e. Linking groundwater management to land use and land use practices, having into account that
this is one of the most relevant and essential key to groundwater pollution control,
f. Mainstreaming groundwater in other policies, identifying how potential interactions with
groundwater are to be factored into the policies and programs of other sectors.

3.4.2 Policies, management planning and Financing

Strengthening groundwater governance must recognise the presence of a highly “decentralised

resource”, which is potentially affected by the actions of a large number of waterwell users and

86
potential polluters, and thus needs to be managed at the most local scale compatible with the
hydrogeological setting (Foster and Chilton, 2017). The local hydrogeological setting and
socioeconomic circumstances together frame groundwater resource availability and use, and in turn
constrain the measures which are likely to be applicable to manage aquifer degradation risks and to
resolve potential conflicts. This is applied to the cross-sector policy coordination criteria that, for the
case of Algarve, is quite concerning. Neither groundwater-based urban/industrial planning nor
compensation for groundwater protection exists. Even coordination with agriculture development is
considered to be insipient, in a region where the dominant aquifer typology is extremely vulnerable
to contamination by nitrates (Stigter et al., 2006). Agriculture and irrigation activities are developed
on top of mapped zones of maximum infiltration without a tool that provides ARH the necessary
power to prevent a highly potential aquifer contamination.

In Alentejo region, it is stated during the interview that coordination with agriculture development is
made at an acceptable level. Dynamic analysis considering the land-use, namely in agricultural and
public irrigated areas. Supervision is directed to large irrigation hubs and urban irrigated areas, to
make the calculation of the available and necessary volumes for local activities. Apparently, the
correlation between the stage of advancement of groundwater management and financial
development is observed, by looking into the contrasts between Algarve and Alentejo. As stated
before, ARH do Algarve admitted to have serious financial issues (and a preoccupant human resources
shortage), while ARH do Alentejo managed to get over the economic and financial crisis by allocating
finance where it was more needed for the proper monitoring networks’ maintenance. According to
Cruz and Soares (2018) these matters are also quite insipient or non-inexistent. Therefore, it is to be
concluded that allocating financial resources at local governing agency is vital to allow the proper
functioning of the basic activities as it is the groundwater monitoring.

Related to the previous issues, is the failure to account for the economic dimension of the
groundwater governance. Taxation of groundwater abstraction/discharge of pollutants, as an
economic mechanism is not yet established (Cruz and Soares, 2018). On the other hand, the
adaptation of any measures in order to compensate compliance or any groundwater protection action
is only considered in Alentejo, as the policy of compensation for groundwater protection is accounted
to the 1) municipalities or 2) water supply entities.

Given the aforementioned issues, the proposed activities towards strengthened groundwater
governance listed by themes from the GEF’s Global Framework for Action (Table 2.7) (FAO, 2016b),
consider the following activities:

87
 a. Pursue integration of the responsibilities for groundwater resource conservation and quality
protection
b. Defining area-specific groundwater management issues and groundwater governance goals
and priorities, in order to enable effective and efficient groundwater resources management.
c. Linking groundwater management to land use and land use practices, having into account that
this is one of the most relevant and essential key to groundwater pollution control.
d. All public finances as they relate to groundwater use need to be re-assessed and brought in
line with the priorities for sustainable groundwater management within overall national policy
frameworks.
e. More and regular financing for the basic functions of groundwater governance should be
secured, including for monitoring, regulation, innovation and capacity building. An assessment
in each country of the institutions in place, the services they need to provide and the resources
allocated to them can provide the basis for a structured increase in budgets.
f. Imagination is required to develop new financial systems to encourage private investment in
sustainable groundwater management, such as payment for recharge services or for real
water savings.
g. Planning implementation over a specified period, with systematic monitoring, review of
effectiveness, and adjustment of the next cycle

3.4.3 Actors in the groundwater governance structure

The actors involved in the groundwater governance structure is quite heterogeneous and may include
politicians and other decision-makers, government agencies, scientists, planners, NGOs, industries,
water-supply companies, drilling companies, the mining sector and other segments of the private
sector, well-owners, groundwater users, water-user associations, groundwater polluters,
international agencies and international bodies for regional cooperation, etc (de Chaisemartin et al.,
2017). According to the previous exposure, good governance is not merely a matter of prudent
government action but requires active participation of all relevant categories of stakeholders, with all
actors collaborating in harmony. In order to assess the public participation in groundwater
management, and according to the Groundwater Governance Project (FAO, 2016b), the assessment
is made by the capability and motivation of relevant stakeholders to participate effectively in the
process. As many groundwater management measures aim at changing the behaviour of local
stakeholders (groundwater users) in one way or another by applying restricting abstractions, reducing

88
pollution, etc.), it is essential to involve stakeholders in governing groundwater. The five key indicators
of the success of public participation proposed by de Chaisemartin et al. (2017), and based on FAO
(2016), are taken into account, more specifically: the involvement and roles of the different actors;
the sense of urgency for groundwater governance and management; the mandate, capacity and
motivation of the government agencies in charge; the capability and motivation of relevant
stakeholders to participate effectively in the process; and cooperation, partnerships and conflicts
between actors. From these criteria, and according to the opinion of the interviewed experts, the
Table 3.4 was built for a better schematization.

Table 3.4 - Key indicators of the success of public participation (de Chaisemartin et al. 2017) and present status for the regions
of Algarve and Alentejo.

Criteria
Involvement and roles of the different actors
Sense of urgency for groundwater governance and
management
Mandate, capacity and motivation of the government
agencies in charge
Capability and motivation of relevant stakeholders to
participate effectively in the process
Cooperation, partnerships and conflicts between actors
Status
Government agencies develop legal framework, and prepare
management plans based on the WFD, and implement them after they
have been approved by decision-makers; although, poor enhancement
for the involvement of groundwater users
Groundwater is often overlooked by planners by a lack of understanding
that many times leads to low prioritization and low budgets and financing
(very low or non-existence implementation of RBMPs measures, cuts in
financing to monitoring).
Present centralization (APA) of tasks in a way and; understaffing and
insufficient budgets in the regional water agencies (ARHs) undermine a
proactive groundwater management
Groundwater users, many times, are not capable of participating, for lack
of understanding of what is at stake, inability to get their voice heard,
and flexibility to adapt.
Incompatible goals and diverging interests have been identified, namely
the economic interests when it comes to negotiate terms for
groundwater protection.

3.4.4 Data, information and knowledge

Groundwater-related data is fundamental to groundwater management and governance, in a way to

find the most appropriate solutions, based on a comprehensive diagnosis, analysis and knowledge on
the groundwater body. According to the assessment, the perception of the provision in data and
information varies between the analysed regions. In Alentejo the main challenge in this field is the
improvement of the quantitative monitoring network, and the method to update the inventory of

89
abstractions. The integrated water management approach is taken as essential for the best
management in the area, as a large percentage of the volume of water that is abstracted is for the
agriculture sector. In this case, the conjunctive use of surface/groundwater is made, depending on the
circumstances and water availability conditions. Therefore, a dynamic analysis has to be made
considering the irrigated areas and water demands, through the use of effective methods, such as
remote sensing (to evaluate surface water availability) and crossed information on the necessary
volumes for local activities, for the dynamic calculation of surface-groundwater use. To implement
consolidated management, a reinforced and autonomous quantitative network, prospected to large
time horizons is a key-factor. Constrains to the execution and increase of the number of monitoring
sites are mainly of financial reasons, which can take significant proportions, given the area that is
allocated to ARH do Alentejo administration. Nevertheless, the allocation of both financial and human
resources to the existing monitoring networks, has led to a very good sustainability situation with
regard to network maintenance and management.

The main challenges in the Algarve region, in this field, are also related to the short financial and
human resources allocated to the monitoring activities. The situation seems to be quite critical and
complex, particularly in terms of human resources shortage to face the volume of work is required to
guarantee the necessary monitoring. These shortages have also great impact in the supervision of
abstractions and activities related to water resources. Which, in fact, it seems to be extremely difficult
in both regions. The verification and confirmation that the licensing conditions are being respected to
abstract groundwater seems to be a major challenge. There is no defined instrument or apparent
strategy to control effectively what a licenced waterwell is actually abstracting. And this problem can
be considered a barrier to the proper calculation of the water budgets and the management
groundwater availability. The quantity assessment is apparently made mainly through the control of
the groundwater levels, through the piezometry analysis of data available in SNIRH. Adding to this,
the analysis of licensing requests to groundwater abstractions are also limited to the existing
information, with great degree of uncertainty.

Another item to discuss is the availability of aquifer numerical management models, which in both
cases are insipient or non-existent within the ARHs. Despite the fact that many academic work has
been done for the great majority of the aquifers of these two regions, and groundwater models were
developed (consult the compiled table by Monteiro et al., 2011), there is no use of applied models in
the regional water agencies. In fact, groundwater models provide a scientific and predictive tool for
determining appropriate solutions to water allocation, surface–groundwater interaction,
environmental management or impact of new development scenarios. Numerous examples exist in
the literature of the usefulness of a model for the groundwater management and in forecasting

90
possible options and policy changes, working as a decision support system as well. In a brief literature
review, after the year 2000, it is observed that applied models from local to regional scale, have been
applied as a decision support system: for groundwater level management (Naveh and Shamir, 2000),
for the conjunctive use management (Nalbantis et al., 2002), for the optimization link for groundwater
monitoring plans (Aziz et al., 2003), for groundwater governance (Quintana et al., 2005), for water
resources management (Hadded et al., 2013; Mysiak et al., 2005), for water allocation in a river basin
(Letcher, 2005), for ranking alternative water management options with multi-criteria (van
Cauwenbergh et al., 2008), to evaluate feasibility and performance of water management strategies
(Triana et al., 2010). Therefore, given the potentialities and possibilities (Chapter 7 and Chapter 8),
this option should be studied and implemented in the ARHs, in order to enhance the groundwater
management, with the available data and local knowledge of the natural and exploitation conditions.

91
92
4 Data, information and knowledge as a requirement for an improved
groundwater governance

4.1 The role and hierarchy of data, information and knowledge in groundwater
activities and management

In order to make the difference in the moment of decision-making on groundwater-related activities

the quality of information and knowledge are a major player. Adequate and precise information and
knowledge enable the areas or the aquifers containing good-quality groundwater to be located, wells
or well fields to be placed effectively, optimal parameters to be defined for well construction and
pump selection, or for the design of drainage systems if groundwater levels need to be lowered
temporarily or permanently, according to the local conditions. Data, information and knowledge are
also fundamental inputs to complex studies and planning projects, such as on improving the beneficial
use of groundwater and the related allocation of the benefits, on protecting groundwater systems
against overexploitation, seawater intrusion, pollution and other threats to its sustainability, on the
impacts of pursued changes in behaviour or practices (for example, related to groundwater use, land
use practices, wastewater disposal), etc. It is not exaggerated to conclude that no good groundwater
governance can exist without adequate information and knowledge on the local groundwater systems
and its context.

To define a hierarchy between the terms “data”, “information” and “knowledge”, some typical
features of these concepts, as well as the linkages and differences between them, are going to be
outlined below, as result of a selected interpretation from several published papers in literature
(Ackoff, 1989; Clark, 2019; Hey, 2004; Liew, 2007).

The main purpose of “data” is to record activities or situations, to attempt to capture the true picture
of a real event. “Information” is a message that contains relevant meaning, implication, or input for
decision and/or action. Information comes from both current (communication) and historical
(processed data or ‘reconstructed picture’) sources. In essence, the purpose of information is to aid in
making decisions and/or solving problems or realizing an opportunity. “Knowledge” is the 1) cognition
or recognition (know-what), 2) capacity to act (know-how), and 3) understanding (know-why) that
resides or is contained within the mind or in the brain (Liew, 2007). It is produced by combining
information with personal perceptions and previously acquired experience. This hierarchical relation
between “data”, ”information” and ”knowledge”, complemented with ”wisdom” at the top-end of the

93
hierarchy (DIKW hierarchy), is shown in Figure 4.1. According to Clark (2019) “Wisdom” represents the
ultimate level of understanding and just as knowledge this level operates within the human mind. It
enables people to judge on and to synthesize patterns in their knowledge base, to extrapolate them
and use them in innovative ways. Whereas data and information refer to the past, and knowledge to
the past or present, wisdom may produce projections and action-oriented solutions for the future.

Figure 4.1 - The DIKW hierarchy depicted as a linear chain (Clark, 2004).

Data forms building-blocks for generating information, information can be absorbed by the human
mind for developing knowledge, while knowledge is one of the pillars on which wisdom is built. The
close interrelationships between the components of the DIKW chain imply that activities intended to
augment data, information or knowledge are seldom carried out in isolation from each other, but
usually are combined to a certain degree for two or three of these components.

4.2 Criteria for information and knowledge requirements

In terms of information and knowledge requirements it must be taken into account the nature and
goal according to 1) categories of actors; 2) activities envisaged and the local context. For the first
case, there are many categories of actors (hydrogeologists and other groundwater specialists or

94
investigators, social scientists, lawyers, planners, groundwater managers, politicians and other
decision-makers, water suppliers, private groundwater well owners/users, groundwater irrigators,
water-using industries, households, environmentalists, the public in general) and each category of
actors has its own specific information demands, in terms of subjects or content, degree of detail and
format or mode of presentation. So generally, information on groundwater has to be made available
or presented in varying degrees of detail and in several different forms, according to the different
target groups. Regarding the requirements according to activities envisaged and the local context,
primarily it has to do with all human interactions with groundwater and its uses, as well as with the
provisions in support of groundwater resources management. It encompasses activities of very
different nature, of different size, complexity and even of different time-scales, and the local context
is naturally relevant as well, for example on defining which data should get priority if scarcity of
available resources does not allow more than only modest data acquisition efforts.

It may be concluded that the diversity of actors, activities, actions and local contexts, as outlined in
this section and the previous one, implies that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to information and
knowledge management will not be satisfactory for good groundwater governance. This diversity calls
for differentiated information provisions and for a broad palette of knowledge.

4.3 What categories of data and information are most relevant?

The types of data and information that are considered to be key for improving groundwater resources
management and governance are listed in Table 4.1. This table was elaborated from the general list
of key data and information for underpinning groundwater resources management, made by Gun
(2017), and it contains the list of the most relevant categories of data and information. Table 4.1
encompasses what can be called a specific list of fundamental data and information for the
groundwater management and governance in Portugal, based on the WFD requirements, taking into
consideration a cross-sectorial coordination. Table 4.1 can be applied for any place or time, at a
national, regional or local scale, and can be improved by adding or deleting items as required.

Furthermore, Table 4.1 use the term groundwater body instead of groundwater system, like it is used
in Gun's (2017) original work. Groundwater Body (GWB), by definition, is the management unit under
the WFD and therefore it was adopted by this approach. Groundwater bodies are subdivisions of large
geographical areas of aquifers that can be effectively managed in order to protect the groundwater

95
and connected surface waters. The Table 4.1 is organized by information category and by type of
information. The information categories considered are: 1) Groundwater body; 2) Use, in-situ
functions and benefits of groundwater; 3) Current or potential interactions and threats; 4)
Groundwater governance aspects and provisions. The type of information depends on the category of
information and each item is classified regarding its variations over space and time.

Table 4.1 – Key data organized by information categories and type of information for an improved groundwater resource
management and governance

Is information on
variations over space and
time crucial?
Type of Information Category
Data/Information
Spatial Variation
variation over time

Groundwater body Yes No Yes No

Location, area and boundaries of the groundwater body x x
Associated river basin x x
General settings Associated surface water features x x
Associated terrestrial ecosystems x x
Topography x x
Type of aquifer x x
Horizontal and vertical boundaries of spatial hydrogeological units x x
Geology and aquifers Main aquifer lithologies x x
Key structures x x
Key hydraulic properties of all hydrogeological units x x
Main overlying lithologies x x
Overlying thickness x x
Overlying strata
% area aquifer near surface x x
Vulnerability x x
Main recharge mechanisms x x
Natural recharge Zones of recharge x x
Estimated recharge rates x x
Important springs and high yielding wells (m3/d) x x
Natural discharge Main discharge mechanisms x x
Hydrogeochemical signature x x
Groundwater piezometric levels x x
Monitoring Groundwater quality parameters x x
Meteorological data (Precipitation, evapotranspiration) x x
Groundwater Flow Paths x x

Groundwater Groundwater and Surface water interactions x x

dynamics Groundwater abstraction (type, locations and fluxes) x x
Artificial groundwater recharge (type, locations and fluxes) x x

96
 Conceptualization Conceptual model x x
and information Information sources N/A x

Use, in-situ functions and benefits of groundwater

Groundwater abstracted for domestic use x x
Groundwater abstracted for agricultural use x x
Groundwater abstracted for industrial use and other purposes x x
Use and in-situ
Use of springs and baseflows (differentiated by use sector) x x
functions
Total surface water abstracted (differentiated by use sector) x x
Groundwater dependent ecosystems (location, total area, importance) x x
Water-table fed agricultural lands (location, total area) x x
Economic and other benefits of groundwater in the area (preferably differentiated
Benefits x x
by sector)

Current or potential interactions and threats

Zones of groundwater-surface water exchange of fluxes (influent and effluent;
x x
strong or weak)

Potential Interactions Land use pattern and land use practices x x

Location of main subsurface resource exploitation and main use of subsurface space
x x
(type, location, depth, characterisation)

Current and potential sources of pollution above land surface x x

Current and potential sources of pollution due to subsurface resources exploitation
Potential threats x x
and the use of subsurface space
Infrastructural projects having a major impact on the local or regional groundwater
x x
regime
Critical zones where fresh groundwater is threatened by salinization (sea-water
intrusion, saline/brackish groundwater upconing or horizontal migration, irrigation x x
return flows)
Protection of
groundwater Nitrate vulnerable zones x x
Maximum infiltration zones x x
Wellhead protection areas x x

Groundwater governance aspects and provisions

Past or current groundwater assessment activities x x
Monitoring programmes x x
State of groundwater
Groundwater quantitative status x x
Groundwater chemical status x x
Regulation for well drilling permits and use of groundwater N/A x
Instruments to reduce groundwater abstraction and prevent well construction and
N/A x
Legal and operation
institutional Instruments to charge groundwater abstraction and use N/A x
frameworks on
groundwater Instruments to control and prevent polluting activities N/A x
Clear definition of government agencies and roles dedicated to groundwater N/A x
Non-governanmental organizations for the groundwater body management x x
Coordination with Agricultural affairs and development N/A x
Current policies and
planning on Groundwater-based urban/industrial planning N/A x
groundwater
Compensation to land-owners for groundwater protection N/A x
Implementation of policies x x

97
 Status of Regulations, planning and measures x x
groundwater
management in the Stakeholder involvement x x
area

The key data for an improved groundwater resource management and governance takes into account
that a conceptual model of a groundwater body is a pillar tool for guiding the acquisition of data and
the development of information. A conceptual model of a groundwater system is suitable for depicting
the overall setting and dynamics of the physical components. An example is shown in the Figure 4.2.
A definition of a groundwater conceptual model is mostly qualitative and often only a pictorial
description of the groundwater system, including a delineation of the hydrogeological units, the
system boundaries, inputs and outputs, and a description of the soils and rocks and their properties.
Thus, the conceptual models are simplified, conceptual representations of a part of the
hydrogeological, hydrological and hydrogeochemical cycle within given geological strata and system
of aquifers and aquitards. They are primarily used for hydrologic prediction and for understanding
hydrologic processes. Basically, it is used by the hydrogeologist for understanding the abundant data
from regional investigations describing of groundwater flow system. In a simpler way, the synthesis of
what is known about the groundwater body is a conceptual model (Kresic and Mikszewski, 2013).

Figure 4.2 - A conceptual model for groundwater flow and geochemical evolution in the southern Outaouais Region, Québec,
Canada (Montcoudiol et al., 2015).

98
To solve any site-specific groundwater problem, relevant field data must be assembled and analysed
in order to articulate important aspects of the groundwater body, and other relevant constraints such
as legislative framework. For this reason, the conceptual model approach was adopted to compose a
more complete list of data and information necessary for the development of groundwater
management and governance in Portugal (Table 4.1), where compliance with the European Union
obligations of the WFD is required.

4.3.1 Data and information on groundwater bodies

In order to acquire an overall understanding of the state and the dynamics of the local or regional
groundwater systems – which is a precondition for adequate groundwater resources management –
a comprehensive, systems-oriented perspective has to be adopted. Following the approach of the
conceptual model and considering the specifications of the WFD, namely in terms of the
characterization of the groundwater body, the data/information was listed and organized by types of
information, for each category. Under the category Groundwater body, the types of information are:
1) General settings; 2) Geology and aquifers; 3) Overlying strata; 4) Natural recharge; 5) Natural
discharge; 6) Monitoring; 7) Groundwater dynamics, and 8) Conceptualization and information. Prior
to the analysis, the general settings establish the link to the associated river basin, main surface water
features and ecosystems. Where groundwater bodies do not fully follow a particular river basin, they
must be assigned to the nearest or most appropriate river basin district. The information regarding
the geology of aquifers must assess in a systematic way the type, geometry, structure, lithology and
the key hydraulic properties of the aquifers and aquitards in the area. Within the overlying strata the
type of information should characterize the main overlying lithologies, thickness and percentage of
the aquifer that is near the surface. The availability of such information, together with other types of
information and depending on the adopted methodology, should be valuable, for example, in the
calculation of vulnerability maps of aquifer contamination. The characterization of vulnerability of the
aquifer is particularly important to comply with the environmental WFD objectives, namely on the
implementation of “measures necessary to prevent or limit the input of pollutants into groundwater
and to prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of groundwater” (EC, 2000). Two important
aspects for the characterization and acknowledgement of the groundwater body are the recharge and
discharge processes. The type of information related to natural recharge needs to identify the main
recharge mechanisms and the zones of recharge (from which the groundwater body receives its
recharge). Furthermore, sufficient data has to be collected in order to calculate the long term annual

99
average rate of overall recharge. Under the natural discharge topic, the identification of the main
discharge mechanisms and collecting data series from important springs and high yielding wells in
addition to the characterization of the hydrogeochemical signature is required. In a way, to respond
to these demands, and for the monitoring of critical time-dependent variables, it is essential to enable
proper control of the groundwater quantity and quality. Therefore, data series on groundwater
piezometric levels and quality parameters are extremely important and vital. To complement this
time-series data set, meteorological data (e.g. precipitation, evapotranspiration) is mandatory as well,
in order to calculate water budgets, for example. The data and information requirements on
groundwater dynamics are also time-dependent. Groundwater dynamics are 1) related to the
response to identified interactions and threats (e.g. groundwater abstraction and pollution and its
locations), and 2) triggered by analysis activities (e.g. numerical simulations, vulnerability mappings).
This type of information must consider groundwater flow paths, groundwater and surface water
interactions, groundwater abstraction (type, locations and fluxes) and artificial groundwater recharge
(type, locations and fluxes).

The presentation or the elaboration of a conceptual model is required in order to consolidate the
current understanding of the key processes of the groundwater body, including the influence of
stresses, and assists in the understanding of possible future changes. In addition, a record of the
bibliographic technical and scientific contributions would be valuable (Monteiro et al., 2011) to tackle
information gaps regarding pre-existing and current knowledge.

4.3.2 Data and information on the use, in-situ functions and benefits of groundwater

In this category the objective is to clarify the role and impacts of groundwater in the area concerned,
from the human point of view. In order to do so, a broad type of information regarding the use and
in-situ functions is composed by time-dependent items on the total groundwater abstraction
according to the water using sector, as well as the share of each sector in the total groundwater use.
Data on the total area of groundwater-dependent agricultural area allow for the evaluation of
groundwater abstraction rates per hectare, as well as the use of springs differentiated by sector and
its contribution to the sustainability of wetlands.

The identification, characterization and assessment of the importance of groundwater dependent

ecosystems are also necessary as a background for the evaluation and definition of the vulnerability
of aquatic ecosystems, and to safeguard and develop the potential uses (EC, 2000). Directly linked to

100
the good groundwater body status and its protection, economic benefits resulting from the protection
of fish populations, including coastal fish populations, will be achieved.

Regarding the benefits of groundwater, profits from groundwater use for economic purposes and
other indicators may be used to evaluate the benefits of groundwater in the area of the groundwater
body or associated basin.

4.3.3 Data and information on current or potential interactions and threats

Some of the natural interactions within the water cycle are implicitly taken into account already by
collecting data and information under the groundwater body category, namely the natural recharge
and natural discharge. In this way, the potential interactions need to be complemented with
groundwater-surface water exchange fluxes. However, this category deals also with the interactions
related to human activities that need to be assessed since they may affect groundwater quantity and
quality, and thus harbour potential threats to the services and functions of the groundwater bodies.
Intensive groundwater abstraction modifies the groundwater quantity regime, usually with negative
impacts on the services and functions of the groundwater body being used. For that purpose,
information is needed about the land use patterns and land use practices, and thus the location of
main subsurface resource exploitation and main use of subsurface space (type, location, depth, and
characterisation).

In order to assess potential threats, it is fundamental to identify the current and potential sources of
pollution above land surface, as well as the current and potential sources of pollution due to
subsurface resources exploitation and the use of subsurface space. Other item of information is the
identification of infrastructural projects having a major impact on the local or regional groundwater
regime. This is basically what the WFD calls the “identification of pressures” to which the groundwater
body or bodies are liable to be subject including diffuse sources of pollution, point sources of pollution,
and artificial recharge. Adding to this, infrastructure projects having a major impact on the local or
regional groundwater regime are also considered in the equation for the evaluation of potential
threats.

Regarding the protection of groundwater, for an improved groundwater resource management and
governance, the zoning of areas where fresh groundwater is threatened by salinization is critical.
Examples of this threats are sea-water intrusion, saline/brackish groundwater upconing or horizontal
migration and irrigation return flows. In order to achieve the objective of preventing or limiting inputs

101
of pollutants into groundwater, the Decree-Law 208/2008 (the adaptation of the EU Groundwater
Directive to the national legal framework) establishes that measures must be implemented, in order
to prevent inputs into groundwater of any hazardous substances. Some of those measures are the
definition and delimitation of the nitrate vulnerable zones, ruled by Ordinance 164/2010. Another
feature for the protection of groundwater is the identification of zones of maximum infiltration rates.
These areas are characterized by favourable conditions for water infiltration, contributing to the
recharge of the aquifers. The Law 58/2005 establishes strategies for the delimitation, regulation and
protection of these areas, where facilities and activities are subject to restrictions, although, specific
legislation is not approved yet.

The delimitation of the perimeters of protection of abstractions of surface and groundwater intended
for the public supply for human consumption is carried out in accordance with the provisions of article
37 of the Water Law. This information is relative to each specific groundwater body and should be
identified as such.

4.3.4 Data and information on groundwater governance aspects and provisions

The data regarding this category is focused on any entity or person playing a role in groundwater
management and governance may benefit from information on the current groundwater governance
setting and governance provisions in the area concerned. This information should include meta-data
and meta-information on groundwater-related data, information and knowledge in the area;
information on the current roles of governmental and non-governmental agencies, local stakeholders
and any other actors involved in groundwater governance information on the legal and regulatory
frameworks; on groundwater planning and policies; and on the current state-of-affairs of groundwater
management in the area, including law enforcement and plan implementation. Herein, are presented
several items of data/information grouped in four types of information: a) status of groundwater, b)
legal and institutional frameworks on groundwater, c) current policies and planning on groundwater,
d) status of groundwater management in the area. In comparison with the table presented by Gun
(2017), it is considered that this list covers in a more complete way the aspects related to governance
and its provisions. The status of groundwater, taken as fundamental for the accomplishment of the
WFD objectives, is based on past and current groundwater assessments and monitoring programmes
that are included in the list of the Table 4.1.

102
Also very important is the set of instruments, tools and regulations for a better governance. The
information about legal and institutional frameworks on groundwater are therefore supported by the
regulation for well drilling permits and use of groundwater, instruments to charge groundwater
abstraction and use, and instruments to control and prevent polluting activities.

Regarding the roles in groundwater governance, it is important to be aware of the government

agencies and its roles, as well as the non-governmental organizations roles for the groundwater body
management.

About the current policies and planning on groundwater, it is considered vital to have information on
the coordination with other environmental sectors, such as agricultural affairs and development
planning, as well as groundwater-based urban/industrial planning. Also related with the protection of
groundwater, information on compensation to land-owners for groundwater protection is required,
when applicable.

It is also necessary to know what is the status of groundwater management in the area, namely
regarding the implementation of policies, regulations, planning and measures and, last but not least,
the extremely important stakeholder involvement.

4.4 The importance of the conceptual models for the monitoring design

The WFD requires the establishment of monitoring programmes covering groundwater quantitative
status, chemical status, and the assessment of significant, long-term pollutant trends resulting from
human activity. The defined programmes must also provide for any additional monitoring
requirements relevant to the Protected Areas. The programmes must provide the information
necessary to validate the WFD Annex II regarding the risk assessment procedure, and to evaluate the
accomplishment of the Directive’s objectives for groundwater. In this context, the relevant objectives
are:

 To prevent deterioration in the status of all bodies of groundwater: Article 4.1(b)(i);

 To prevent or limit the input of pollutants into groundwater: Article 4.1(b)(i);
 To protect, enhance and restore all bodies of groundwater and ensure a balance
between abstraction and recharge with the aim of achieving good groundwater
status: Article 4.1(b)(ii);

103
  To reverse any significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of any
pollutant in groundwater in order to progressively reduce pollution of groundwater:
Article 4.1(b)(iii);
 To achieve compliance with any standards and objectives for Protected Areas: Article
4.1(c). Relevant Protected Areas include areas designated for the abstraction of water
intended for human consumption under Article 7 (Drinking Water Protected Areas),
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones established under Directive 91/676/EEC, and areas
designated for the protection of habitats and species in which the status of water is
an important factor in their protection;

In order to have adequate and updated monitoring programmes, those programmes should be
designed according to the relevant and available information, and also based on the risk assessment
procedure of the WFD’s Annex II. The results of the natural characterization and risk assessments,
which constitute what is here called the “conceptual model”, should provide the necessary
information on, and understanding of, the groundwater system and the potential effects of human
activities (pressures) on it. This information is the basis to design the monitoring programme, which
will require:

 Estimated boundaries of all bodies of groundwater;

 Information on the natural characteristics, and a conceptual understanding, of all
bodies or groups of bodies of groundwater;
 Information on how bodies may be grouped because of similar hydrogeological
characteristics and, therefore, similar responses to the identified pressures;
 Identification of those bodies, or groups of bodies, of groundwater at risk of failing to
achieve the Directive's objectives, including the reasons why they may be considered
to be at risk;
 Information on (a) the level of confidence in the risk assessments (e.g. in the
conceptual understanding of the groundwater system, the identification of pressures,
etc), and (b) what monitoring data would be required to validate the risk assessments.

The information listed above will be the basis to target the best cost-effective monitoring programmes
through 1) the identification of the groundwater bodies relevant to each monitoring programme; 2)
the appropriate monitoring sites, 3) parameters for each site, and 4) how frequent the monitoring
should be done.

Monitoring data obtained from the monitoring programmes should be used to test, validate and refine
the conceptual model. This process should be continued until there is adequate confidence in its

104
reliability. Testing may include using the conceptual model and measured values of chemistry and/or
water level to predict conditions at locations elsewhere within the groundwater body that are not
monitored, and then installing monitoring devices to check these predictions to confirm the model or
identify what refinements are needed.

To show, in a simple way, how the several contributors to the conceptual model (Natural
characteristics of groundwater body; Interaction and threats; Monitoring data) will connect, and
contribute to an improved monitoring design a scheme was elaborated and presented in the Figure
4.3. The relationship between the conceptual model and monitoring design is also presented, as well
as the processes involved in the monitoring design.

Figure 4.3 - Relationship between the conceptual model and monitoring design.

4.5 Brief notions on presenting, sharing and disseminating data and information
through the main target groups

Several forms to present data and information related to groundwater through the various target
groups can be identified and are schematized in the Figure 4.4 according to the envisaged users.
Products with greater technical and scientific character are specifically meant for use by groundwater
professionals, towards the development of studies and knowledge. The more complete generated

105
products are also necessary for planners, providing a solid basis for groundwater development and
management plans. But when the target users are stakeholders and the general public, the
information should be used to make them aware of what is at stake regarding the groundwater and
why some actions or measures need to be taken. Information about these aspects in an easily
accessible and digestible form is preferred, as well as some options should be available in order to be
able to communicate with the groundwater professionals, planners and decision-makers. Decision-
makers usually have no time to read and analyse detailed information, at the technical level. Therefore
the information presented to them should be very short and focused on briefing them and raising
their awareness on groundwater policy issues and responses.

Figure 4.4 – Ways of presenting data and information within the three target groups related to groundwater (Gun, 2017).

Knowing how to present data and information is essential for groundwater governance, but it is also
very important the way by which sharing and disseminating knowledge on the processes is made. In
fact, data sharing is a practice that was rarely observed some years or decades ago, depending on the
country. But the reasons for that were mainly the limited capacity to organize data which, in the great
majority of the situations, was in paper format and dispersed over many different locations, reducing
the chances to get the original or copied documents. Another reason for the data inaccessibility is the
rivalry between companies or even institutions that possess valuable data and information collected
and developed by their projects, field works, reports and studies. Nevertheless, the advent and

106
development of information and communication technology and the proliferation of the internet have
produced major changes. Many reports, papers, datasets and maps nowadays can be easily supplied
at virtually no cost in the form of digital files, or can be consulted at or downloaded from the internet.
But it is also considered that the majority of existing information is still yet to be accessible, still kept
in personal or institutional libraries with no possibility to be consulted. Some of the most important
data is related, for example, to hydrogeological surveys and field works, namely on well hydraulics and
aquifer tests, aquifer characterization, groundwater monitoring, modelling and management.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) allow to generate – without much effort – all kinds of maps on
the basis of the latest available data, sometimes even with user-defined legends. It has also enabled
and catalysed the development of internet-based groundwater information systems, focusing on
different spatial levels. Interesting examples of national groundwater resources information systems
are those of the United States (USGS, 2019a, 2019b), Australia (Bureau of Meteorology, 2019), India
(GWB, 2019), the United Kingdom (BGS, 2019) and The Netherlands (TNO, 2019); some of these, focus
on technical data and information mainly for groundwater professionals, others are also addressing
the information needs of the layman and thus they contain easily digestible information.

The main reasons for a deficient sharing and dissemination of data and information are usually
attributed to lack of funds, staff and expertise, often in combination with available data and
information still being scattered over many offices. Reluctance of agencies and institutes in sharing
information has not yet disappeared completely and is still strong in Portugal. Government regulations
on sharing data and information may be helpful to change this attitude, as well as the adoption of
smart regulations (combined with smart technology) that may improve the data flow from individual
owners/users (e.g. on abstraction, water quality and water levels) towards centralized groundwater
databases accessible to the public.

107
108
5 Web-based Data Sharing Water Information Systems in
Groundwater Governance

5.1 Introduction

The OECD Multilevel Governance approach defines Water Information Systems (WIS) and shared
databases as key mechanisms for sharing water basin, country and international policy requirements
and information in different areas. In the same line of thought one could think of analogies between
surface water and groundwater. Therefore, the same approach could be applied to groundwater
bodies and its national and international policy specifications. Furthermore, the understanding of
hydrological systems from an integrated perspective leads to better water decision-making with data
collection providing better knowledge of the links between groundwater and surface water. The
Principle 5 of the OECD Principles on Water Governance (OECD, 2015), directly related to enhancing
the efficiency of water governance, defends that it is necessary to produce, update, and share timely,
consistent, comparable and policy-relevant water and water-related data and information, and use it
to guide, assess and improve water policy. Also related to this principle, enhancing the trust and
engagement in water governance, the Principle 12 promotes regular monitoring and evaluation of
water policy and governance where appropriate, share the results with the public and make
adjustments when needed. These ideas are also valid for groundwater, as an important part of the
hydrologic cycle, and can be easily applied to its governance.

Recently published in the World Water Forum 7, the Global Diagnostic on Groundwater Governance
(FAO, 2016c) identified deficiencies or ‘gaps’ in relation to groundwater governance. This report also
identified ‘Information and knowledge’ as a major deficiency in groundwater governance with a
relevance that varies from country to country. Only few countries have invested in information and
knowledge on groundwater beyond a very general and spatially aggregated level. At the level of detail
relevant for groundwater management the information is in most countries rather fragmentary and
often not easily accessible.

This phenomenon of lack of monitoring data is in many countries a major difficulty to an effective
groundwater management and governance. However, in countries with longer traditions of
groundwater management and with political vision and well-resourced agencies of public sector are
better placed to manage the resource. In such countries, the mandated government agencies often
have well developed perceptions and a clear vision related to groundwater, which enables them to

109
propose and initiate significant groundwater resources programmes. Some of these programmes are
directly related to data monitoring and sharing and the use of water information systems have gained
a bold importance from various relevant perspectives for groundwater governance.

Therefore, alongside the investment in data monitoring and knowledge are the water resources
applications for sharing and providing the inventoried data and information. These applications were
mostly promoted on closed circuits within stakeholders and state organs at first but in the last few
years, the web-based data sharing systems have gained a very important role, since the development
and generalization of the internet, in the most varied areas of application. In Portugal, a web-based
water information system was developed, the Portuguese National Water Resources Information
System (SNIRH), as well as in all the most advanced countries on the water affairs. Within the various
components which constitutes SNIRH, that are going to be presented on this chapter, there is the data
and information generated on the monitoring networks for groundwater.

Its existence has become essential to the various stakeholders in the sector for providing reliable,
continuous, low-cost, readily available and easily accessible information, which have led to major
progress and improvements in integrated water management. These systems have proved extremely
important in the development of various water resources planning and management tools, such as
river basin management plans. Moreover, they have enabled a significant improvement in
transparency and trust in the data that effectively aided decision-making processes.

One particular case has to be highlighted by its importance and relevance for the groundwater
governance, as it is the case of the Danish Groundwater monitoring programme (GRUMO) that was
started back in the late 1980s (Jørgensen and Stockmarr, 2009). In Denmark, more than 99% of water
use is based on groundwater and in the last few decades has had a comprehensive national
groundwater monitoring programme based on 74 well catchments areas and six small agricultural
catchments. Given the importance of groundwater in that country, the capacity to make effective
decisions in groundwater management depends on the availability of informed and transparent data,
with specific attention given to its coherence, consistency, reliability and public disclosure as well as
to its costs and benefits, from a global and integrated perspective. The case of the Denmark is typically
an example for other countries.

But the following question remains to be answered:

“What are the most relevant aspects of a web-based data sharing water information system for the
various institutions and stakeholders in order to improve groundwater governance?”

110
There are various and recently developed efforts that can help showing the importance of WIS and
shared databases on water governance, but only partially applicable to groundwater. Nevertheless,
these studies showcase a wide range of possible approaches for the assessment of the existing
information systems that could be applied in various water sectors (Abdullaev et al., 2012; Carver et
al., 2000; Faurès, 1998; Hockey, 2007; Iwanaga et al., 2013; Maidment, 1998; Moody and van Ast,
2012; Paisley and Henshaw, 2013; Pfeffer et al., 2011; Stachowicz, 2004; Glen Vancauwenberghe et
al., 2014). This kind of assessment could be described as a measure to bridge the Information Gap,
identified by OECD (OECD, 2011a) and they imply the following:

a) Measure how effective the Information Systems are in their respective sector;
b) Identify asymmetries of information at the quantity and quality level, between different
stakeholders involved in water policy, either voluntary or not.

Adding to this, one of the major challenges in nowadays water governance is the fragmentation of
information across several institutions (Gupta et al., 2013; OECD, 2011a; Varis et al., 2014). This matter
had not been discussed yet in the field of groundwater and very little literature exist for the
Portuguese case.

Therefore, in order to make an evaluation of the groundwater component of the web-based data
sharing water information system in Portugal, SNIRH, and its present status, the objectives considered
for this chapter are the following:

1) To introduce, describe, characterize and assess the information related to groundwater

available on the Portuguese National Water Resources Information System, SNIRH (Sistema
Nacional de Informação de Recursos Hídricos), currently under the responsibility of the
Portuguese Environment Agency, APA (Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente);
2) To describe the relationship between the various types of information provided by SNIRH and
its use for decision makers, for the business community, researchers and technical users, civil
society and for the implementation of European Union (EU) directives;
3) To identify the most relevant aspects of the web-based data sharing water information system
SNIRH to a good groundwater governance.

To comply with the proposed objectives, a brief history of the development and improvement of
SNIRH will be presented, as well as all its structural components, namely the structure of monitoring
networks, maintenance, operation and financing. Other important aspects as the representativeness
of monitoring networks and adaptation to EU legislation is also covered. Topics related to the

111
groundwater data and information provided by SNIRH as well as the link with surface water
monitoring, quality and quantity of Portuguese groundwater bodies are presented in order to describe
and discuss its characteristics, defaults and potential areas of improvement. And finally, the
technology used for sharing the data and its web interface is also presented. As a complement to this
evaluation a comparison with international and relevant systems has been made in order to assess
the general SNIRH status on the dimensional levels of monitoring networks and data sources;
processes, data and integration; and reporting and sharing.

5.2 Methodological approach

In order to achieve the proposed goals on this chapter, two independent but related tasks were
developed. The first task is the characterization of the groundwater component of SNIRH as a web-
based data sharing water information system and its role in the Portuguese reality. The second task is
a comparison of SNIRH’s characteristics to other relevant national water information systems and
assess its contribution to the groundwater governance.

The first task involved a brief review to the background, history and creation of SNIRH, focused on the
framework and motivational settings that led to its creation, objectives, structure of the monitoring
networks and data sources, and on the implementation process, including a characterization of the
former and present holding entities. This review helps to understand the adopted design and structure
developed to apply on SNIRH and to describe the types of generated/shared data and information and
furthermore, the relation between the different datasets referring to surface and groundwater.

A characterization and assessment of groundwater governance relevant information available in the

system was made, as it is necessary to know the data and information sources, in what conditions it
is collected and processed, what technologies and methodologies are involved, and what type of
information is available. For that purpose, certain aspects related to the structure of the monitoring
networks and data sources were analysed and described, such as the variability of themes and
datasets, the technological stage of the system, both at the monitoring networks and web display
levels, and the frequency of data acquisition. Other important aspects as representativeness of
monitoring networks, data for groundwater modelling and links with surface water monitoring were
also analysed.

The data processing and the integration of the various types of information in SNIRH were described,
which can have single or multi access applications. Thus, an insight is given to the data uniformisation

112
and standardization, along with the creation and optimization procedures of the monitoring networks
in order to respond to data quality/quantity issues and modernization features. A characterization and
evaluation of the available data and information was also considered, as well as the linkage between
the various types of information. This lead to the evaluation of the integration process of data derived
from the various sources and organizations. Values of transparency and trust were also considered in
the data processing and how appropriate are the existing systems to the relevant national and
international norms, namely the adaptation to the Water Framework Directive (EC, 2000) and the
Groundwater Daughter Directive (EC, 2006) and if the monitoring is being made according to the
European Commission guidelines for groundwater monitoring (EC, 2007).

Aspects regarding maintenance and financing were also analysed and discussed in order to
understand what system is used for the maintenance and what kind of financial support is involved.

Regarding reporting and data sharing, attention was given to types and frequency of reporting, data
accessibility for the different kind of users and stakeholders. The use of data for groundwater
modelling, the links with surface water monitoring and the relation with the quantity and quality
status on the groundwater bodies was also considered, as well as the impact on public participation.
The level of detailed information and capacity to forecast were contemplated on the evaluation in
order to assess the level of sophistication of the system, and its importance and value for good
governance.

A second task involved an evaluation of the status of SNIRH. In order to do so, the goals were to
identify possible gaps and problems, as well as to assess its level of sophistication and possible
development directions a comparison is made between SNIRH and existing web-based water
information systems for groundwater in other relevant countries: Spain, United Kingdom, Denmark
and Netherlands (as a representatives of European Union countries, therefore obliged to identical
norms and political settings) and Australia (as a representative of a world developed country with an
advanced state of art in terms of water affairs). The criteria used for this comparison is divided in three
categories: 1) Monitoring networks and data sources; 2) Processes, data and integration; 3) Reporting
and sharing. The features used for each category are considered to be most relevant in the context of
water systems information and these are presented in the Figure 5.1.

113
Figure 5.1 - Characteristics of the web-based water data sharing systems assessed divided by categories.

The following of these tasks is presented in the next chapter, where is made an assessment of SNIRH’s
performance and its contribution to the Portuguese groundwater governance involved the application
of a quantitative method. This task was made by applying the Delone & McLean Information Success
Model (2003) and by adapting it to the specifications of a web-based water information system as it
is SNIRH. The data used to apply Delone & McLean model were obtained from an online questionnaire,
elaborated taking into account constructs and measures to the model dimensions, adapted to
evaluate SNIRH (component of groundwater) and validated by experts in the field of water
information systems. The questionnaire was promoted throughout the main Portuguese stakeholders
in groundwater that include public and private sectors, educational and research institutions, as well
as scientific and economic organizations of substantial importance. The data processing allowed the
statistical validation and the mapping of the relationships between the measurement
items/dimensions and the respondent characteristics through the application and adaptation of
Delone & McLean model (2003), complemented by a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). By
adapting Delone & McLean model (2003) to the context of SNIRH the quantification of the
relationships between each dimension was quite satisfactory. This model enabled to evaluate the
performance and contribution of SNIRH to groundwater governance in the Portuguese context. The
results of this model specifies the most influential areas to improve the groundwater governance,
namely on the field of Data and Information, in compliance to Principle 5 of the OECD Principles on

114
Water Governance (OECD, 2015a). And finally, are identified areas where the present settings have a
positive or negative influence on the Portuguese groundwater governance.

5.3 Review on the groundwater component of the National Water Resources

Information System (SNIRH)

5.3.1 Background

In Portugal, the National Water Resources Information System, SNIRH (Sistema Nacional de
Informação de Recursos Hídricos), is the web-based data sharing water information system (WIS) that
provides the public service with data and information about water and environment. SNIRH was
conceived and started being used in a preliminary form in 1988 and 1989 (Rodrigues et al., 2001) and
made available to the public by the former Water Institute (INAG) in late 1995. At the time, this system
included a database, multiple tools ranging from graphical and statistical analysis to the integration of
simulation models and geographic information systems (GIS). But SNIRH has evolved quite
significantly since its first versions back in the late 80’s.

A major event to the development of SNIRH was the establishment of the Regional Directorate of
Environment and Natural Resources (DRARN) in 1993 (Decree-Law no. 190/93, 24th May) that in turn
was dependent on the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, which stated:

“To promote the creation, maintenance and updating of a database necessary for the preparation of
statistical indicators for the permanent characterization of the region and for the formulation of
DRARN policies and objectives, ensuring, in accordance with the directives and guidelines of the
competent central office or institute, the conduct of investigations and other statistical operations”.

The creation of the Water Institute (INAG – Instituto da Água) (Decree-Law no. 191/93, 24th May) was
also critical to the improvement of SNIRH due the goals defined on its Organic Law, namely:

a) Develop information systems on the availability and needs of water resources at national level;
b) Promote, in articulation with the relevant entities, integrated river basin planning, as well as
integrated coastal planning;
c) Propose the major objectives and strategies for an integrated water resources management
policy;

115
 d) Study and propose the technical, economic and legislative measures necessary to optimize the
national water resources management;
e) To promote the conservation of national water resources from the point of view of quantity
and quality, in their physical and ecological aspects;
f) To promote new hydraulic infrastructures of national or regional scope with high socio-
economic or environmental interest;
g) Ensure, in cooperation with the relevant entities, the monitoring of matters related to the
water at the Community and international level.

To respond these objectives, an approach towards water resources monitoring included several
actions that were undertaken between 1994 and 1999 (Aires, 2001):

- Development of a database;
- Extensive work on the data validation and harmonization of procedures;
- Updating of inventories;
- Identification of bottlenecks in information fluxes;
- Updating methods and frequencies of sampling and implementation of specific monitoring
networks in accordance with EU regulations;
- Integration of hydrologic models in the GIS;
- Incorporation of more advanced sensors and capabilities on the data transfer processes;
- Implementation of a website for the dissemination of information for the population in
general in order to bring the citizens closer to the water resources administration entities;
- Mapping of aquifer systems;
- Establishment of standards and methodological principles;
- Bathymetric surveys of some dam reservoirs;
- Generalization of the best monitoring practices for each type of network due the extended
technical experience in the various branches.

This restructuring process (1994-1999) that preceded all the planning actions worked out during the
beginning of the new century largely contributed to the identification of structural, inventory and
registry problems.

Due the new emerging technologies, namely the Internet, and according to the Council Directive
90/313/EEC on the freedom of access to information on the environment the site is presented publicly
in April 1996.

116
In October 1997, matters related to the commercialization of collected data by other institutions were
solved and the website became dynamic, with direct access to the database from the internet. The
data/information were then made available for free to the general public. The merit and innovation
at the time regarding this position, singularly recognized at the national and international levels lead
the site to be awarded with the Descartes prize in 1997 of the Informatics Institute (Marques et al.,
1999).

Despite the fact that the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EC, 2000) was approved in June 2000,
the particularities and specificities of monitoring aspects had been discussed for a long time before,
therefore the restructuring of the monitoring networks was considered to be a successful case. The
WFD had defined some objectives to be implemented by 2006, one of which specifically on the
intention to implement new monitoring and data sharing programmes. Consequently, INAG (at the
time the public entity responsible for SNIRH) actively participated in working groups aimed at ensuring
the accomplishment of those requisites throughout Europe. Between 2000 and early 2001 several
public tenders were launched for the national implementation of the structured water resources
monitoring networks, totalizing a global value of nearly 7 million Euros for the acquisition of
equipment and due installation, and about 4.5 million Euros per year for the maintenance and
development (Aires, 2001). Along the investment and implementation of a wider structured
monitoring network, associating for example the sedimentology to the water and ecologic quality,
other areas once distinct and independent had been integrated. This was the case of areas such as
climatology and water quality that generated other needs for a more robust database architecture
and better accesses and promotion.

Afterwards, two main reasons generated a confusing way to make the data/information available and
reachable: 1) the increase in volume of information to make available and, 2) the wide diversification
by type of information. The situation lead to make the navigation hardly uniform and unattractive to
the users. The various solicitations at both the national and international levels, and the increasing
volume of information generated by SNIRH urged a modernization process that took place after late
1999 and the following years. At this point, the River Basin Plans and the National Water Plan had
been approved and several action plans emerged, both for development and improvement of each
management area regulated by Community Directives. These areas included the inland surface
waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. This way, data series and information
became vital for the improvement of monitoring and for the development of these action plans. And
so, specialized workgroups for several areas were created in order to guarantee these tasks within
INAG:

117
 ● Inland surface waters
● Transitional and coastal waters
● Groundwater
● Water quality and ecology
● Information, inventories and licensing

The most notorious part of the implementation of SNIRH was the process of modernization and
improvement of monitoring capabilities of the existing networks and structures at the time.

With this restructuring programme there was also the integration of sedimentology with water quality
and ecologic quality, but other previously separated areas of intervention like climatology, discharges
and water uses in reservoirs generated new demands at the level of databases and architecture of
access and dissemination that had to be fulfilled. The access to information in real time, necessary to
the efficiency of the existing alert systems, namely the Surveillance and Warning System of Water
Resources, SVARH (Sistema de Vigilância e Alerta de Recursos Hídricos) attached to SNIRH, was also
planned to be expanded to other areas but that intention was not implemented yet.

Therefore, the monitoring system of the Portuguese water resources became supported by a database
prepared to store and disclose openly hydro-meteorological and water quality data, both for surface
and groundwater, collected in the water resources monitoring networks under the Ministry of
Environment presently accessible through the web portal (https://snirh.apambiente.pt).

The web portal is in line with a vast programme aimed at promoting e-government in Portugal and
therefore it was backed by the National Informatics Institute, and sponsored by the National Institute
of Administration and by the Secretariat for the Administrative Modernization. As a result of the
merging of INAG with APA, SNIRH is managed by this later agency under the Ministry of Environment,
since 2012.

118
Figure 5.2 – Web Portal of SNIRH – National Water Resources Information System (SNIRH, 2015. Translated by Google).

5.3.2 Objectives

To understand the role and main objectives of a web-based data sharing system in the water sector
like SNIRH, it is necessary to clearly understand the role and objectives of the organization responsible
for the water resources management. In Portugal, the Portuguese Environment Agency, APA, is the
governmental agency dedicated to the integrated management of environmental policies, which
articulates with other sectorial policies aiming at achieving a high level of protection and environment
enhancement, including groundwater resources.

According to its statutory law, the main objectives of APA related with water management and
governance of integrated water resources that are strictly linked with water information services are:

119
  “Propose, develop and monitor the implementation of environmental policies, namely with
respect to the mitigation of climate change effects on water resources management (…) as
well as the environmental impact assessments and the environmental strategic evaluation of
plans and programmes;
 Act as the National Water Authority (Autoridade Nacional da Água), according to the Water
Law, developing and assisting on the implementation of the water resources policies, aiming
at its protection and improvement, through water resources planning, management of the
hydrographic regions, issue licenses for the various uses of water resources and control
compliance, analyse the characteristics and impact of human activity on the water status,
perform the economic analysis of the water uses, and manage the monitoring networks;
 Develop and maintain a national system of environmental information, in order to ensure the
availability of reference data that sustains the development and evaluation of environmental
policies from a sustainability point of view, as well as promote the elaboration of reference
reports on the status of the environment and the pressures involved;
 Promote the education, environmental awareness and training for the sustainable
development, such as the development of information systems, mechanisms of dissemination
adjusted to the different users and training initiatives;
 In cooperation with other competent authorities, and in cooperation with the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, ensure the participation and technical representation in environmental and
sustainable development matters in the EU, the United Nations, the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, other international organizations, and at a bilateral
level.”

In 2011, the previously existing Water Institute, INAG and the five River Basin Administrations, ARH
(Administração de Recursos Hídricos) were merged with the previously existing Environmental Agency,
creating the current APA. This was considered at the time a controversial step, in contradiction with
the 2005 Water Law that had to be changed for this purpose. As a result of this merge, APA has now
a very extensive range of competences in the area of water resources because it plays now the role of
National Water Authority and also the role of National Authority for Dam Safety. These roles and
corresponding jurisdictions were clearly defined by the 2005 Water Law.

As National Water Authority, focused in Integrated Water Resources Management, APA is assigned
to:

120
  “Propose, develop and monitor the implementation of water resources policies, in order to
ensure its sustainable management, as well as ensuring the effective application of the Water
Law and complementing legislation;
 Promote the efficient use of water and water use and supply management;
 Issue licences for water resources use and control the effective use of those licenses;
 Apply the economic and financial regime for water resources use (water taxes and levies);
 Establish and implement programmes for water resources monitoring;
 Manage situations of drought and floods, coordinate the adoption of exceptional measures in
extreme situations of drought and floods and settle the differences between the users related
with the obligations and priorities resulting from the Water Law and complementary
legislation;
 Support the resolution of possible conflicts that involve water resources users, namely
through arbitration procedures.”

5.4 Monitoring networks and data sources

5.4.1 The evolution of the networks and adaptations to the monitoring needs

From the initial model, based in a system operated by graphical routines and standardized SQL
language, SNIRH has evolved significantly between 1994 and 1995. It was reformulated to a client-
server architecture built on an ORACLE database, wherein are stored all the alphanumeric and
geographical information. The application of a database manager as ORACLE to store and manage
data allows a rigorous control on the access to administrative tools, such as uploading data, access to
data, change permissions, that otherwise would be impossible with the previous technology based on
file-systems and Microsoft Access databases.

The chosen option to store the geographical data fell on the software SDE (Spatial Data Engine) to
ORACLE. Complementing this software several other applications were developed in order to have
well adapted components to load the thematic geographical data in the ORACLE database, as well as
for its management, access, visualization, analysis and distribution.

Besides creating a robust national system, versatile and updated, there was also the purpose of
developing standards regarding the monitoring networks, namely the surface and groundwater data
collection networks concerning quantity and quality data. Interestingly, in this domain, the biggest

121
problem was encountered in the groundwater component because there was no agreement about
the number, delimitation and hydrogeological potential of the observed areas. Therefore, for the
harmonization of the hydrogeological language and for monitoring purposes, a study was published
in 1996 regarding the definition, characterization and mapping of the aquifer systems in Portugal. For
the convenient definition of standards and design of the monitoring networks hydrologic modelling
and simulation (deterministic and stochastic) were used, exploring the advantages of the spatial
analysis. An expertise team in INAG was put together to explore the potential of these tools. In order
to optimize several aspects of the data processing, mathematical modelling and data quality control,
the team developed skills to improve significantly some processes as, for example, the estimation of
the river depth-discharge curves.

One of the optimization procedures aiming at the modernization of the monitoring networks, and
consequently improving the quality of information available in SNIRH, was the assignment of goals to
each observation point in order to optimize the network coverage. The flood alert system, namely the
SVARH is an example of the integration of these stations with different goals after several tests on the
instruments and communication autonomy. This procedure is extremely important for SNIRH and the
data quality displayed as it makes the available information always updated without the involvement
of other organizations. This means more data collected in less time and made available in real-time,
minimizing the errors associated with human errors and communication/processing. But this
optimization measure is useful not only in terms of the data quality/quantity features, but also in the
centralization and harmonization of information generated by other institutions. This is considered to
be the first successful case in Portugal of water resources data shared in real-time involving external
agencies beyond the Ministry of Environment, through the direct access to the server.

Regarding groundwater, after the definition, characterization and mapping of the aquifer systems in
Portugal, INAG presented in 1999 the National Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the different types
of aquifers (porous, karstic and fractured media) based not only on the density of the monitoring
points for both quality and quantity networks, but also on the specific hydrogeological characteristics
and/or land use of each case.

Therefore, at this stage and according to Rodrigues et al. (2001), the networks were divided in
Reference Networks and Specific Networks. These networks were structured in order to obtain the
necessary data required for a presumably good water management that followed the national and
international standards (Figure 5.3).

122
Figure 5.3 – Structure of SNIRH Monitoring Networks (based on Rodrigues et al., 2001).

This organization comprehended monitoring networks divided into 3 branches in terms of the water
cycle: the aerial, the terrestrial and the underground, in respect to quality and quantity (Rodrigues et
al., 2001). These branches are in fact associated to reference networks for climate, surface water and
groundwater, respectively. On the aerial branch (climate) there is the meteorological network which
quantifies the necessary variables to account and define the potential levels of humidity in the
superficial branch of the water cycle, i.e. the volumes of precipitated water and loss by
evapotranspiration. On the terrestrial branch (surface) there is the hydrometric, the quality and
sediment network, important for the quantification of the available water resources at surface as well
as its quality state, and for the verification of the general fluvial equilibrium through the observation
of sediment flux. As far as groundwater is concerned, the monitoring is composed by two networks,
one for quantity (observation of groundwater levels and water spring discharges) and another for
water quality.

In the recent years, the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishing a
framework for the Community action in the field of water policy in Portugal, through the transposition
to the so called Water Law (Law No. 58/2005, 15th November) recommends the monitoring of
additional elements and parameters, such as biological and hydro-morphological elements, priority
substances and specific pollutants, just to mention a few, for both surface water and groundwater. In
essence, the WFD requires the organization and formalization of objectives, principles, procedures,
and verification of a set of minimum monitoring criteria, which relate to network coverage,
parameters to be monitored and monitoring intervals. This, as will be documented below, will have a

123
deep impact in the organization and specification of SNIRH’s monitoring networks and related
programmes and objectives.

The Article 8 of the WFD on the monitoring of the status of surface and groundwater bodies and
protected areas, lays down an obligation for Member States to establish programmes for the
monitoring of water status, to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of the water status
within each river basin district.

This way, to fulfil the WFD requirements on this matter, monitoring programmes are now
implemented for surface water, groundwater and for protected areas, through SNIRH.

The monitoring programmes for surface water include the assessment of ecological and chemical
status, the ecological potential and also variables such as hydrometric levels or flow rates, as far as it
is relevant for the determination of the ecological and chemical status and the ecological potential of
the water bodies. Similarly, with due specifications for groundwater, the programmes include
monitoring of chemical (quality) and quantitative status. Finally, just to complete the full range of
monitoring programmes, in classified and protected areas, these programs are complemented by the
specifications contained in Community legislation within the objectives involved in each created
protected area.

The Decree-Law No. 77/2006, which is a complement to the transposition of the WFD to the
Portuguese legislation, presents and defines three types of surface water monitoring networks,
namely surveillance, operational and research networks in the Annexes V and VII. This Directive is
important for groundwater because it establishes the need to monitor the quantity of resources of all
groundwater bodies, as well as monitoring their chemical quality in operational and surveillance
networks. Moreover, groundwater monitoring networks should be complemented by specific
networks for the monitoring of protected areas established under Article 6 of the WFD.

But while the quantitative status objectives are clear in the WFD for the groundwater, aiming at
ensuring a balance between abstraction and recharge, chemical status criteria were more complex to
be defined at the time of the adoption of the WFD. It was therefore proposed a "daughter" directive
clarifying good chemical status criteria and specifications related to the identification and reversal of
pollution trends. By adopting a specific proposal the obligation under Article 17 of the Water
Framework Directive is fulfilled, which requires to establish technical specifications to complement
the overall groundwater regulatory regime in place. These specifications cover a number of key
elements, among which characterization, analyses of pressures and impacts, monitoring, and
programme of measures. All of these elements were linked to the development and implementation

124
of River Basin Management Plans whose aim was to achieve "good environmental status", at the time
by 2015 (The River Basin Management Plans are now at the third phase, valid for the period 2016-
2021). Therefore, the WFD specifically called for a daughter directive, the Directive 2006/118/EEC on
the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, to set out detailed provisions on
chemical status and other measures to identify and reverse pollution trends, which is transposed to
the Portuguese legislation by the Decree-Law No. 228/2008.

Consequently, SNIRH also organizes and provides monitoring data and information according to these
programmes and specifications. In order to comply with the Article 8 of the WFD on the monitoring of
the groundwater bodies status the River Basin Management Plans have established monitoring
programmes based on the characterization and assessment of the environmental impact of the human
activities in the groundwater bodies. These programmes are active for the period validity of each River
Basin Management Plan.

In terms of structure, the quantity network is defined by a set of observation points (piezometers)
where hydraulic heads of the aquifers are periodically measured out. The main objective of this
network is to get acquaintance on the spatio-temporal evolution of groundwater resources of the
main aquifer units. In order to comply with this objective a piezometric monitoring network had to be
designed and implemented based on the requirements of Articles 7 and 8 of the WFD. In some cases,
when present and significant, water springs are monitored to register the spring recharges throughout
time. Generally, such monitoring networks are composed by both types of observations points
(piezometers and water springs) and should not only provide a reliable assessment of the quantitative
status of all bodies or groups of bodies of groundwater in a given river basin district but also allow an
assessment of available groundwater resources.

Regarding the quality network, which is composed by the surveillance and operational networks, is
granted by a set of observation points and monitors a list of parameters, defined in the directives
2000/60/EC, 2006/118/EC and 2008/105/EC. Some of the quality network observation points belong
to the quantity though. Besides that, the quality network also includes the dangerous substances
monitoring network based on other directives regarding pollution caused by specific dangerous
substances.

In a sentence, the surveillance monitoring network has the objective of complementing and to validate
the impact assessment process in the groundwater bodies and to identify long-term trends in the
natural conditions as well as monitoring the impacts of anthropogenic activity in the groundwater
quality.

125
On the other hand, the operational network aims to establish the chemical status of the groundwater
bodies at risk of failing to meet the environmental objectives specified in the Article 4 of the WFD and,
to identify the presence of trends of anthropogenic origin that significantly and permanently
contribute to the increase of pollutant concentration. The monitoring in these networks is done in
agreement to the Annex V of the WFD.

In order to comply with Directive 91/692/EEC, specifically on the application in Portugal of the
Directives 76/464/EEC and 80/68/EEC (regarding the protection of groundwater against pollution
caused by specific dangerous substances), a detailed evaluation of the degree of contamination of the
environment (water, sediment and biota) is required. For that purpose, the dangerous substances
monitoring networks were created after 1999. In practice, each River Basin District Administration
(ARH) was responsible for defining a basic network grounded on the Decree-Law No. 236/98, where
the substances to monitor are presented in List I and II. The same Decree-Law establishes standards,
criteria and objectives for the water quality in order to protect the aquatic environment and improve
water quality depending on its main uses. Its Chapter VI transposes into national law the Directive
76/464/EEC, on pollution caused by specific dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
environment, and Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by
specific dangerous substances.

SNIRH also contains other networks for various types of monitoring, not less important for the overall
assessment of water resources quantity and quality. These networks contemplate sedimentology,
hydrometry, climatology, classified and protected areas, inter-calibration and water supply. From
these, perhaps the one that is more related to groundwater is the monitoring of classified and
protected areas, which are defined by the Water Law (Law no. 58/2005). The classified and protected
areas are water bodies or other geographically delimited areas that require special protection; and
are covered by specific European and national legislation on the protection of surface and
groundwater, or to the conservation of habitats and species directly dependent on water.

Nevertheless, through the consult to the River Basin Management Plans (2016-2020) it is safe to say
that there is no clear consensus regarding the monitoring of abstractions of drinking water from
groundwater sources. In some districts these monitoring networks are located in a separate chapter,
while in other plans these networks are presented under the chapter of protected areas, namely
designated zones for groundwater abstraction for drinking-water supply.

Therefore, from the perspective of the WFD specifications, and taking into account the latest updates
and reconfigurations to an improved display of information, and also through the extensive consult in

126
the River Basin Management Plans (2016-2020), the present monitoring networks in SNIRH could be
organized as in Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4 – Structure of SNIRH Monitoring Networks according to WFD specifications.

In terms of process, the monitoring networks are based in a systematic water resources data collecting
that follows the other stages of data processing and organization, reporting and utilization, for the
various purposes, and for the best integration and management of water resources (Figure 5.5).

127
Figure 5.5 – SNIRH’s monitoring processes (adapted from Instituto da Água (INAG), 1996)

This way, the systematic collection and processing of water resources data allows the assessment of
different hydrological and climatological conditions, both in space and time. And having this
information available, different kinds of quantification are possible, namely the assessment of water
availability, assessment of extreme events such as droughts and flooding, identification of seasonal
behaviour, the evaluation and evolution of the water quality, the identification of pollution events,
and the production of base information to apply in the development of models and its calibration.

The monitoring systems are therefore implemented to enable information to be obtained on each
component, in order to follow their evolution. Being prepared to adapt to new problems and
challenges that may arise is also a challenge that had been considered. The system intents to be
equipped with the best technologies possible, thus allowing the data acquisition to be continuous,
reliable and efficient. This leads to greater ease of processing and storage of information.

5.4.2 Structure of groundwater monitoring networks

At this point, it is important to understand how well-developed the monitoring networks are for each
groundwater body within each river basin district. To do so, a consult to every river basin management
plan was made in order to account the number of observation points that were identified for each
groundwater body. This compilation of information was made for the quantity and quality networks,
including the dangerous substances networks, and for the water supply. This way, the number of
observation points for every groundwater body for quantity, surveillance, operational, dangerous
substances and water supply networks were identified, as well as the frequency of each monitoring
(Table 5.1).

128
Table 5.1 – Observation points of present monitoring networks for every groundwater bodies in mainland Portugal.

Quantity
Quality Network Other Networks - Water supply
River Network
Zone Code Groundwater Body
Basin Wells/ Dang. Prot. Obs. 1
Freq. Surv. Freq. Oper. Freq. Freq. Wells Freq.
Springs Subst. perim. points
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0X1RH1 2 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - - 144 - 3 Sem.
Minho/ da Bacia do Minho
RH1
Lima Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0X2RH1_ZV2006 2 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - - 55 - 3 Sem.
da Bacia do Lima
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x1RH2_ZV2006 3 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - - 291 - 3 Sem.
da Bacia do Cávado
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x2RH2_ZV2006 2 Mon. 2 Sem. - - - - 12 - 2 Sem.
da Bacia do Ave
Cávado/
RH2 Sem.
Ave/ Leça Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x4RH2_ZV2006 3 Mon. 3 Sem. 25 to - - - - 3 Sem.
do Baixo Cavado/Ave
Yearly
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x3RH2 - - 1 Sem. - - - - - - 1 Sem.
da Bacia do Leça
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x1RH3 9 Mon. 19 Sem. - - - - 1710 21 Sem.
RH3 Douro da Bacia do Douro
A1 Veiga de Chaves 1 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - - 1* 1 - -
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x1RH4 - - 13 Sem. 3 Sem. - -
da Bacia do Vouga
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x2RH4 - - 27 Sem. - - - -
da Bacia do Mondego
A12 Luso 1 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - -
Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado
O01RH4 9 Mon. 1 Sem. 24 Sem. 4 Yearly
da Bacia do Vouga
Vouga/ Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado
O02RH4 1 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - -
RH4 Mondego/ da Bacia do Mondego 67 67 N/A N/A
Lis Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado
O03RH4 3 Mon. 4 Sem. - - - -
da Bacia do Lis
O10 Leirosa - Monte Real 43 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - -
Vieira de Leiria - Marinha
O12 4 Mon. 7 Sem. - - 3 Yearly
Grande
O14 Pousos - Caranguejeira 1 Mon. 2 Sem. - - 1 Yearly
O2 Cretácico de Aveiro 21 Mon. 13 Sem. - - 5 Yearly

129
 Quantity
Quality Network Other Networks - Water supply
Network
River
Zone Code Groundwater Body
Basin Wells/ Dang. Prot. Obs. 1
Freq. Surv. Freq. Oper. Freq. Freq. Wells Freq.
Springs Subst. perim. points

O29 Louriçal 1 Mon. 6 Sem. - - - -

O3 Cársico da Bairrada 8 Mon. 5 Sem. 2 Sem. - -
O30 Viso - Queridas 8 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - -
O31 Condeixa - Alfarelos 1 Mon. 4 Sem. - - - -
O4 Ançã - Cantanhede 1 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - -
O5 Tentugal 2 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - -
O7 Figueira da Foz - Gesteira 1 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - -
O8 Verride 3 Mon. 2 Sem. - - - -
O1 Quaternário de Aveiro 33 Mon. 5 Sem. 30 Sem. 8 Yearly
O6 Aluviões do Mondego 3 Mon. 1 Sem. 12 Sem. - -
O11 Sicó - Alvaiázere 9 Mon. 10 Sem. - - - -
O15 Ourém 1 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - -
O19 Alpedriz 3 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - -
O20 Maciço Calcário Estremenho 2 Mon. 6 Sem. - - - -
Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado
O04RH4 das Bacias das Ribeiras do 15 Mon. 19 Sem. - - - - 184
Oeste
O18 Maceira 1 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - - -
O19 Alpedriz 6 Mon. 8 Sem. - - - - 17
Ribeiras
O20 Maciço Calcário Estremenho 6 Mon. 19 Sem. - - - - 21 72** N/A N/A
do Oeste
O23 Paço 2 Mon. 4 Sem. - - - - 9
O24 Cesareda 2 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - - 3
O25 Torres Vedras 4 Mon. 9 Sem. - - - - 9
O33 Caldas da Rainha-Nazaré 9 Mon. 18 Sem. - - - - 42
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0X1RH5 2 Mon. 33 Sem. - - - - 786 3 Sem.
RH5 Tejo da Bacia do Tejo 193**
A2 Escusa 5 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - - 4 2 Sem.

130
 Quantity
Quality Network Other Networks - Water supply
Network
River
Zone Code Groundwater Body
Basin Wells/ Dang. Prot. Obs. 1
Freq. Surv. Freq. Oper. Freq. Freq. Wells Freq.
Springs Subst. perim. points

A3 Monforte-Alter do Chão 3 Mon. 13 Sem. - - - - 10 2 Sem.

A4 Estremoz-Cano 19 Mon. 18 Sem. - - - - 23 2 Sem.
Orla Ocidental Indiferenciada
O01RH5 4 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - - 104 - -
da Bacia do Tejo
O5 Ourém 10 Mon. 5 Sem. - - - - 18 - -
O26 Ota-Alenquer - - 2 Sem. - - - - 6 1 Sem.
O28 Pisões-Atrozela 2 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - - 6 2 Sem.
Bacia do Tejo-Sado
T01RH5 Indiferenciado da Bacia do 2 Mon. 4 Sem. - - - - 40 - -
Tejo
Bacia do Tejo-Sado/Margem
T1 22 Mon. 35 Sem. - - - - 88 1 Sem.
Direita
Bacia do Tejo-Sado/Margem
T3 75 Mon. 91 Sem. - - - - 399 6 Sem.
Esquerda
T7 Aluviões do Tejo 18 Mon. 12 Sem. 52 Sem. - - 90 - -
T6 Bacia de Alvalade 2 Daily 7 Sem. - - - - 2 2 Sem.
O32 Sines 5 Daily 4 Sem. - - - - 4 4 Sem.
A6 Viana do Alentejo – Alvito 1 Mon. 3 Sem. - - - - 2 2 Sem.
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x1RH6 - - 9 Sem. - - - - 2 2 Sem.
da Bacia do Sado
Sado/ Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado
RH6 O01RH6 - - - - - - - - - 15 - Sem.
Mira da Bacia do Sado
Bacia do Tejo-Sado
T01RH6 Indiferenciado da Bacia do 1 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - - 1 1 Sem.
Sado
Zona Sul Portuguesa da Bacia
A0z2RH6 - - 3 Sem. - - - - 3 3 Sem.
do Mira
Zona Sul Portuguesa da Bacia
A0z1RH6 - - 1 Sem. - - - - 1 1 Sem.
do Sado
Bi-
A11 Elvas-Campo Maior 6 Mon./ 6 Sem. 4 Sem. - 1 1
RH7 Guadiana Daily N/A 6 N/A
Mon./
A5 Elvas-Vila Boim 9 4 Sem. 16 Sem. 3 1 1
Daily

131
 Quantity
Quality Network Other Networks - Water supply
Network
River
Zone Code Groundwater Body
Basin Wells/ Dang. Prot. Obs. 1
Freq. Surv. Freq. Oper. Freq. Freq. Wells Freq.
Springs Subst. perim. points

A9 Gabros de Beja 2 Mon. 5 Sem. 26 Sem. 3 3 3

A10 Moura-Ficalho 10 Mon. 11 Sem. - - 1 3 3
M17 Monte Gordo 3 Hourly 1 Sem. - - - - -
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x1RH7 2 Hourly 12 Sem. - - 1 2 2
da Bacia do Guadiana
Orla Meridional
O01RH7 Indiferenciado da Bacia do - - - - - - 1 - -
Guadiana
Zona Sul Portuguesa –
A0z2RH7 - - - - - - - - -
Transição Atlântico e Serra
Zona Sul Portuguesa da Bacia
A0z1RH7 1 Mon. 9 Sem. - - - 1 1
do Guadiana
Albufeira-Ribeira de
M6 5 Mon. 5 Sem. 3 Sem. - - - -
Quarteira
Mon./
M2 Almádena-Odeáxere 9 6 Sem. 3 Sem. - - 2 2
Hourly
M9 Almansil-Medronhal 3 Mon. 4 Sem. 5 Sem. - - - -
Mon./
M12 Campina de Faro 22 11 Sem. 17 Sem. - - - -
Hourly
Chão de Cevada-Quinta de
M11 2 Mon. 2 Sem. 2 Sem. - - - -
João de Ourém
M1 Covões 1 Mon. 2 Sem. 1 Sem. - - 2 2
Ribeiras M4 Ferragudo-Albufeira 5 Mon. 4 Sem. 3 Sem. - - - -
RH8 do 17 N/A
Mon./
Algarve M15 Luz-Tavira 6 4 Sem. 7 Sem. - - - -
Hourly
Mon./
M14 Malhão 2 1 Sem. 1 Sem. - - - -
Hourly
Mexilhoeira Grande- Mon./
M3 8 7 Sem. 3 Sem. - - - -
Portimão Hourly
M13 Peral-Moncarapacho 5 Mon. 3 Sem. 3 Sem. - - - -
M7 Quarteira 9 Mon. 4 Sem. 2 Sem. - - - -
Mon./
M15 Querença-Silves 26 18 Sem. 6 Sem. - - 12 12
Hourly
M16 São Bartolomeu 3 Mon. 3 Sem. 3 Sem. - - - -

132
 Quantity
Quality Network Other Networks - Water supply
Network
River
Zone Code Groundwater Body
Basin Wells/ Dang. Prot. Obs. 1
Freq. Surv. Freq. Oper. Freq. Freq. Wells Freq.
Springs Subst. perim. points

M8 São Brás de Alportel 4 Mon. 4 Sem. 3 Sem. - - - -

M10 São João da Venda-Quelfes 12 Mon. 5 Sem. 11 Sem. - - - -
Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
A0x1RH8 das Bacias das Ribeiras do 1 Mon. 2 Sem. 2 Sem. - - 2 2
Algarve
Orla Meridional
M02RH8 Indiferenciado da Bacia do 1 Mon. - - - - - - - -
Arade
Orla Meridional
M01RH8 Indiferenciado das Bacias das 1 Mon. - - - - - - - -
Ribeiras do Barlavento
Orla Meridional
M03RH8 Indiferenciado das Bacias das 6 Mon. 2 Sem. 2 Sem. - - 1 1
Ribeiras do Sotavento
Zona Sul Portuguesa das
A0z2RH8 - - 1 Sem. 1 Sem. - - - -
Bacias das Ribeiras do Arade
Zona Sul Portuguesa das
A0z1RH8 Bacias das Ribeiras do 10 Mon. 1 Sem. 1 Sem. - - - -
Barlavento
Zona Sul Portuguesa das
A0z3RH8 Bacias das Ribeiras do 1 Mon. 1 Sem. - - - - - -
Sotavento

1 - Monitoring of areas designated for the production of drinking water

* Abstractions of mineral water
** Supplied by the various public water supply management entities

Notes: Freq. = Frequency; Surv. = Surveillance network; Oper. = Operational network; Dang. Subst. = Dangerous Substances network; Prot. perim. =
Protection perimeters around the production wells for drinking water supply; Obs. points = Number of observations points; Mon. = Monthly; Sem. = Semi-
annual

133
134
5.4.3 Monitoring frequency

In terms of frequency, and according to the WFD, the frequency of observations should be sufficient
to allow an assessment of the quantitative status of each groundwater body or group of groundwater
bodies, taking into account the variations in short and long-term recharge. In the case of groundwater
bodies at risk of not achieving the environmental objectives specified in art. 4 of the WFD, it is
necessary to ensure a sufficient measurement frequency in order to assess the impact of abstraction
and discharges at the level of aquifers. For the great majority of the observation points in the quantity
networks, the monitoring is made monthly, depending on how the observation point is set to be
measured (automatic or manual) and on the annual variability.

For the case of the surveillance networks (included in the quality network), the WFD does not establish
any specific criteria for the frequency to set in the monitoring. However, it is proposed that the
establishment of a monitoring program should be carried out in order to complete and validate the
impact assessment process and to provide information for use in determining long-term trends
resulting from both changes of natural conditions as well as of anthropogenic activity. Where
knowledge is inadequate and data are not available, in the WFD CIS Monitoring Guidance for
Groundwater suggests frequencies for surveillance monitoring that can be adopted for different
aquifer types. Of major importance is the change of concentration patterns with time which influences
the selected monitoring frequency as does the increased knowledge of the conceptual understanding.
In general, shallow groundwater bodies are rather dynamic with respect to water quantity and quality
variation. If such variability occurs, monitoring frequency has to be selected accordingly in order to
characterise this variability adequately. According to the River Basin Management Plans (2016-2020),
every groundwater body is monitored in a semi-annual basis.

For the monitoring in the operational network (included in the quality network) WFD CIS Monitoring
Guidance for Groundwater proposes monitoring frequencies for operational monitoring for different
aquifer types where the conceptual understanding is limited and existing data are not available.
Where there is a good understanding of groundwater quality and the behaviour of the hydrogeological
system, alternative monitoring frequencies can be adopted as necessary. Nevertheless, the frequency
should ideally be carried out at intervals between the periods of implementation of monitoring
programs in the surveillance networks, with sufficient frequency to determine the impact of the
relevant pressures, at least once a year. Accordingly, to the River Basin Management Plans (2016-
2020) every groundwater body is monitored in a semi-annual basis except one in RH2 that alternates
the frequency between semi-annually to yearly.

135
According to the Decree-Law no. 236/98, the verification of compliance of the dangerous substances
networks, are responsibility of the managing entities. The sampling shall be carried out periodically
throughout the year and shall cover all component parts of the supply systems in order to provide a
representative picture of the water quality delivered by those systems over that period. Based on the
information taken from the River Basin Management Plans (2016-2020), just ten groundwater bodies
are included in the dangerous substances monitoring networks from which five are monitored yearly.
The other five don’t have information about the frequency. Nevertheless, the periods covered are not
extensive and, in the case of RH4, the available data is very incomplete, specifically in the last years of
monitoring, for both failure on complying with the substances monitored and for inexistence of data
in several latest years.

Regarding the monitoring network for public supply (drinking water), and in order to achieve a more
efficient management of human and financial resources, in most cases, the network was delineated
to be an integrated monitoring, where the monitoring points of surveillance and public supply
networks coincide. Based in the available information, this monitoring has a semi-annual periodicity
(wet and dry season) and the parameters analysed are included in Annex I of Decree-Law no. 236/98,
of 1st August.

5.4.4 Representative Monitoring Networks

The spatial distribution of contaminants is related to the location of different pressures e.g. point and
diffuse sources (different types of land use). Additionally a groundwater body is three dimensional
and the concentration of contaminants may vary significantly in vertical and lateral direction. Common
variations of hydrodynamic and hydro-geochemical characteristics inside a body of groundwater can
have significant impact on the parameter specific spreading of contaminants and should be taken into
account during the selection of monitoring sites. Furthermore the physicochemical parameters (e.g.
electrical conductivity, temperature and contaminant concentrations) in shallow aquifers sometimes
reveal a distinct variation over the year. Therefore, for the case of the surveillance monitoring
networks, an effective monitoring network will be one in which the sites are able to monitor for the
potential impacts of identified pressures and the evolution of groundwater quality along the flow
paths within the body.

Where risk issues relate to specific receptors such as ecosystems, additional sampling points can be
focussed in areas that are close to these receptors. In these cases, where the location of pressures

136
(point sources) is well known, sampling points will often be used to help isolate impacts from different
pressure types, assess the areal extent of impacts and determine contaminant fate and transport
between the pressure and the receptor. Taking into account the reasons presented above the site
selection factors in many cases must be assessed on a site by site basis.

Nevertheless, there are some methods recommended by the WFD CIS Monitoring Guidance for
Groundwater that were applied on the assessment of the representativity of the monitoring networks,
namely the Network criterion. It was agreed that homogeneity (reflecting spatial representativity) of
the network was a prerequisite and should be ensured to allow for sound statistical assessment in
accordance with the requirements of the WFD.

The Representativity Index was developed as a tool for assessing the homogeneity of the network. A
certain degree of homogeneity of the network is a statistical prerequisite for the admissibility of
applying the arithmetic mean as aggregation method as proposed (Grath et al., 2001).

To assess the homogeneity of a monitoring network, i.e. the homogenous coverage of the whole GW-
body area, the average minimum distance between any location in the area to the closest sampling
site is to be calculated and expressed as percentage of the average minimum distance for an optimal
network. For a theoretical network with an optimal triangular pattern of sites the Representativity
Index will be 100 %. For sub-optimal (less homogeneous) networks the index will decrease. For
considering a network to be homogeneous the Representativity Index should be 80 % or higher. A
value of 80 % means that the average minimum distance is 25 % larger than it would be for an optimal
network.

From the statistical point of view it is proposed to achieve a value of at least 80 % as with a value of
less than 80 % the estimated spatial mean can be highly biased. It has to be pointed out that the 80 %
limit is a compromise to allow for sound estimations on the one hand and to take into account
practicable requirements on networks on the other hand.

This method was applied for most of the Water Basin Management Plans, according to the CIS
recommendation. The homogeneity of a monitoring network should be ensured to allow an
exploratory statistical analysis, but the great majority of the monitoring networks for the groundwater
bodies in Portugal have non-representative networks, according to the method. Seemingly, for a more
complete assessment for the representativity of the networks could be applied the proposed method
by Nascimento et al. (2013), which is based in three distinct criterion.

137
The first criterion relates to the density of monitoring sites, and for this criterion to be met, there must
be at least one site per 100 km2 for unstressed groundwater bodies and one site per 25 km2 for areas
subject to pressures, such as vulnerable zones.

The second criterion refers to the number of sites per groundwater body, considering what was
proposed by Scheidleder (2004), establishing a minimum of three sampling sites per groundwater
body. The same author considers a number greater than or equal to five as sufficient for the
representativity of the measurements.

The third criterion is based on the calculation of the Index of Representativity (IR), according to the
methodology proposed by Grath et al. (2001), which reflects the homogeneity or spatial
representativeness of the monitoring network.

Homogeneity is measured by the Representativity Index RU, which represents the average minimum
distance between any locations in the area to the closest observation site, expressed in percentages
of the average distance for an optimal network (inverse presentation). RU depends on the number of
sites, denoted by k, on the average minimum distance between any location in the area to the closest
sampling site, distave, and on the size of the area, denoted by Area.

37.7
𝑅𝑈 = [%]
𝐾
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑒 √𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎

For a theoretical network with an optimal triangular pattern of sites the Representativity Index will be
100 %. For sub-optimal (less homogeneous) networks the index will decrease. For considering a
network to be homogeneous the Representativity Index should be 80 % or higher. A value of 80 %
means that the average minimum distance is 25 % larger than it would be for an optimal network.
With a value of less than 80 % the estimated spatial mean can be highly biased. It should be noted
that this limit is result of a compromise between the aim to get an optimal estimation and practical
requirements of networks.

For groundwater bodies with few sampling sites, the squared maximum length of the groundwater
body, length2 is larger than the product of the size of the area, Area, and the number k of sites, i.e. if
length2 > k x Area, then RU can be replaced by the following equation.

138
 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 2 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 2
25√( ) + ( 𝐾 )2
𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑅𝑆 = [%]
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑒

From the intersection of the three criteria explained above, Table 5.2 shows the representativity of
monitoring networks for a given groundwater body (Nascimento et al., 2013).

Table 5.2 - Tables summarizing the criteria for assessing the representativeness of monitoring networks (Nascimento et al.,
2013).

Representativity of surveillance, operational and quantity monitoring

network
>1/100km2 (>1/25km2)*
<1/100km2
number of sites
(>1/25km2)*
<3 3<=K<5 K>=5
RU<50
50<=RU<80
RU>=80
* Operational network

Network not representative

Network partially representative
Network representative

As an example, this methodology was applied to assess the representativeness of the surveillance,
operational and quantity monitoring networks of the water basins of Vouga, Mondego and Lis, located
at the central region of Portugal.

The surveillance network in this area comprises 124 monitoring sites, varying from 1 site in 6
groundwater bodies to 27 sites in the groundwater body of the undifferentiated basin of the
Mondego.

For the case of the operational network in this area comprises 71 monitoring sites. The great majority
of the monitoring sites are located within the corresponding areas of the Vulnerable Zones of
Estarreja-Murtosa (10) and Litoral Centro (37).

In the case of the quantity network, there are four groundwater bodies without monitoring. On the
other hand, the Leirosa-Monte Real groundwater body has 43 active monitoring sites. In total this
network makes 171 sites, of which 16 are water springs.

139
Figure 5.6 – Surveillance monitoring network for the groundwater bodies of the water basin Vouga, Mondego and Lis (Agência
Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2012).

Figure 5.7 – Operational monitoring network for the groundwater bodies of the water basin Vouga, Mondego and Lis (Agência
Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2012).

140
Figure 5.8 - Quantity monitoring network for the groundwater bodies of the water basin Vouga, Mondego and Lis (Agência
Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2012).

By doing an assessment to the groundwater bodies’ networks, it is observed that 80% of the bodies
meet the minimum number of sites and 30% comply with the density criterion, and none of the
groundwater bodies meets the RU criterion.

Table 5.3 - Representativeness of the surveillance monitoring network for groundwater bodies from water basins of Vouga,
Mondego and Lis.

Area Number of Representativeness of the

Groundwater body Density RU
(Km2) sites surveillance monitoring network

Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado

2030 13 156 62 Not representative
da Bacia do Vouga

Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado

4826 27 179 67 Not representative
da Bacia do Mondego

Luso 15 1 15 21 Not representative

141
 Area Number of Representativeness of the
Groundwater body Density RU
(Km2) sites surveillance monitoring network

Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado

287 1 287 32 Not representative
da Bacia do Vouga

Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado

331 1 331 18 Not representative
da Bacia do Mondego

Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado

140 4 35 38 Not representative
da Bacia do Lis

Quaternário de Aveiro 931 5 186 36 Not representative

Leirosa - Monte Real 218 1 218 67 Not representative

Vieira de Leiria - Marinha

321 7 46 68 Partially representative
Grande

Pousos - Caranguejeira 102 2 51 87 Not representative

Cretácico de Aveiro 894 13 69 70 Partially representative

Louriçal 588 6 98 67 Partially representative

Cársico da Bairrada 316 5 63 51 Partially representative

Viso - Queridas 186 3 62 61 Partially representative

Condeixa - Alfarelos 185 4 46 58 Partially representative

Ançã - Cantanhede 40 1 40 49 Not representative

Tentúgal 162 1 162 60 Not representative

Aluviões do Mondego 148 1 148 23 Not representative

Figueira da Foz - Gesteira 64 3 21 52 Partially representative

Verride 15 2 8 55 Not representative

Table 5.4 - Representativeness of the quantity monitoring network for groundwater bodies from water basins of Vouga,
Mondego and Lis.

Area Number of Representativeness of the

Groundwater body Density RU
(Km2) sites quantity monitoring network

Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado

Not representative
da Bacia do Vouga 2030 0 0 0

142
 Maciço Antigo Indiferenciado
Not representative
da Bacia do Mondego 4826 0 0 0

Luso 15 1 15 21 Not representative

Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado

Not representative
da Bacia do Vouga 287 9 32 11

Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado

Not representative
da Bacia do Mondego 331 1 331 0

Orla Ocidental Indiferenciado

Not representative
da Bacia do Lis 140 3 47 32

Quaternário de Aveiro 931 33 28 32 Not representative

Leirosa - Monte Real 218 43 5 32 Not representative

Vieira de Leiria - Marinha

Partially representative
Grande 321 4 80 52

Pousos - Caranguejeira 102 1 102 68 Not representative

Cretácico de Aveiro 894 21 43 53 Partially representative

Louriçal 588 1 588 58 Not representative

Cársico da Bairrada 316 8 40 47 Not representative

Viso - Queridas 186 8 23 67 Partially representative

Condeixa - Alfarelos 185 1 185 59 Not representative

Ançã - Cantanhede 40 1 40 63 Not representative

Tentúgal 162 2 81 45 Not representative

Aluviões do Mondego 148 3 49 34 Not representative

Figueira da Foz - Gesteira 64 1 64 35 Not representative

Verride 15 3 5 68 Partially representative

This means that, taking into account the proposed methodology with the three criteria, it is verified
that, none of the groundwater bodies present representative networks, either surveillance or
quantity. There are, however, 7 groundwater bodies in which the surveillance network is considered
to be partially representative and 4 of the quantity network with the same result. However, in 4
groundwater bodies the surveillance monitoring network has enough points to be classified as

143
representative; though the distribution of the network is considered only partially representative. The
same situation occurs in 6 groundwater bodies regarding the quantity network.

This is relevant because it shows that with the same number of sites, as long as their dispersion alters,
a statistically representative monitoring networks will be possible to obtain. Nonetheless, in order to
include new monitoring points in both networks an effort is still urging.

Regarding the operational monitoring network, from the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the network it is concluded that the two vulnerable zones have partially representative networks.

Table 5.5 - Representativeness of the operational monitoring network for groundwater bodies from water basins of Vouga,
Mondego and Lis.

Area Number of Representativeness of the

Groundwater body Density RU
(Km2) sites quantity monitoring network

Vulnerable zone Estarreja-Murtosa 81 10 8 69 Partially representative

Vulnerable zone Litoral Centro 237 37 6 59 Partially representative

5.5 Processes, data and integration

5.5.1 Data processing and integration

After the collection, the data processing is made locally, by the ARHs. The integration of data with
other information from other monitoring programs and other databases is mainly made at the
regional level in the ARHs, which are responsible for the management of groundwater bodies and
aquifer systems. These institutes are responsible for all the work behind monitoring, planning and
data collection and processing. For that specialized teams to do these tasks are composed, both in the
field and office, which number depend on each region and available human resources, funds, structure
and capacity. According to Diogo (2018), data processing is composed mainly by three processes: 1)
Robust validation processes; 2) Supplementation of data; 3) Analysis of extreme values in long data
series.

Integrated information is essential, for example, in the decision making on the allocation of
abstraction titles and in the control of activities that could put at risk the water quality. The data
integration and sectoral coordination at the local level, in particular with agriculture, industry and

144
public supply and urban waters is quite a challenge but, this is a major aspect to take into account
when interpreting the data and information, and to identify changes in the pressures and stresses to
the groundwater bodies, both in terms of quantity and quality.

The data is then sent to APA, from where the process of populating the SNIRH databases is made,
according to existing networks, observation sites and times. Within APA there are mainly two
departments dealing with the groundwater data, namely the Department of Technology and
Information Systems (DTSI), and the Department of Water Resources (DRH). Finally, the data is
published online and make available to the population.

Other aspect to mention is the data integration with other components of the water cycle and of the
environment. If it is clear that the groundwater has to be managed and governed from an integrated
perspective, it is also clear that many ecosystems depend on groundwater and therefore its protection
should be implemented. From this perspective, has to be highlighted that, in most cases, and
according to the River Basin Management Plans (2016), there is a small number of monitored water
springs which represent an important gap related to the knowledge of water levels in terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems dependent on the groundwater bodies.

5.5.2 Characterization and evaluation of the available data and information

The objective of this sub-chapter is to make a characterization of the monitored parameters in the
various monitoring networks and to make a comparison of what is listed in the Table 4.1 from the
Chapter 4 - Data, information and knowledge as a requirement for an improved groundwater
governance, in order to take some conclusions on the adequacy of the monitored parameters and
available information on groundwater in SNIRH.

In terms of types of information, namely “General settings”, “Geology and aquifers”, “Natural
recharge” and “Natural discharge”, and “Groundwater dynamics”, fair enough information can be
found in SNIRH through the publication of the aquifer systems profiles, available free of charge,
wherein a synthesis of the key elements of characterization is made, for each aquifer system, which
correspond to the groundwater bodies in the River Basin Management Plans (Almeida et al., 2000).
This, apparently, and confirmed in the interviews to Fialho (2019) and Chambel (2019) was the main
reason to consider only these aquifer systems to integrate the River Basin Management Plans, and not
all the other aquifer systems that are known to exist, including detailed information, just like
considered in the PNA (2002) and in Monteiro et al. (2011). Nevertheless, this information is now quite

145
dated. No doubt that the compiled information presented in the aquifer systems profiles is an
important starting point to the due and detailed characterization of the groundwater body. But,
almost 20 years passed since its publication and much more work has been done by other authors
through various publications, thesis, or conference proceedings (e.g.: Branco, 2007; Hugman, 2016).
These works must be taken into account for an updating of the information, leading necessarily to
improved conceptual models, integrated with other types of information, according to the proposed
scheme in Figure 4.3 - Relationship between the conceptual model and monitoring design. SNIRH do
have a so-called Hydro-Library (“Hidro-Biblioteca”) to consult directly from a link in the frontpage. In
July 2019, a search by words associated to groundwater and hydrogeology, as well as groundwater
resources management and the likes was made, and the latest uploaded document returned was from
2012. It seems so, in my opinion that, a similar work by (Almeida et al., 2000) should be done now,
certainly considering previous information but also the generated knowledge in the scientific
community, institutions and River Basin Management Plans in the last two decades.

Also must be said that SNIRH does not contain as much information as should be required regarding
the characteristics of the borehole itself (used for monitoring purposes). Thus, finding the option
within SNIRH and relating it to this information is neither easy. Relevant information for the
interpretation of the piezometric levels would be the depth of the screens or the diameter of the
observation site, as well as the geologic log of that given site. Only this way is possible to consider local
variability in the aquifer systems, in order to make a better characterization. For example, this
information is quite valuable for groundwater modelling, decision making on the allowance of new
abstractions, etc. Whenever possible, information regarding hydraulic parameters would be also
required, for the same reason as aforementioned. Some observation sites do have complete or
incomplete information regarding these characteristics, but the large portion of SNIRH observation
sites do not possessed any information. As it is, SNIRH might contain information divided by the tabs
location, hydrogeology, borehole and construction characteristics, and data (original and synthetized).

146
Figure 5.9 – Overview of the types of information filtered by observation site, given by SNIRH (Source: www.snirh.pt, consulted
13th July 2019).

Summaries and small bulletins are also published containing relevant data for the layman, but also for
most of the technical users, namely on the monthly statistics of the piezometric levels in comparison
to other equivalent periods and trends.

The surveillance monitoring, like mentioned before, aims to complement and validate the process of
assessing the impact on water bodies and to determine long-term trends in the alteration of their
natural conditions as well as anthropogenic activity. On the other hand, the operational monitoring
aims at determining the chemical status of the groundwater bodies identified as being at risk and
determining the presence of possible long-term, anthropogenic trends to increase the concentration
of any pollutant. And finally, the Decree-Law No. 236/98 establishes quality standards, criteria and
objectives for the purpose of protecting the aquatic environment and improving water quality in light
of its principal uses, repealing Decree-Law No. 74/90. Chapter VI transposes into national law the
Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the
aquatic environment, as well as the Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against

147
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances. Therefore, based on the Decree-Law no. 236/98, a
basic monitoring network for the substances listed in Annex I and II of the said Directive was defined,
so as to enable an expeditious assessment of the levels of environmental contamination. All the data
and information generated from these networks would fall into the category of “Current or potential
interactions and threats”, of the Table 4.1 – Key data organized by information categories and type of
information for an improved groundwater resource management and governance.

As for the quantity network, the measured parameters are the piezometric levels and the
groundwater depth only. In the surveillance and operational network (for the quality), and for the
dangerous substances the number of parameters varies quite a lot from case to case. A detailed list
of the groups of parameters could be consulted in the River Basin Management Plans (2016).

5.5.3 Transparency and trust

In the case of information transparency, the interpretation of any benchmarking exercise triggers a
broad array of questions. These include understanding whether pitfalls in access to information are
due to lack of adequate legal provisions or rather to a problem of capacity; whether they consist in
lack of information or rather in lack of relevant information; whether the availability of more
information online really brings about more democracy; and what information gaps tell us about the
water sector.

Stefano et al. (2016) presented a methodology for measuring information transparency in the water
sector based in a transparency index originally developed in Spain (INTRAG). Even if this method is not
exclusively focused in Water Information Systems, was adapted and applied in the Portuguese context
and its contribution for this section is quite valuable. INTRAG aggregates 80 indicators comprising six
areas: Information about the Water Agency (WA) (6 indicators); Relationships with stakeholders and
the public (14); Transparency in the planning process (16); Transparency on water use and
management (22); Economic and financial transparency (8); and Transparency in contracts and
tenders (14). The Index evaluates the presence or absence of relevant information; however, it does
not assess its quality or easiness of access. Thus, the possible score for each indicator is 1 (information
present) or 0 (absent). The steps followed for the calculation of INTRAG are summarized in Figure 5.10.

148
Figure 5.10 – Process to define and apply INTRAG (adapted from Stefano et al., 2016).

A team of academics and civil society experts applied INTRAG in 2014. The Index maintained the
structure of its Spanish version (80 indicators grouped in 6 areas) while its content was slightly adapted
to the Portuguese water context. The present Portuguese institutional setting (resulting from a
merging of regional water authorities into a single national body for Portuguese mainland in 2011)
precluded a comparative analysis between the Portuguese five continental river basin districts. Hence,
the assessment could only consider the Portuguese mainland, managed by the APA, and two
autonomous Atlantic regions (Madeira and Azores) managed by their respective Regional
Environment Secretariats. Analysing the Portuguese case, the overall results of the transparency
assessment is depicted in the Figure 5.11.

The study concludes that the production and dissemination of regional information for participation
purposes was limited and stakeholders have little real power of decision.

In the area of Management of water resources and water use lack of transparency also stems from
recent (2011) political reforms that resulted in substantial cuts and changes in water governance that
led to the discontinuance of data series, including the suspension or deactivation of several
observation sites.

149
The lower scores of Madeira and the Azores are, at least in part, due to their insular condition and the
associated difficulties to keep the pace of institutional development of the mainland. Thus, Portugal’s
results reflect a widespread disinvestment in the water sector and, in particular, in the dissemination
of water-related information. With the extinction of the regional water agencies on the Portuguese
mainland in 2011, the quantity and quality of information were further reduced, impacting
transparency and the relationship with the public (Schmidt et al., 2015).

Figure 5.11 – Overall results of the information transparency assessment undertaken in Portugal (adapted from Stefano et
al., 2016).

5.6 Reporting and sharing

5.6.1 The Web-based Technology, Water Resources Data Sharing and Society

Since SNIRH was originally designed, one of the major concerns was the identification of the method
for sharing data from all sources with the technicians, managers, academic users, decision-makers and
citizens in general, in other words, with all the different kind of users and stakeholders. In fact, making
environmental data available is an obligation for all EU Member-States according to the Community
Directive 90/313/CEE dealing with the free access to environmental information.

150
SNIRH, through the internet portal, provides free access for both raw and processed data, the latter
applied and accessible through some on-line applications and reports. Sharing with the society all this
information at no cost enhances a powerful social environmental awareness in the domain of water
matters and promotes vital information for the development of a wide range of studies, works and
projects, which benefits several political, economic and societal groups such as the municipalities,
education, consultancy and administrative bodies. Wilson et al., (2000a) states that the development
of spatial information infrastructures has a dramatic impact on the role that spatial information plays
in the life of every citizen in many areas, including water resources. The availability of water resources
information has a clear impact on planning at every level - from government, through business and
farmers, to citizens purchasing new homes. Nevertheless, research is required to identify the best
approaches for customizing the same information for different users and purposes, namely on the
extension to geographic representation, on scale issues and on the spatial analysis and uncertainty.
In fact, a platform for data sharing such as SNIRH is needed for a more effective water resource
management and for a better relation with society.

SNIRH assists in the collection, storage, analysis, and visualization of key information and thereby
helps with the development of effective water resource programs and practices. Not all water
resources problems require to have GIS applications and simulation models, however, those that do
require technologically sophisticated solutions are likely to benefit from additional research and
education to ensure that the GIS based modelling results can be interpreted and used appropriately.
In addition, these modelling results for water resources assessments may provide conflicting evidence
or be used by groups with competing interests and power. The question of water control is perhaps
straightforward in a scientific sense of balancing inputs and outputs, but is far less tractable within the
realm of enforcement. Classic political conflicts between urban interests, agricultural uses, flood
control and the natural environment may all find expression within the information shared in SNIRH.
Although their precision, sophistication, or persuasiveness, the outcomes will have to be settled in a
political, economic and social environment.

Internationally, this political environment is changing, and a range of solutions are required now and
in the immediate future because of the dramatic change in the approach to integrated water
management that has occurred during the past few years. There has been a shift from limited
government-directed regulatory programs toward accepting more and more local initiatives, with
government providing the tools to be used by local communities.

In the opinion of Wilson et al., (2000), this reorganization of participants has a profound impact on the
tools required for water resources management. A water information system itself is not going to be

151
enough as the target has shifted from large government organizations with professional staff. Instead,
tools are needed for retrieving and analysing water resources information together with political and
administrative tasks that can be used by people who are not specialists and are located in many
different places. A wider range of tools operating, for example, at the watershed level, and other levels
of analysis, ranging from complex and sophisticated to the very simple, is needed.

An example of this reorganization is the work developed by the UK government, documented by

Stachowicz (2004), in which the author states that "the United Kingdom's government has promoted
e-government to encourage local authorities to make all their systems and services electronic and
integrated. Geography is often the only ‘glue’ that can integrate the data residing in different local
authority departments. Web-based GIS is the first step in e-government as it ensures that all
departments within a local authority share essential information. Geography is the easiest way to
improve the internal and external communication and to join up the work of departments and offer
better information to the public".

Therefore, it can be said that a web-based data sharing water information system, such as SNIRH,
allows for building positive relations between APA and the various organizations, institutes,
stakeholders, citizens and businesses by sharing essential information in an intuitive and
understandable way. SNIRH, embedded into APA's web page, delivers services to citizens so that they
have instant access to the services provided. The web-based water information system also adds value
to the existing web pages while online service delivery represents financial savings for government as
well as promoting social inclusion. Moreover, web-based water information systems can assist in
creating better links with the users and in keeping information updated.

Based on Stachowicz (2004), some of the advantages of SNIRH, as a web-based water information
systems in use to local government, are listed below, which in many cases can be extended to a greater
scale, the society in general, and in this case, to Portugal as a whole. In the context of improving
external communication and build relationships within the authority, the advantages are as follows:

a) Departments share each other’s data

b) Data storage and management are centralised
c) Services are ‘joined up’
d) The data is viewed in the context of an entire organisation rather than in isolation
e) Decision making is improved
f) Money is saved or invested in a better way
g) Both the local authority staff and the citizens benefit

152
In the context of a web-based data sharing water information system, the identified advantages on
the improvement of external communication and building relationships with citizens are the following:

a) Deliver free services to citizens

b) Add value to authorities existing web pages/services
c) Enable a permanent access to data
d) Financial savings for government associated to online service delivery
e) Increase social inclusion
f) Establish links with the business community
g) Provide information for different type of users

5.6.2 Recent developments in the political context with impacts in the water information
system and its use

Following the ideas of Vancauwenberghe et al. (2014), the key challenge to meet the benefits of such
specific data sharing infrastructures, such as SNIRH, is to integrate information, many times with a
strong geography component, or with other types of information. Inherent to it are the different types
of processes that support the interactions between public administrations, businesses and citizens.

Along the same line, the G8 Science Ministers Stated on 12 June 2013 (G8 UK 2013) that EU projects
should be committed to openness in scientific research data aiming to actively speed up the progress
of scientific discovery, innovation creation and ensuring that the results of scientific research are as
widely available as practical.

Aiming at contributing to the improvement of access/re-use of research data generated by the current
EU Horizon 2020 projects, there is the so called Open Data Pilot initiative that Horizon 2020 proposals
are requested to address. In fact, data collected or generated by Research, Development and
Innovation (RDI) European projects should bring additional impact to society, e.g. Government
transparency and friendly mechanisms of public participation and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
(SME) access data to build services that support job creation and competitiveness.

In Portugal, the implementation of a coordinated approach on water information for water

governance is managed by APA, assuming a full fledge of competencies in all areas of environment,

153
including the responsibility for managing and maintaining the entire cycle of water resources
information from collection to dissemination, including SNIRH.

Regarding the role and assess of SNIRH in water governance, it is important to highlight some recent
major events that led to difficulties in keeping the monitoring networks functional, as well as keeping
the human recourses capacity in full-force, that inevitably affected the objectives of the system, as a
whole. Both the economic crisis and the merging process of the entire administration responsible for
water resources management into a single agency like APA had an extremely negative impact on the
resources applicable to the best workflow of SNIRH and its structure. The financial cuts and the
reduction of specialized and technical staff in an organization like APA were revealed the obvious
reasons for the dispersion of the reduced funds and for the subsequent service flaws on every type of
function. The alleged limitations of APA, strongly induced by political decisions and adaptations to the
economic conditions, are known today to be the cause of: 1) the grave recent deterioration of data
and monitoring networks and; 2) the disappearing of the inherited technical know-how by dismissing
technical human resources, which were fruit of several years of capacitation, development and
experience. As a result of this disinvestment a warning is displayed in the SNIRH frontpage (during a
certain timeframe in the year of 2015) regarding the data reliability derived from the lack of
maintenance services, more precisely between 2010 and 2016, considered to be some of the more
severe years of the economic crisis in Portugal (Figure 5.12).

Figure 5.12 – Report page of SNIRH displaying warning regarding data reliability (source: www.snirh.pt, consulted in 2015.
Translated by Google))

154
Moreover, SNIRH displays little information about technical aspects of the maintenance of the data
collection stations, which at the time led the user to trust in doubtful data derived from defective
observation sites. For example, information regarding the last maintenance action and data validation
would be useful. This information could have turned out to be quite important during the elaboration
of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) when, in some cases, data was hard to be taken as
reliable enough because of the lack of information regarding validation in particular cases.

Fortunately, this was a transitory situation and, as stated by the Minister of Environment in the
opening session of the 13th National Water Congress, important investments were to be done in this
sector (Matos Fernandes, 2016). This is considered to be paramount to the optimization and
enhancement of quality and quantity network stations, and for instance, for the assessment of the
status of groundwater bodies, the achievement of environmental goals, improvement of pressures
inventory and optimization of pollutant discharges control.

5.7 Comparing SNIRH with other water information systems

In order to describe how relatively advanced is SNIRH, a comparison with other web-based data
sharing systems from other countries could be made. For that, two procedures were made: 1) to
assess the stage of development of a web-based data sharing water information system a check list
was elaborated, and organized by categories, respecting the methodology approach described in the
Figure 5.1., and applied to other national water information systems; 2) a table with the objectives,
strengths, weaknesses and future developments of each water information system was compiled.

5.7.1 Assessment of the stage of development of SNIRH and other national WIS

As for the first procedure, the check list was applied to the main web-based water information systems
of some relevant countries, including SNIRH. The 19 characteristics considered here to assess each
category are listed in the Table 5.6, and try to cover the most important aspects of a web-based water
information system, making sure the categories would be well represented. The categories are
“Monitoring Networks and Data Sources”, “Processes, Data and Integration”, and “Reporting and
Sharing”. It is noted that these categories are the very same considered before for the SNIRH in-depth

155
characterization, in the sub-chapters 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6. The stage or status of development of the
processes, methods and data quality/quantity inherent to groundwater were the focus of this check-
up.

Table 5.6 – Check list to the assessment of the stage of development of a web-based data sharing water information system.

STAGE OF
CHARACTERISTICS TO ASSESS ID SHORT DESCRIPTION
INFORMATION
Network Representativity of the water
1 Representativity
bodies
What is the ..Monitoring
Maintenance status 2 Maintenance
tecnological stage of network
Data collecting technology
Monitoring the...? 3 Technology
(manual/automated)
Networks and
Data Sources ..Data sharing web application 4 Web application
What do you think of ..Themes (Categories and types of networks) 5 Themes
the variability of the...? ..Datasets (parameters measured) 6 Datasets
How is the frequency of data acquisition? 7 Data acquisition frequency

How is the data uniformization and standardization? 8 Data Standardization

How is the data and Information Availability? 9 Availability

Processes, How is the relation between the various types of information? 10 Relationships
Data and How is the integration of data from various sources and organizations? 11 Data integration
Integration
Is there transparency and trust on data and processes? 12 Transparency
How appropriate is the ..at National level 13 National norms
system to norms...? ..at International level 14 International norms

How good is the Types of reports 15 Reports

reporting in terms of...? Frequency of publishing 16 Frequency
Reporting and
How it is the data accessibility for the diferent sort of users and stakeholders? 17 Accessibility
Sharing
Does the system foster public participation? 18 Participation
What is the level of detailed information and forecasting? 19 Forecasting

A relative comparison between all the cases is made, using a grading system with five levels of
development: 1-Bad, 2-Insufficient, 3-Sufficient, 4-Good, and 5-Excellent.

To go through this research, a selection of relevant web-based national water information systems
had to be made. The selected systems to be compared are listed the Table 5.7, and includes the
Portuguese National Water Resources Information System (SNIRH) from Portugal, the Spanish Water
Management System (SWMS) from Spain, the National Geoscience Data Centre (NGDC) from the
United Kingdom, the Waterinfo and the DINOloket from the Netherlands, National Groundwater-
Monitoring Programme (GRUMO) from Denmark, and the Australian Water Resources Information
System (AWRIS) from Australia.

156
Table 5.7 – List of selected web-based national water information systems for the relative comparison with SNIRH.

Web-based national water information Country Website

systems
Portuguese National Water Resources PT https://snirh.apambiente.pt/index.php
Information System (SNIRH)

Spanish Water Information System (SIA) (…-

2018); Spanish Water Management System ES https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/agua/temas/default.aspx
(SWMS) (2018-present)

National Geoscience Data Centre (NGDC) UK https://www.bgs.ac.uk/services/ngdc/home.html?src=topNav

Waterinfo / DINOloket NL https://waterinfo.rws.nl / https://www.dinoloket.nl

http://www.geus.dk/uk/water-soil/monitoring/groundwater-
National Groundwater-Monitoring DK
Programme -GRUMO monitoring/Pages/default.aspx

Australian Water Resources Information AU http://www.bom.gov.au/water/

System (AWRIS)

The selection of the water information systems was based on a) the international relevance of each
system like the ones from Netherlands and Denmark (Hansen and Thomsen, 2017; Huisman et al.,
1998; Jørgensen and Stockmarr, 2009); b) systems from European countries under the same
international directives (Spain and United Kingdom); and c) relevant non-European systems (Australia)
(Horne, 2015). For the case of Spain, two WIS were analysed: the Spanish Water Information System
(SIA) (…- 2018) and the Spanish Water Management System (SWMS) (2018-present). The former was
replaced by the latter in 2018, during a period of transition of the between the former and an evolving
system, that corresponds also to the year of establishment of the Ministry of Ecological Transition
(https://www.miteco.gob.es/en/ministerio/funciones-estructura/), now responsible for the SWMS.
As the former WIS was the base for SWMS, both were considered for the assessment, taking into
account the evolution of several aspects, namely the improvement of reporting and sharing processes.
For the Netherlands, also two WIS were considered, the Waterinfo (https://waterinfo.rws.nl) and the
DINOloket (https://www.dinoloket.nl). As this WIS is strongly dependent on the data generated in
DINOloket, a merge was made for the two WIS into one single assessment.

There are significant limitations in the information available in the literature or on-line about the
assessed water information systems. To find out more about the level of sophistication and the
differences between national systems, as well as identifying possible directions for its improvement
and modernization, a comparison would be only possible throughout a direct analysis of each system.

For that purpose, the same type of analysis made for SNIRH was also made for the other systems, and
when the language barrier was an issue assistance was required to complete the assessments. The
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat, the Netherlands) was the entity
who made the check list for Waterinfo. For the case of GRUMO (Denmark) assistance was also

157
required, and the assessment was made directly with chief consultant Lærke Thorling from GEUS - The
National Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, that is the responsible entity for the
groundwater monitoring in Denmark and Greenland.

So for each characteristic an expertise assessment based on a direct evaluation or through literature
was made and a grade attributed. When necessary, comments were added in need of some
clarification. The results for each WIS are displayed in the following tables.

Table 5.8 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of SNIRH (PT) (made by the author in
January 2018).

SNIRH (PT)
GRADE COMMENTS ABOUT STATE OF ART
Repres entativi ty 3-Suffi ci ent The moni tori ng networks a re not repres entative for mos t of the ca s es
Ma i ntena nce 3-Suffi ci ent
Ma ny of the s tations work wi th a utoma tic da ta col l ection but the va s t ma jori ty i s ma nua l , whi ch wi thout
Technol ogy 4-Good
huma n res ources a ffects the a va i l a bi l i ty of da ta
Outda ted, s l ow, no i nforma tion on the s tates of the moni tori ng poi nts . The obs erva tion poi nts ha ve
Web a ppl i ca tion 3-Suffi ci ent s ca rce i nforma tion on the cha ra cteri s tics of the a qui fer (eg. hydrogeol ogy a nd a qui fer tes ts a nd hydra ul i c
pa ra meters ). In s ome ca s es onl y genera l a qui fer i nforma tion a nd depth of a bs tra ction i s a va i l a bl e
Themes 5-Excel l ent Va ri ed thema tics
Da tas ets 4-Good
Da ta a cqui s i tion
4-Good Si gni fi ca nt ba cktra cki ng on da ta col l ection i n the l a s t few yea rs
frequency
Da ta s tanda rdi za tion 5-Excel l ent
Ava i l a bi l i ty 3-Suffi ci ent Ma ny fa i l ures i n col l ecting / ma ki ng a va i l a bl e recent da ta
Rel a tions hi ps 4-Good
Contai ns da ta from s evera l orga ni za tions but ma ny more coul d be i ntegra ted. For exa mpl e,
Da ta i ntegra tion 4-Good
envi ronmental i mpa ct s tudi es coul d be i ntegra ted i nto a da taba s e dedi ca ted to externa l entities
Tra ns pa rency a nd da ta rel i a bi l i ty s uffered di ffi cul ties recently. There a re bl ocka ges rega rdi ng
Tra ns pa rency 3-Suffi ci ent i nforma tion a nd publ i c cons ul tation a nd there i s a l a ck of cl a ri ty i n the ori gi n of the da ta (Schi mdt &
Gomes 2014)
The tra ns pos i tion of the WFD i n Portuga l wa s tra ns l a ted i nto s evera l di rectives , na mel y for the control of
Na tiona l norms 5-Excel l ent groundwa ter qua l i ty a nd qua l i ty, coa s tal a nd tra ns i tiona l wa ters . At thi s moment there i s a n excel l ent
l evel of i mpl ementation a ccordi ng to the na tiona l di rectives .
Interna tiona l norms 4-Good
Reports 5-Excel l ent
Frequency 5-Excel l ent Frequency va ri es a ccordi ng to the type of i nforma tion, but tha t s eems to be a dequa te for the moda l i ty
Des pi te the fl a ws a nd s etba cks , da ta i s s til l a va i l a bl e. There a re, however, s til l cri tici s ms rega rdi ng the
Acces s i bi l i ty 4-Good
decodi ng of i nforma tion a nd da ta, na mel y i n Schmi dt & Ferrei ra (2014)
The end of the i ns titutions due to the a mendment of the La w of Wa ter (DL 130/2012) tha t brought together
s evera l wa ter ma na gement bodi es , na mel y the ARH, l ed to the dea ctiva tion of s evera l WEB pl a tforms
Pa rtici pa tion 3-Suffi ci ent
a nd, cons equently the connection between s oci ety a nd pol i tics i n va ri ous s ectors of the country ha s been
degra ded.
Foreca s ting No foreca s ting

158
Table 5.9 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of SWMS (ES) (made by the author in June
2019).

SWMS (ES)
GRADE COMMENTS ABOUT STATE OF ART
Repres entativi ty 3-Suffi ci ent Some regi ons s til l l a ck moni tori ng s i tes a nd better s pa tia l di s tri bution
Ma i ntena nce 3-Suffi ci ent Si nce 2017 thi s a s pect mi ght ha ve ha d i mprovement
Technol ogy 4-Good
Web a ppl i ca tion 3-Suffi ci ent Upda ted technol ogy but s uffi ci ently devel oped
Themes 4-Good
Da tas ets 4-Good Ada ptations to WFD were ma de recently
Da ta a cqui s i tion
4-Good
frequency
Da ta Standa rdi za tion 4-Good Accordi ng to a va i l a bl e metada ta
Ava i l a bi l i ty 3-Suffi ci ent Wa ter qua l i ty da ta not a va i l a bl e
Rel a tions hi ps 4-Good
Da ta i ntegra tion 4-Good
Tra ns pa rency 4-Good
Na tiona l norms 4-Good
Interna tiona l norms 5-Excel l ent Va ri ous networks i ntegra ted to i nterna tiona l norms
Reports 4-Good Severa l bol l etins for va ri ous types of i nforma tion
Frequency 4-Good
Acces s i bi l i ty 4-Good For the l a yma n, the a ppl i ca tion a nd i nforma tion di s pl a yed mi ght be exces s i ve
Pa rtici pa tion 4-Good
Foreca s ting No foreca s ting a va i l a bl e

Table 5.10 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of Waterifno/DINOloket (NL) (made by
Servicedesk Data of Rijkswaterstaat in February 2018).

Waterinfo/DINOloket (NL)
GRADE COMMENTS ABOUT STATE OF ART
Repres entativi ty 5-Excel l ent The na tiona l wa ters a re compl etel y covered.
Ma i ntena nce 5-Excel l ent Repa ra tions a re ca rri ed out wi thi n a few da ys .
The da ta col l ection of phys i ca l moni tori ng i s compl etel y a utoma ted; the chemi ca l moni tori ng progra mme,
Technol ogy 4-Good
on the contra ry, rel i es on ma nua l s a mpl i ng a nd l a bora tory a na l ys i s .
Web a ppl i ca tion 5-Excel l ent
Genera l l y, s a mpl i ng l oca tions a nd pa ra meters a re contatnt over ma ny deca des , or even centuri es i n the
Themes 5-Excel l ent
ca s e of wa ter l evel moni tori ng.
There a re a few 'l ogi ca l ' pa ra meters whi ch a re not or ha rdl y mea s ured, the mos t cons pi cuous of thes e i s
Da tas ets 3-Suffi ci ent
currents .
Da ta a cqui s i tion
4-Good
frequency
There i s a s peci a l orga ni za tion for the uni formi za tion of wa ter da ta of Ri jks wa ters taa t a nd the l oca l
Da ta Standa rdi za tion 4-Good
wa ter ma na gement boa rds : www.informa tiehui s wa ter.nl .
Ava i l a bi l i ty 5-Excel l ent
Rel a tions hi ps 4-Good
Da ta i ntegra tion 4-Good
Tra ns pa rency 5-Excel l ent Mos t of the da ta a re publ i cl y a va i l a bl e on the web: http://www.ri jks wa ters taa t.nl /wa terda ta .
Na tiona l norms 5-Excel l ent
Interna tiona l norms 4-Good
Reports 5-Excel l ent Nea rl y a l l da ta a re trea ted a s Open da ta: http://www.rws .nl /rws /openda ta/ .
Frequency 5-Excel l ent
Acces s i bi l i ty 5-Excel l ent
Ri jks wa ters taa t does not fos ter publ i c pa rtici pa tion i n phys i ca l , bi ol ogi oca l or chemi ca l moni tori ng, but
Pa rtici pa tion 3-Suffi ci ent
there does not s eem to be a need for thi s .
Cf. e.g. http://wa teri nfo.rws .nl , http://www.getij.nl , http://wa terberi chtgevi ng.rws .nl ,
Foreca s ting 5-Excel l ent
http://www.va a rwegi nforma tie.nl

159
Table 5.11 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of GRUMO (DK) (made by Lærke Thorling
from GEUS in June 2018).

GRUMO (DK)
GRADE COMMENTS ABOUT STATE OF ART
The l a s t coupl e of yea rs the network ha s been devel oped to cover a l l wa ter bodi es . The eva l ua tion of thi s
Repres entativi ty 3-Suffi ci ent
work i s however not fi ni s hed a nd i t i s too s oon to s a y i f the network needs further i mprovement.
Ma i ntena nce 4-Good
However there i s a ttention to pos s i bl e i mprovement. Automa tion of col l ection of da ta on wa ter l evel s i s
Technol ogy 4-Good
i n proces .
Web a ppl i ca tion 3-Suffi ci ent
Themes 4-Good
Da tas ets 4-Good
Da ta a cqui s i tion
4-Good
frequency
Da ta Standa rdi za tion 5-Excel l ent La rge focus on thi s
Ava i l a bi l i ty 3-Suffi ci ent
Rel a tions hi ps 4-Good
Da ta i ntegra tion 3-Suffi ci ent
Tra ns pa rency 4-Good
Na tiona l norms 4-Good
Interna tiona l norms 4-Good
Reports 4-Good
Frequency 5-Excel l ent
Acces s i bi l i ty 4-Good Al l da ta a re a va i l a bl e to the publ i c s i nce they a re s tored i n the publ i c da taba s e "JUPITER"
Pa rtici pa tion 3-Suffi ci ent
Foreca s ting No foreca s ting

Table 5.12 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of NGDC (UK) (made by the author in June
2019).

NGDC (UK)
GRADE COMMENTS ABOUT STATE OF ART
Repres entativi ty 3-Suffi ci ent
Ma i ntena nce 4-Good
Technol ogy 4-Good

Web a ppl i ca tion 2-Ins uffi ci ent The da ta s ha ri ng through a web a ppl i ca tion i s not devel oped. Da ta s eri es ca nnot be downl oa ded di rectly

Themes 4-Good Ma ny i nforma tion on s evera l compl ementary thema tics

Des pi te no da ta a va i l a bl e, there i s qui te a l ot i nforma tion rega rdi ng the groundwa ter pa ra meters
Da tas ets 3-Suffi ci ent
mea s ured
Da ta a cqui s i tion
3-Suffi ci ent
frequency
Da ta Standa rdi za tion 4-Good Informa tion a bout the da ta proces s i ng i s ma de a va i l a bl e through methods reports

Ava i l a bi l i ty 2-Ins uffi ci ent Da ta a nd i nforma tion ha rd to get. Onl y pos s i bl e wa y i s by ema i l a nd mos tly the times the da ta i s cha rged

Rel a tions hi ps 4-Good

Da ta i ntegra tion 5-Excel l ent Depos i ted da ta through a s tanda rd procedure
Tra ns pa rency 4-Good Informa tion a bout the da ta proces s i ng i s ma de a va i l a bl e through methods reports
Na tiona l norms 4-Good
Wa ter qua l i ty da ta not a va i l a bl e or a cces s i bl e. Inexi s tent i nforma tion rega rdi ng the groundwa ter body
Interna tiona l norms 2-Ins uffi ci ent
s tatus
Reports 3-Suffi ci ent There a re ma ny products a nd s ervi ces a va i l a bl e, under pa yment or l i cences of us e
Frequency 1-Ba d There i s no reporting frequency a s mos t the da ta/s ervi ces a re res tri cted
Acces s i bi l i ty 1-Ba d
Pa rtici pa tion 4-Good Throught the forums
Foreca s ting 3-Suffi ci ent Onl y a va i l a bl e through contact wi th BGS

160
Table 5.13 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development of AWRIS (AU) (made by the author in
June 2019).

AWRIS (AU)
GRADE COMMENTS ABOUT STATE OF ART
Severa l networks moni tored by di fferent l oca l a genci es . Very few moni tori ng progra mmes ha ve
Repres entativi ty 3-Suffi ci ent
perma nent s tatus .
Ma i ntena nce 4-Good
Technol ogy 3-Suffi ci ent Very few a utoma ted records , very few mea s urements
Web a ppl i ca tion 4-Good
Themes 3-Suffi ci ent Ma i nl y wa ter qua l i ty a nd groundwa ter l evel s
Da tas ets 3-Suffi ci ent Equi va l ent to a s urvei l l a nce moni tori ng network (PT)
Da ta a cqui s i tion
2-Ins uffi ci ent The time s eri es a re s hort a nd s ca rce
frequency
Da ta Standa rdi za tion 4-Good Standa rd proces s es for uni formi za tion
Ava i l a bi l i ty 5-Excel l ent Free, onl i ne a cces s to wa ter i nforma tion i n one pl a ce
Rel a tions hi ps 4-Good
Da ta i ntegra tion 4-Good
Tra ns pa rency 5-Excel l ent Reports on methods a nd ori gi na l da ta a va i l a bl e from ori gi na l s ources
Na tiona l norms 5-Excel l ent Fol l owi ng Burea u's res pons i bi l i ties under the Wa ter Act 2007
Interna tiona l norms 5-Excel l ent Not a ppl i ca bl e
Reports 4-Good Dependi ng on the regi on
Frequency 4-Good Dependi ng on the regi on
Acces s i bi l i ty 5-Excel l ent Appl i ca tion i s very vers a til e i n terms of da ta pres entation
Pa rtici pa tion 3-Suffi ci ent
Foreca s ting 4-Good Ma i nl y for s trea mfl ows

In relative terms, the results from these check lists could be summarized by the grade number and
provide some sort of indicator for the entire context. For that, the grades were summed up by country
and compared in a graph, providing some indications on the relative general state of development of
the water information system (Figure 5.13).

Figure 5.13 – Classification summarized for each check list result.

161
SNIRH

In the Table 5.8 it is possible to see the results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of
development of SNIRH. Regarding the monitoring networks and data sources it could be said that the
variety of themes (categories and types of networks) are quite adjusted to the needs, or to respond
to standards of the WFD. As for the processes, data and integration, the data uniformisation and
standardization are well stablished and a great effort has been made in order to achieve levels of
excellence. SNIRH also presents high levels of adaptation to national and international norms
accomplishing greatly the demands of network structuring and monitoring. In terms of reporting and
the frequency of reporting, SNIRH also reports adequately, with bulletins and statistic summaries that
might cross several levels of understanding and types of data, as well as the frequency. Motifs of
concern could be attributed to the representativity of the networks, at least in some groundwater
bodies, and maintenance of the monitoring observation points. A strong policy must implemented of
raise efficiency by keeping a network representative and to an affordable cost-benefit solution.
Regarding the web interface, it is considered to be outdated and unresponsive, therefore an improved
interface should be developed as well. A more user-friendly interface, more practical and intuitive
would be also desirable. Also, little information on the states of the monitoring points. The
observation points have scarce information on the characteristics of the aquifer (eg. hydrogeology and
aquifer tests and hydraulic parameters). In some cases only general aquifer information and depth of
abstraction is available. As for the data and Information availability, it is considered that a bigger effort
could be made here as many failures in collecting data result in irrecoverable gaps in time series. About
the transparency, it is considered that transparency and data reliability suffered difficulties recently
due the financial and human resources cuts , which resulted in several and severe consequences on
the normal functioning of the structure, namely in regarding data collection, processing and
validation. Schmidt and Ferreira (2014) also points out that there are blockages regarding information
and public consultation and there is a lack of clarity in the origin of the data. It is also considered that
SNIRH lost some capacity to foster public participation in the last few years. The end of the institutions
due to the amendment of the Law of Water (DL 130/2012) that brought together several water
management bodies, namely the ARH, led to the deactivation of several WEB platforms and,
consequently the connection between society and politics in various sectors of the country has been
degraded.

162
Waterinfo / DINOloket

The Netherlands, according to this assessment, possesses the most advanced system from all of these
countries, which confirms the previously referred expertise and level of technology and knowledge
involved in the country water management and governance. Certainly, such a level of management
and governance must be supported by an edge-cutting structure for data and information. As the
check list was populated by the Servicedesk Data of Rijkswaterstaat a validation was made, although
by a limited direct assessment blocked by the language barrier, but also confirmed by literature and
information available in English in the Rijkswaterstaat’s webpage. A good example of the level of
advancement of this WIS is the number of observation points available, as well as a vast subsurface
information, important to share interactive hydrogeological models for the entire country and
multiple options to explore. As it is known, data and information on the structure and the properties
of the subsurface of the Netherlands is of prime importance for the sustainable use and management
of the water resources. The Geological Survey of the Netherlands – TNO systematically constructs 3D
models based on the hundreds of thousands of borehole data and cone penetration tests held in the
DINO database and decades of geological mapping experience. The models predict the geometry and
occurrence of unconsolidated sediments, such as sand, clay and peat in the subsurface. The models
can be used as a starting point for e.g. groundwater surveys and the forecast of subsidence. The
models also contribute to the insight in the geological development of the Netherlands and they are
important building blocks for further geoscientific research. For the shallow subsurface (to a depth of
500 m) the Geological Survey has developed three models: the Digital Geological Model (DGM), the
Hydrogeological Model (REGIS II – shown in the Figure 5.14) and GeoTOP. All three models are freely
available via the internet.

Netherlands also have invested in automatic stations that transmit data continuously to a central
database. This is an advance in data collection and a long-term cost-effective strategy that probably
will develop and include more parameters and become common in more countries.

In terms of organizational structure, groundwater monitoring is carried out at different administrative

levels—national, sub-national and local at well field scale. However, most data are fed into one
national database and used for status evaluation on a national basis. The Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency is responsible for the network, data interpretation and reporting. Frequencies for
quality monitoring are usually once per year and the network focuses on nutrients from agricultural
diffuse sources. Water production companies report annually on the quality of groundwater
abstracted to the Ministry of Environment and the data management is carried out by The Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency (van Geer, 2008).

163
Figure 5.14 – The Dutch DINOloket information system, depicting a cross-section of the hydrogeological model in the area of
Rotterdam (source: https://www.dinoloket.nl/en/subsurface-models, 2019).

GRUMO

As for Denmark’s GRUMO, it is noted that the general summarized punctuation resulting from the
assessment is lower than Portugal’s SNIRH. After a due validation, mainly through literature (Hansen
and Thomsen, 2017; Henriksen et al., 2015; Jørgensen and Stockmarr, 2009), it is safe to say that the
reason for the low punctuation might be the perception of the respondent (belonging to GEUS) which
probably had no reference of the other analysed WIS. According to Jørgensen and Stockmarr (2009),
Danish monitoring programme is solidly consolidated in terms of technical specifications and guidance
for ensuring consistent and homogeneous sampling and data handling throughout the country. Data
from the Danish programme are, after quality assurance procedures, automatically stored in the WIS
with free, public access. The programme has produced long time series of a high number of
parameters compared to what is done in other countries. In particular, the 20-year time series of
inorganic pollutants appear to be almost unique. The monitoring comprises a large number of
parameters, including organic compounds such as a wide range of pesticides and their metabolites,
and the network is continuously adapted to new observed contamination threats. Regarding whether
the monitoring networks are representative, in the last couple of years the network has been
developed to cover all water bodies, to be adjusted to the requirements of the Water Framework and
Groundwater Directives. The evaluation of this work is however not finished and it is too soon to say

164
if the network needs further improvement. As much as the Netherlands, groundwater modelling has
become an integral part of the monitoring programme. This effort started about two decades ago with
the purpose of improving the conceptual understanding in the groundwater-monitoring areas. With
the introduction of the national groundwater model, modelling is now also used for assessing the
quantitative status of the surface water and groundwater resources, including groundwater recharge.

Considering that 99% of the water supply comes from groundwater, the coupling with surface water
monitoring is weak as in most other countries. Recently groundwater–surface-water interactions have
been considered through the national scale hydrological modelling, but the monitoring is not yet fully
consistent with this approach. Technologically, the groundwater monitoring is presently the same of
the other countries, with respect to automated monitoring stations both for quantitative and
qualitative monitoring.

Figure 5.15 – Overview of the data viewer of the GRUMO (source: http://data.geus.dk/geusmap/, 2019)

SIA / SWMS

Regarding SIA, from Spain, initially was developed to collect all the data and information related to
water within a modern, unitary and centralized information system. Large volumes of information

165
were homogenized, integrated and processed, in a manner to set the best way to share it through the
web and to be used in a broad way, such as in analysis, monitoring and dissemination.

SIA was defined according to the principles and the integrating vision of the Water Framework
Directive, and for the case of Spain it represents a significant step forward in offering access to data
of various types that have traditionally been exploited independently by different organizations. This
way, the data can be used without duplications. The access to information by citizens was made in a
simple and timely manner, which is an essential requirement to achieve successful public
participation. Therefore, to facilitate the consultation of water information, the Spanish Ministry of
Environment publishes through this portal water data from Spain in 4 tools, each one of them adapted
to a specific use of information:

1. Geographic viewer of the SIA: Direct access to disaggregated data through a geographical
viewer with access to all information sources.
2. e-Book of Water: Structured access to information on water to facilitate a better
understanding of environmental information by those who do not have specific knowledge in
hydrology.
3. Water Indicators System: Access to aggregate data in the form of indicators that reflect, in a
few values, the most relevant aspects of water in Spain.
4. SIA Downloads: Download of raw data for analysis and advanced studies.

SIA aimed to become a reference system and therefore has been built according to strict reliability
criteria. The data sources that are incorporated are selected based on their relevance and
representativeness and are subjected to a rigorous validation and homogenization process. The
information is only published when total reliability can be guaranteed. In those cases where the same
data is available through different sources, only the most appropriate one is selected and whose
competences on this type of information are clearer. In the same way, if the data can be retrieved
directly from its source, it is integrated from its origin and not from a replication, thus avoiding the
maintenance difficulties that arise in any duplication process.

Finally, it is essential to note that SIA has not been developed based on a series of closed tools but, on
the contrary, it is being built so that it can distribute information through diverse channels, each of
them adapted to the type of user and performed query.

Lately, the implementation of the WFD required a more coordinated management among the
different competent Authorities, an information system become divided into three levels: European,

166
National and the Hydrographic Demarcation itself, which allows the efficient use of information and
its exchange between the different levels and that ensure more effective decision-making, free access
to information and public participation, within the framework of community policy.

In the latest years the Spanish WIS as described before was discontinued, giving place to a completely
different approach. The present form of water information sharing is thematic-based accessible
through the web-page of the Ministry for the Ecological Transition (MITECO). Is it organized by topics
within the Water affairs and comprehends the following sections:

1. Drought: Information and advice

2. Evaluation of the water resources
3. Management of the flood risk
4. Spanish system for water management
5. Hydrological management
6. National catalogue for hydrological reserve
7. Environmental plan for the adaptation to climate change (PIMA Adapta)
8. Mapping and GIS
9. GeoPortal: Geographic Viewers of Water
10. SEPRONA actions (Protection Services of Nature)

AWRIS

From Australia, AWRIS was analysed and the immediate idea to pass is that in the recent decade of
considerable resource investment in water information real results and a much better understanding
of rural and regional water resources had been produced, and resulted in an enhanced ability to
manage them in a sustainable way. Increased resourcing and a political commitment to serious water
reform have been important elements in progress. For the scope of this work two ongoing challenges
are noteworthy. First, data collection needs to closely reflect the current and prospective needs of
water information users. Second, there are interest groups that would prefer data to be collected at
a state level, thus reducing standardization and comparability.

The comparison of these results turn interesting to analyse when put together in one graph (Figure
5.16). In fact, when comparing SNIRH to other WIS one can realize that some areas are relatively quite
well remarked, as it is the case of the variety and types of networks, data standardization, the
implementation of National norms, the type and format of the reports and frequency of sharing the
very same reports. Nevertheless, many lessons could be learned with all of the analysed WIS, specially

167
the Danish and Dutch systems and structures, are in many forms, way more advanced than the
Portuguese WIS.

Representativity
Forecasting 5 Maintenance

Participation 4 Technology

Accessibility 3 Web application

Frequency Themes
1

0
Reports Datasets

International norms Data acquisition frequency

National norms Data standardization

Transparency Availability
Data integration Relationships

PT ES NL DK UK AU

Figure 5.16 - Results of the check list to the assessment of the stage of development for all the assessed WIS.

5.7.2 Strengths, weaknesses and future developments of the assessed WIS

The second task proposed for this sub-chapter was a compilation of the strengths, weaknesses and
future developments of each water information system. For that purpose a compilation was made
based on the previous assessment, and the results are presented in the Table 5.14.

168
Table 5.14 – Characteristics of three national web-based water data sharing systems.

Country –
System Objectives Strengths Weaknesses Future Developments
Institution
Portuguese PT - Portuguese - Store and disclose - Data harmonization processes; - Sustainability and cost- - Improvement of cost-effectiveness;
National Water Environment openly hydro- - Data sharing between institutions effectiveness; - Renovation of monitoring networks;
Resources Agency (Agência meteorological and and stakeholders; - Network Maintenance; - Update of data acquisition, harmonization and sharing processes and
Information System Portuguesa do water quality data, both - Adaptation to national and - Outdated web-portal; technologies;
(SNIRH) Ambiente) for surface and international directives; - Insufficient monitoring - Better adaptation to national and international directives.
groundwater, collected - Detection of overlapping processes network representativeness.
in the water resources
monitoring networks.
Spanish Water ES - Ministry of - Store and disclose - Information homogenization; - Discontinuity of time series - Future migration of GIS viewer to higher reliability and easier use;
Information System Agriculture, openly hydro- - Adaptation to national and in the recent years; - Improvement of cost-effectiveness;
(SIA) (…- 2017) Alimentation and meteorological and international directives; - Sustainability and cost- - Renovation of monitoring networks.
Environment water quality data, both - Water indicator system; effectiveness;
(Ministerio de for surface and - Data sharing between institutions; - Accessibility to data.
Agricultura, groundwater, collected - Automatic Hydrologic Information
Alimentación y in the water resources System
Medio Ambiente) monitoring networks.
Spanish Water ES – Ministry of - Ensure sufficient water - Information homogenization; - Discontinuity of time series - Information not available.
Management Ecologic Transition quantity and quality for - Adaptation to national and in the recent years;
System (SWMS) (Ministerio para la the effective international directives; - Sustainability and cost-
(2017-…) Transición development of the - Water indicator system; effectiveness (?);
Ecológica) society; - Data sharing between institutions; - The download of data
- Offer high levels of - Automatic Hydrologic Information download is time consuming;
security minimizing the System; - Insufficient monitoring
risk of failures in any of - Accessibility to data; network representativeness;
the components of the - Enrolment of citizens, water boards, - No forecasting tools
system; municipalities, companies and developed.
- Collaborative knowledge institutes.
construction of an
improvement of the
water governance
model.
Australian Water AU - Bureau of - Disclose the - Data supplied by over 200 - Dispersion of water data - The capacity will evolve and expand, enabling faster
Resources Meteorology availability, the rights to organizations; and information through access and more comprehensive data, reports and forecasts;
Information System take and the actual take - High data harmonization process; several applications, - To understand the user requirements;
(AWRIS) of water on a national - Integrated views of water data sets; including different GIS - Improve data accessibility and integration;
and consistent basis. - Use of cutting-edge technology for applications; - maintenance and replacement of the nationwide
all the processes and sharing - Data accessibility: monitoring networks;
applications and options; - Insufficient monitoring - Implementation of new automate technologies for data collection.
- Very innovative approach and user network representativeness;
oriented; - Sustainability and cost-
- Water forecasts; effectiveness.

169
 - Development based on the
requirements of water information
users.

National UK - British - Collects and preserves - Good level of thematic information - Data accessibility (charged - Information not available.
Geoscience Data Geological Survey geoscientific data and and educative and scientific materials £7.5 per value);
Centre (NGDC) (BGS) information, making and publications available online - Dispersion of water data
them available to a - holds a considerable quantity of and information through
wide range of users and groundwater data, including several applications,
communities. NGDC is systematic national hydrogeological including different thematic
recognised as the NERC mapping, water well records, time webpages;
Environmental Data series of groundwater levels, - GIS tool and database
Centre for geoscience groundwater quality analyses and online is poorly developed;
data. many research datasets; - Insufficient monitoring
- Long history in providing data network representativeness;
management and web delivery for - No forecasting tools
government departments, industry developed.
and academia, at national and
international levels;
- BGS currently manage the UK
Groundwater Forum website, a
discussion and educative site for
raising awareness of groundwater
Waterinfo NL – - Store and disclose - Simplicity and accessibility to data; - Datasets (parameters - Information not available.
Rijkswaterstaat openly hydro- - Information homogenization; measured) need wider
(Ministry of meteorological and - Adaptation to national and range;
Infrastructure and water quality data, both international directives; - Data received by email;
Water) for surface and - Monitoring networks very - Does not foster public
groundwater, collected representative; participation.
in the water resources - Excellent knowledge of subsurface;
monitoring networks. - Enrolment of citizens, water boards,
municipalities, companies and
knowledge institutes;
- Forecasting tools developed;
- Excellent level of reporting and
sharing.

National DK – Geological - Provide data on the - Information homogenization; - No forecasting tools - The read-only services (access without user management system)
Groundwater- Survey of Denmark quality and quantity of - Simplicity and accessibility to data; developed; will be revised due the increasing system load;
Monitoring and Greenland the groundwater; - Frequency and types of data - The measurement of - Adaptation to more cost-effective monitoring networks;
Programme - (Danmarks og - Delivering data to help collection and reporting; mostly of the parameters in - Improve network to cover all the water bodies;
GRUMO Grønlands assess and, if possible, - Good maintenance status of the monitoring wells is made - Automation of collection of data on water levels;
Geologiske document about monitoring network; manually. - Coupling with surface water monitoring;
Undersøgelse, different types of - Transparency and organization of - Improvement on the data uniformisation and standardization.
GEUS - ) information;

170
national environmental - Integration with other databases
regulation; - Data and information/reports
- Contribute to the available in English;
development of tools - Monitoring networks
for groundwater representativeness;
resources and risk - Access to data divided into packages
management. of user management.

171
172
The Table 5.14 shows that the EU countries have similar objectives, perhaps as a consequence of the
European directives acting as a driving-force for the development of the water sector, while the AWRIS
is more focused on the disclosure of water availability, rights to abstract and the actual use of water.
All of the systems seem to have good methodologies and strategies to data sharing between data-
producers and organizations, and in the case of Australia that effort is quite impressive with more
than 200 entities involved, partially explained by the large dimension of this country. The same
happens to the standardization and harmonization of processes and data, and the use of technology
with emphasis to the automation on data collecting and processing. For the case of Portugal it can be
stated that a good adaptation to the EU directives was made. Also the case of Spain, which system
shows a good level of data integration, from various types and sources, including GIS, data series,
socio-economic data, administrative data and others, that are accessible in a relatively direct and
intuitive way, promoting not only the easier and faster understanding of data but also values of trust
and transparency. The evolution from SIA to SWMS seems to bring up more strengths but also more
weaknesses, namely related to the methods of downloading (point-to-point) and with the loss of
representative monitoring networks.

The level of knowledge and know-how of the UK is also to be highlighted, nevertheless the fact that
the data and information has to be paid is a very significant drawback, and creates an important
barrier to the dissemination of information and data. On the contrary, the Netherlands and Denmark
expose in an exemplar way the available information through very intuitive and user-friendly
interfaces, and from easy accesses (links, menus, icons, etc). The GIS technology is being used in an
intelligent way and in a very educative way as well, specially in the case of Netherlands, where models
could be seen, interpreted, downloaded and are being constantly upgraded, as more information is
collected and processed.

In terms of weaknesses, in fact, judging by these data-sharing WIS, the problem of the sustainability
and cost-effectiveness is the most important problem observed along with the monitoring network
maintenance. SNIRH, as previously stated, observed a gradual degradation of the networks due recent
financial cuts, but in countries like Spain and Australia the same problems were documented and
observed. The main reasons appointed are the substantial costs of constructing, operating and
maintaining the networks, and also because another substantial number of observation points
become obsolete due to aging. AWRIS presents also problems of data dispersion that may lead the
user to feel a bit confused. Nowadays, according to information gathered on the AWRIS website, new
capacities to evolve, expand and enable faster access and more comprehensive data, reports and
forecasts are being developed.

173
5.8 Conclusions and lessons learned

From a conceptual perspective of water resources applications of GIS, and specifically the ones that
are web-based, it can be also concluded that water resources assessments and management activities
are inherently geographical, requiring the handling of multiple forms of spatial data. GIS and
simulation models (for example, for meteorological data) have contributed to the identification and
evaluation of potential solutions to water resource problems during the past two decades. GIS have
expanded the number of ways information can be presented and thereby extended their accessibility,
and many of the most popular spatially distributed data sets can now be accessed via the Internet.
Similarly, there has been a steady increase in the number and variety of functions incorporated in GIS
that are suited to water resource applications. Similarly, the technology associated with GIS has played
a major role in the development of distributed hydrologic and hydrogeological models as well as in
integrated management models. These models offer the best chance for improving our understanding
of spatial processes and patterns affecting the distribution and movement of water through the
various means as well as the impact of land use on water resources over the long term.

Transparency and thrust were also improved with the development of these systems fostering a wider
public awareness, participation and discussion. This leads to a better knowledge of the local
specificities, issues and necessities in order to improve water policies and management. There is an
apparent general problem with the sustainability-efficiency of the monitoring networks, main data
providers for the systems. It is considered that better and modern technology has to be applied on
the operation of these networks, as well as automation processes to reduce the expenses with data
collecting and processing.

Regarding the data processing and integration it is considered that the level of integration could be
improved. For example, the integration of reports and important data related to well design and
construction, that are nowadays difficult to access, could be a major plus for several areas of
application, namely the scientific community, management bodies and political forces, just to mention
a few. It would be the most desirable to make a significant inventory of all the paper and digital reports
located in several archives of the regional administrations, that many times are lost or located in
unknown places (due poor cataloguing). This would allow to create a database, with important local
and regional data, that would serve 1) as a free complementary information for the improvement of
knowledge on the aquifer systems, and 2) as a complementary information to make available in SNIRH.
Surely, the confidential data as the owner name and related information would be easily overcome

174
by making available only information of hydrogeological nature. Nevertheless, it is considered that the
conservation and organization of this existing and free information would be an added value for the
improvement of groundwater management and policies. Thus, and in order to optimize the database
for this purpose, would be necessary to design and develop a specific database for hydrogeological
data and information, which includes 2D and 3D information.

In the case of SNIRH, investment in monitoring networks is paramount, which will undergo an
optimization and enhancement of quality and quantity network stations, for the assessment of, for
example, the status of the water bodies, the achievement of environmental goals, improved inventory
of pressures and optimization of emission control. The comparison made with other national systems
shows that SNIRH is following the same line of other European countries, slightly different from other
references as it is the case of Australia, in matters of water management. Regarding SNIRH, it is
considered that there is much room for improvement, namely on the data integration, modelling and
forecasting, which is the last level of sophistication in a system of this type.

According to Horne (2015), the Australian experience suggests nine lessons for other countries, that
it is highly regarded for this analysis:

1. Upgrading a nation’s water information systems is a long-term task, but an important one in
a world of climate change and increased climate variability. Substantial progress is likely to
take five to 10 years to materialize. In the current political landscape anywhere in the world,
this is a long time, so attention needs to be given continuously to the purpose of the exercise,
and the benefits from it. As there is a tendency to forget the original baseline (particularly as
crises dissipate), attention needs to be given to reiterating the value proposition, and ensuring
that data collected covers issues relevant to users and in a form that is readily accessible to
them.
2. The process of upgrading is likely to require substantial new resources. This underscores the
need to examine the case to continue existing data series as well as introduce new ones, and
to take opportunities to lower collection and regulatory costs.
3. Effective data series tend to be long ones, so each series should reflect a careful initial
consultation and development process. From the outset, upgrading information systems
needs to be focused on data series that will facilitate answering key policy questions, assist
water users in making significant decisions more effectively, or equip businesses and
government to better address risks from water-related events.

175
4. As always, political support matters. Politicians generally have little sustained interest in these
issues, so drawing out the key “good news” stories, and the benefits to users and the economy
and environment will be vital to sustain the reform process.
5. Developing large new information systems involving large IT systems is fraught with high
project risk, which will require careful project management. The IT skill base and the skill base
of the water professionals managing and delivering the new water information system will be
critical in transforming it. Developing new tools often goes hand in hand with data collection
and data dissemination to users. Understanding the user group and its needs, and the optimal
way to make the data base easily accessible to that group, will play a critical factor in delivering
the project.
6. New information may radically alter the way both groundwater and surface water resources
are viewed. New technology is resulting in radically new approaches becoming cost effective.
Flexibility and, on occasion, risk taking will be required to ensure that new approaches can be
introduced into information collections. New approaches require good governance
arrangements, particularly if several levels of government are involved.
7. Any new national data collection and dissemination exercise will require new approaches and
relationships between water information managers and users.
8. Information collection and dissemination should be put in the hands of bodies that can best
produce the required products. Entrenched interests are very likely to argue why a new
approach should not be followed, as new information may be detrimental to their interests.
Their case should be given no more or less weight; each new series needs to be fully justified
on its own merits.
9. The success or failure of an information system will in part be determined by how it is used.
For many users, their acceptance will be based around such factors as the ability of the system
to enhance analysis and understand risk, reduce transaction costs, and boost business
viability. At a policy level, for governments, the yardstick for acceptance is somewhat
different: it is more that governments and public sector managers can develop policy based
on a good understanding of the country or region’s water resources. How it is used depends
on the judgments and decisions of the decision-making body.

176
6 Information System Success Model

6.1 The Delone and McLean information system success model

There is a quite vast research on information systems (IS) success which includes variables as user
satisfaction, task-technology fit, user involvement and participation (Doll and Torkzadeh, 1988;
Galletta and Lederer, 1989; Igbaria and Nachman, 1990). However, diverse research addressed
different characteristics of IS success, making comparisons difficult. In order to integrate concepts and
findings, as well as to organize and introduce taxonomy based on the extensive literature on the topic,
DeLone and McLean (1992) presented their IS Success Model. The three levels of information by
Shannon and Weaver (1949) integrated with Mason’s expansion of the effectiveness or influence level
(Mason 1978), were the base for the definition of six distinct dimensions of the original DeLone and
McLean’s IS success (1992): system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual
impact, and organizational impact. Their research supports the idea that the various success measures
fall mainly into these six major interrelated and interdependent categories they present. The match
between information quality and system quality seems to have a strong and positive impact on
performance if is observed that the end-user feels satisfaction and uses the system (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1 – Original DeLone and McLean IS Success Model (1992).

Even if this model reveals some weaknesses (Hu, 2003; Petter et al., 2008) quickly become one of the
dominant evaluation frameworks in IS research, in part due to its comprehensibility, simplicity (Urbach
et al. 2009b) and adaptability. In fact, the 1992 article of DeLone and McLean was found to be the
single-most heavily cited article in the IS literature (Lowry et al. 2007). The model’s principal

177
constituents and their relations have been investigated and tested in a broad variety of settings (Petter
et al. 2008; Urbach et al. 2009b). Many researchers have attempted to extend, simplify or specify the
original model, most probably because of the author’s call for further development and validation of
their model, which simultaneously caused an increased number of contributions in the form of
research, papers and citations (Urbach & Mueller, 2011). Some of this research concludes that the
DeLone and McLean IS Success Model is incomplete and it is suggested that more dimensions should
be included in the model to improve the outputs in more complex cases. Other authors present
alternative success models (e.g. Ballantine et al., 1996; Seddon, 1997; Seddon and Kiew, 1994) in an
attempt to adapt it to specific cases. But other authors need to simplify the model, for different
reasons and depending on the object of study, so that they can extract the best results of it (DeLone
& McLean, 2003; Levy et al., 2011). On the other hand, other authors focus on the application and
validation of the model (Rai et al. 2002) to different areas and subjects and evaluate its applicability.

Pitt et al. (1995) observed that the D&M IS success model did not include a measure of IS service
quality. These authors believe that a IS service quality measure is necessary, and should be
emphasised that system quality, information quality and service quality altogether have a positive
impact on IS use and user satisfaction.

Following the string of events and based on the evaluation of the multiple contributions to its
improvement, DeLone and McLean proposed an updated IS success model in 2003 to reflect and
integrate some of the empirical work investigating the model’s propositions as well as to consider the
measurement challenges of the growing e-commerce world (DeLone & McLean, 2003) (Figure 6.2). A
recent meta-study has shown that this updated version of the model has not only received great
appreciation in the IS community, too, but that most of its propositions explaining the success of an
IS are actually supported (Urbach & Mueller, 2011; Petter et al., 2008).

Figure 6.2 – Updated D&M IS Success Model (DeLone & McLean 2003)

178
Some of the main differences between the original and the updated model include the following
(Urbach & Mueller, 2011):

1. The addition of the Service Quality dimension to reflect the importance of service and support
in successful e-commerce systems;
2. The addition of the Intention to Use dimension to measure user attitude as an alternative
measure of use;
3. The collapsing of Individual Impact and Organizational Impact into a more parsimonious Net
Benefits construct.

This way, the updated model is based on six interrelated dimensions of IS success, and they are the
Information, System, and Service Quality; Use; User Satisfaction; and Net Benefits.

Looking at its constructs and the relations between them, the model can be interpreted as a system
that is evaluated in terms of information, system, and service quality. These characteristics are going
to affect subsequent use or intention to use and user satisfaction. Certain benefits will be achieved by
using the system. The net benefits will influence in a positive or negative way the user satisfaction and
the further use of the IS.

On the next section it is presented a more detailed view on these dimensions and the constructs and
measures interrelated between them.

6.1.1 Constructs and Measures

In the following paragraphs the different success dimensions of the DeLone and McLean IS Success
Model are presented in more detail. An exemplary selection of validated measures is provided to
serve as a base for future applications of the model (Urback & Mueller, 2011). While such a list
certainly cannot be a comprehensive account of measures, the studies cited should provide a first
overview and a good starting point for a more context-specific search of the literature.

6.1.1.1 System Quality

179
The System Quality is the success dimension that focus on the desirable characteristics that an
Information System should have. The measures of this dimension typically pays attention to aspects
related to usability, methods, technology and performance characteristics of the system under
examination. Examples of system quality measures are the functionality, reliability (DeLone & McLean,
2003) accessibility (Gable et al., 2008; McKinney et al., 2002), ease of learning (Gable et al., 2008;
Sedera and Gable, 2004b), efficiency, flexibility (Bailey & Pearson, 1983; DeLone & McLean 2003;
Gable et al., 2008), response time (Hamilton & Chervany, 1981; Iivari, 2005) and sophistication (Gable
et al., 2008; Sedera & Gable, 2004b), just to mention a few. A more comprehensive list of examples
can be consulted on Urback and Mueller (2011) although many other additional measures have been
proposed throughout the literature and research to capture the role of the system quality.

6.1.1.2 Information Quality

The Information Quality is the success dimension that focus on the desirable characteristics of an
Information System’s output. The measures of this dimension are typically associated with aspects
like accuracy (DeLone & McLean, 2003; Gable et al., 2008; Iivari, 2005), completeness (DeLone &
McLean, 2003; Bailey & Pearson, 1983), relevance (DeLone & McLean 2003; McKinney et al., 2002),
consistency (DeLone & McLean, 2003; Iivari 2005), availability (Sedera & Gable, 2004b; Gable et al.,
2008), and many other measures, that can be consulted on Urback and Mueller, 2011.

6.1.1.3 Service Quality

This construct is an enhancement of the updated D&M IS Success Model that was not part of the
original model. The Service Quality is the success dimension that focus mainly on services of the
Information System’s function. DeLone and McLean argues that commonly used measures of IS
effectiveness focus on the products rather than the services of the IS function. There is a risk that IS
researchers will misinterpret IS effectiveness if they do not include in their assessment package a
measure of IS service quality. This instrument uses the dimensions of tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy to measure service quality but, each of these quality
dimensions will have different weights depending upon the level of analysis. The authors claim that
measuring the success of a single system, "information quality" or "system quality" may be the most
important quality component. But for measuring the overall success of the IS department, as opposed

180
to individual systems, "service quality" may become the most important variable. Throughout the
years other measurement items were proposed and they include assurance (Pitt et al., 1995),
Interpersonal quality, IS training and Intrinsic quality (Chang & King, 2005), between many others.

6.1.1.4 Use (Intention to Use)

The success dimension use (Intention to Use) represents how the IS is utilized by the users and to what
extent. Measuring the usage of an IS is a broad concept that can be considered from several
perspectives. Previous research was made more accurately on the use by capturing the connect time,
the functions utilized, or the frequency of use (Urback & Mueller, 2011). As the amount of time a
system is used is apparently not a sufficient success measure, other studies applied subjective
measures by questioning users about their perceived use of a system (DeLone, 1988). Due to
difficulties in interpreting the dimension use, DeLone and McLean suggest intention to use as an
alternative measure to use for some contexts. Some measures include nature of use, navigation
patterns and number of site visits (DeLone & McLean, 2003) but other typical measurements can be
consulted on the paper of Urback and Mueller (2011).

6.1.1.5 User Satisfaction

The success dimension user satisfaction constitutes the user’s level of satisfaction when utilizing an
IS. Measuring user satisfaction becomes especially useful, when the use of an IS is mandatory or when
there is no alternative, and when the amount of use is not an appropriate indicator of systems success.
It is considered as one of the most important measures of IS success.

Some of the most used instruments to measure user satisfaction are the ones developed by Ives et al.
(1983) and Doll et al. (2004). However, these instruments also contain items of system, information,
and service quality, rather than only measuring user satisfaction (Urback and Mueller, 2011). Some
examples of user satisfaction measures are overall satisfaction (Almutairi & Subramanian, 2005; Gable
et al., 2008; Rai et al., 2002; Seddon & Yip, 1992; Seddon & Kiew, 1994), system satisfaction,
information satisfaction and enjoyment (Gable et al. 2008).

181
6.1.1.6 Net Benefits

Net benefits are the most important success measures as they capture the balance of positive and
negative impacts of application/system on the users of every kind (customers, employees,
organizations, industries, economies and societies) (DeLone & McLean, 2003). As the example given
by the authors, within the e-commerce environment, the impact of a Web site design on customer
purchases cannot be fully understood without an evaluation of the usability of the Web site and the
relevance for purchasing decisions of the information that is provided to the prospective purchaser.
The definition of what impact should be measured depends on the system under evaluation, having
into account as well as the purpose of the study and the level of analysis (Urback & Mueller, 2011).
Some researchers also argue that benefits in terms of numeric costs are not possible because of
intangible system impacts and intervening environmental variables so, most of the studies applying
the DeLone and McLean IS Success Model measure the benefits of utilizing an IS on the individual and
organizational levels. Examples of measurement items of net benefits are enhancement of internal
operations (Almutairi & Subramanian, 2005; Sabherwal, 1999), increased capacity (Gable et al., 2008;
Sedera & Gable, 2004b), improved decision making (Almutairi & Subramanian, 2005) and quality
improvement (Sabherwal, 1999).

6.1.2 Challenges and difficulties

There are several criticisms towards the model although they do not reduce its importance. The model
continues being object of refinement and adaptation to other different settings, and although DeLone
and McLean have published this updated version (2003) they encourage other researchers to develop
the model further and help continue its evolution.

The updated DeLone and McLean IS Success Model presents four main challenges, which are
presented as follows:

1) Difficulties identified on the application of the updated DeLone and McLean IS Success Model was
the definition of the Net Benefit measure in the model, considered to be conceptually too broad to
describe. As DeLone and McLean (2004) themselves suggests “The new net benefits construct
immediately raises three issues that must be addressed: what qualifies as a benefit?; for whom?; and
at what level of analysis”. Therefore, when Net Benefits are to be measured the researchers need to
clearly specify the targeted stakeholders and the context in which the model is applied.

182
2) Another challenge identified is related to the model limitation that only identify the dependent
variables (outcome measures) of IS success. As DeLone and McLean (1992) stated “The selection of IS
success measures should also consider the contingency variable such as the independent variable
being researched”. This means that variables like organizational strategy, structure, size, and
environment of the organization being studied, the technology being employed, and the task and
individual characteristics of the system under investigation are not assessed on the IS Success model.

3) In 2008, a conjunctive effort of Petter, DeLone and McLean was published (Petter et al., 2008). This
work aimed to make a qualitative review of 90 out of 180 papers found in the literature for the period
of 1992-2007 using the six dimensions of D&M IS Success Model. On that paper is presented a
summary of the measures applied to the evaluation of IS success and an examination of the
relationships that comprise the D&M IS success model in both individual and organizational contexts,
without restrictions on type of information system or a specific use context. One of the findings on
this research was that various measures of success could be classified using one or more dimensions
of the D&M IS Success model. Despite being considered a strength of the model many studies could
not be conducted due the use of general effectiveness measures applied in multiple dimensions
(Sedera et al., 2004). Dimensions like user satisfaction is often misanalysed and its relationship with
the other dimensions neglected (Petter et al, 2008).

4) Petter et al. (2008) reported that difficulties were experienced on measuring and understanding
system use. The relationship between each dimension and use is lower than associations with any
other model dimension; that is, system quality and use has less support than system quality and user
satisfaction and system quality and net benefits. For this reason, system use is a success construct that
is often criticized and/or even ignored (Petter et al, 2008).

6.2 Assessment and measurement of SNIRH’s success based on a respecification of

the updated Delone & McLean model (2003)

6.2.1 Background

The application of the DeLone & McLean IS Success models (1992, 2003) has been widespread in
literature giving space to the proliferation of developed works on several areas of the information
systems. Despite of it there is an evident scarcity of research on the IS Success in areas such as web-
based Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the context of groundwater, or even in the broader

183
topic of water governance. To bridge this gap some literature review has been done in order to absorb
important aspects on related research areas. This task was the first step towards researching on a
web-based GIS Success model and hypothesis in the context of groundwater governance.

A satisfactory research on web-based GIS in the context of e-commerce was conducted by Garrity et
al. (2005) by drawing an integrated study using DeLone and McLean Model focused on User
Satisfaction in the context of a consumer purchasing decision. In the organizational context,
Eldrandaly et al (2015) conducted a research on the measurement of GIS success consisting on a model
with two main levels: GIS project diffusion success, and GIS post-implementation success.

Although User Satisfaction was frequently used to assess the success of a system narrowing it to a
functional purpose, dimensions like Net Benefits were not object of much development (Bernroider,
2008). Such problem is evident on the areas of eGovernment where the perception of different levels
of users is vital and more sophisticated measures focused on value perceptions are needed (Keeney,
1999; Teo et al, 2008; Wang, 2008).

Wang and Liao (2008) provided the first empirical test of an adaptation of DeLone and McLean’s IS
success model in the context of e-government. This research provided several important implications
for e-government research and practice as well as limitations to be addressed in future studies. One
of the first examples of the incorporation of net benefits measures focused on the effectiveness of
governance systems along DeLone and McLean’s updated IS success model is the study by Bernroider
(2008), having into account measures related to decision making, costs, improved capabilities and
time issues, among others.

Based on DeLone and McLean IS Success Model with a specific focus on effectiveness, Jafari et al.
(2011) proposed new determinants of e-governance success and a citizen-centric e-governance
success model. Later on, a study by Danila and Abdullah (2014) investigates citizens’ intentions and
usage of e-government services and introduces a framework that combines different models to
examine which factors constrain the system use. In fact, some research is published after Petter at
al.’s (2012) call for action on the development of IS success measures to reflect the present difficulty
on measuring users interactions with web-based systems by capturing subjective and intangible
benefits based on social, economic and utilitarian values. Scott et al. (2015) focuses their research on
the value perceived by citizens and adopts the theoretically based framework grounded Public Value
theory (Moore, 1995) to reinforce the DeLone and McLean IS Success Model. This way the authors
incorporate both the functional and transactional uses of the web-based systems and also the
participative, collaborative activities of online communities. Other authors followed the same

184
approach using the Public Value Theory to provide a perspective for evaluating e-government success
(eg. Sterrenberg & Keating, 2016).

The measurement of success is further complicated as users of an IS system will often have different
attitudes regarding success depending on the specific usage context (Teo et al., 2008). Petter et al.
(2012) note that in the current ‘Customer-Focused’ era the ability to personalise and customise the
user experience of Internet-based systems leads to varying perceptions of value among user groups
and individuals. Accounting for this variation is critical as not only may one stakeholder group view
the system as a success while others may view it as a failure, but the functionality used by one user
may vary considerably to that experienced by others (Myers, 1994; Bartis & Mitev, 2008). Therefore,
it must be present that the results and interpretation of the assessment to any information system
success model are always limited and not fully contemplative. The dimension measures of the model
should represent as best as possible not only the system success characteristics but also the user
expectations. For the present case, on the assessment of SNIRH’s success, it is clearly difficult to range
all the type of users (and uses) of the system, requiring necessarily a closer evaluation throughout, for
example, the categorization of users. Having these considerations into account, the following section
proposes a modified DeLone and McLean model to assess web-based Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) success, in the context of Groundwater Governance.

6.2.2 The refinement of DeLone and McLean IS success model towards measuring web-based
GIS success in the context of groundwater governance

The proposed model aims at the application and adaptation of the updated Delone and Mclean IS
Success model (2003) to measure web-based GIS systems success in the context of groundwater
governance. In order to establish the best adaptation of the model to the context, the following
considerations were made:

1. Service quality is not included on the proposed model. Originally, this success dimension
represents the quality of the support that the users receive from the IS department and IT
support personnel, such as, for example, training, hotline, or helpdesk. Therefore, for the
present context this dimension is not considered to be an important quality measure of a
system (e.g. Seddon 1997).
2. The success dimension Use/Intention to Use represents the degree and manner in which an
information system is utilized by its users. Originally, the definition of usage of an IS is a broad

185
 concept that can be interpreted from different perspectives, depending on the case (e.g.,
voluntary use or mandatory use) (Urbach & Mueller, 2011). Thus, due to the characteristics of
using a web-based GIS in the context of groundwater governance, it is proposed to use the
dimension System Use (Utility and Suitability) as a way to define the measurement in terms
of reporting/appropriateness, accessibility, public participation and society (Franz & Robey,
1986; Worrall, 1994; Nedovic-Budic, 1999; Eldrandaly et al., 2015).
3. Can be challenging for the researcher to clearly and accurately define the context in which net
benefit are to be measured. Different stakeholders may have different opinions as to what
constitutes a benefit to them (Seddon, 1999). Since the focus of this study is on measuring a
web-based GIS success from users’ perspective, net benefit refers to the user-perceived net
benefit assessment toward using a specific context (Wang and Liao, 2008), in this case web-
based GIS in groundwater governance. Users (as taxpayers) may feel that they are not getting
proper benefit for their money, or they would like to see a better benefit in terms of cost/time
savings, or through decision making processes. Therefore, Perceived Net Benefit seems to be
an important success measure of web-based GIS in groundwater governance, with focus on
the evaluation criteria at the level of understanding, efficiency and effectiveness (Nedovic-
Budic, 1999; Wang & Liao, 2008; Eldrandaly et al., 2015).
4. To reflect the cross-sectional nature of the context (Eldrandaly et al., 2015) and because it is
assumed that, for this case, the Perceived Net Benefits are dependent on the User Satisfaction
and System Use, the feedback links from Perceived Net Benefits to both System Use and User
Satisfaction in the updated DeLone and McLean model (2003) were excluded. To avoid
complexity and because the User Satisfaction is dependent on the System Use it is assumed
that there is no feedback link between User Satisfaction to System Use.

Therefore, the dimensions considered for the proposed model, based on the updated DeLone and
McLean model (2003) are System Quality, Information Quality, System Use (Utility and Suitability),
User Satisfaction and Perceived Net Benefits, as shown in the Figure 6.3. The arrows between success
dimensions represent the temporal (process) and causal relationships. The measures of the system
success dimensions are discussed on the following section.

186
Figure 6.3 - Respecified DeLone & McLean model to assess web-based Geographic Information Systems success, in the context
of Groundwater Governance.

6.2.2.1 Model Construct and hypothesis

The model proposed for this case is based on previous research on GIS and e-Governance systems and
is adapted to the context of Groundwater governance. The measures for each success dimension that
constitute the model are defined on the Table 6.1.

Information Quality: this dimension measures the quality of information provided to the users, related
to groundwater, in the form of raw and processed monitoring data, maps, tables, charts, reports and
other types of provided information. The information quality dimension is measured by completeness,
relevance, timeliness, reliability and scale (Doll & Torkzadeh, 1988; Clapp et al., 1989; Wang & Liao,
2008; Brown, 1996; Nedovic-Budic, 1999; Aldaijy, 2004; Obermeyer & Pinto, 2008; Eldrandaly et al.,
2015).

System Quality: system quality dimension measures the success of the technical aspects of the web-
based geographic information system. Research was made in many other contexts of GIS and many
aspects were used to characterize the system quality. For the present context, the system quality was
measured by response time, operability and ease of use (Ives et al., 1983; Doll & Torkzadeh, 1988;
Clapp et al., 1989; Huxhold et al., 1995; Campbell et al., 1995; Nedovic-Budic, 1999; Roldan & Leal,
2003; Aldaijy, 2004; Witkowski et al., 2007; Obermeyer & Pinto, 2008; Nedovic-Budic et al., 2008).

System Use (Utility and Suitability): system use is a broad construct that is frequently used in
measuring the utilization of the information system. In the context of a web-based geographic
information system in groundwater governance, the utility and the suitability to provide adequate and
consistent data, for every kind of users, from the technical and non-technical point of view, to foster
public participation and values of transparency, trust and comparability of data and information is

187
relevant to measure system use by reporting/appropriateness, accessibility, public participation and
society. Some of these measures were also successfully explored in recent research in the field (Franz
& Robey, 1986; Worrall, 1994; Nedovic-Budic, 1999; Eldrandaly et al., 2015).

User Satisfaction: This dimension measures the level of global satisfaction of using the information
system. Since the first Delone and McLean model (1992) that this dimension is considered to assess
the success of a system. Later on, some instruments previously developed in order to measure user
satisfaction were employed, namely the End User Computing Support (EUCS) (Doll & Torkzadeh, 1988)
instrument and the most widely used multi-attribute User Information Satisfaction (UIS) (Ives et al.,
1983). However, these instruments contain items related to the dimensions system quality,
information quality and service quality, rather than focus measure on the overall user satisfaction with
the system (Petter et al., 2008). For this reason, parsimony has been applied and some researchers
simplified the various quality dimensions of either instruments into a single item to measure global
satisfaction with an information system (Rai et al., 2002) or use a semantic differential scale (Seddon
& Yip, 1992). Furthermore, according to some authors (Bergkvist, 2014; Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007;
Diamantopoulos et al., 2014) a 1-measure questionnaire for one dimension can be as effective as a
multi-measure. Momentum seems to be growing for the use of such parsimony contributing to time
and cost benefits, as well as reduction of respondent fatigue. For these reasons, in this research the
user satisfaction was measured by one single measure: the overall satisfaction item.

Perceived Net Benefits: There are various methods available to measure net benefits at both the
individual and organizational level of assessment. The most common measure at the individual level
is the perceived usefulness or job impact. Segars & Grover (1993) used job performance and
effectiveness to measure a separate construct called effectiveness. The three-factor construct
composed by perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and effectiveness, results in a relatively
strong fit (Petter et al., 2008). Later on, Torkzadeh & Doll (1999) have created an instrument to
measure different aspects of impact – task productivity, task innovation, customer satisfaction, and
management control. In this case, was considered that task productivity and efficiency are important
features for the users as well as the effectiveness.

The measurement items selected for the constructs were mainly adapted from previous studies to
ensure content validity. Based on the measurement items presented in the Table, and according to
the corresponding studies each item was adapted to specifically reference web-based GIS in the
Groundwater Governance context. The web-based GIS assessed was SNIRH (Portuguese National
Water Resources Information System).

188
Table 6.1 - Measures of the model constructs

Success Evaluation
Measurement Items Code References
Dimension Criteria
Ives et al. (1983), Doll & Torkzadeh
Response Time The data is provided quickly SQ1 (1988), Clapp et al. (1989), Huxhold et al.
(1995), Campbell et al. (1995), Nedovic-
System
Budic (1999), Roldan & Leal (2003),
Quality Operability The methods used to provide data are adequate SQ2 Aldaijy (2004), Witkowski et al. (2007),
Obermeyer & Pinto (2008), Nedovic-
Ease of use The IS is user-friendly and easy to learn SQ3 Budic et al. (2008)
Completeness The data provided is sufficient and consistent IQ1
Relevance The data meet your needs IQ2

Timeliness The IS provides updated data IQ3

Doll & Torkzadeh (1988), Clapp et al.
Reliability The IS provides reliable data IQ4 (1989), Wang & Liao (2008), Brown
Information
(1996), Nedovic-Budic (1999), Aldaijy
Quality (2004), Obermeyer & Pinto (2008),
Eldrandaly et al. (2015)

The data is adjusted and adequate to the aquifer

Scale IQ5
scale

Reporting /
The type and frequency of reporting is adequate U1
Appropriateness

The data is accessible to different kind and levels

Accessibility U2
of users and stakeholders
System Use Franz & Robey (1986), Worrall (1994),
(Utility and Nedovic-Budic (1999), Eldrandaly et al.
Suitability) Public (2015)
Participation / The IS is used to foster public participation U3
Society

The IS improves transparency, trust and

Society U4
comparability of data and information

Seddon & Yip (1992), Rai et al. (2002),

User Overall Jarupathirun & Zahedi (2003), Almutairi
Global satisfaction GS1
Satisfaction Satisfaction & Subramanian (2005), Gable et al.
(2008), Eldrandaly et al. (2015)
The IS enhances a better understanding of the
Understanding NB1
problems
Perceived Net The IS provides improvement and execution of Nedovic-Budic (1999), Wang & Liao
Efficiency NB2
Benefits work (2008), Eldrandaly et al. (2015)
The IS contributes to reducing risk in the decision
Effectiveness NB3
making process

As DeLone & McLean (2003) mention, the information system success is a multidimensional and
interdependent construct. Therefore it is necessary to study the interrelationships among those
dimensions and how they control each other. Thus, the information system success model
categorically needs further development and validation before it could serve as a basis for the
selection of appropriate IS measure. Hence, the proposed model suggests the following seven
hypothesis:

189
H1: Information Quality will positively affect System Use in web-based GIS in the Groundwater
Governance context;
H2: Information Quality will positively affect User Satisfaction in web-based GIS in the Groundwater
Governance context;
H3: System Quality will positively affect System Use in web-based GIS in the Groundwater Governance
context;
H4: System Quality will positively affect User Satisfaction in web-based GIS in the Groundwater
Governance context;
H5: System Use will positively affect User Satisfaction in web-based GIS in the Groundwater
Governance context;
H6: System Use will positively affect Perceived Net Benefits in web-based GIS in the Groundwater
Governance context;
H7: User Satisfaction will positively affect Perceived Net Benefits in web-based GIS in the Groundwater
Governance context.

6.3 Research Design – Questionnaire, Data Collection and Statistics

In order to collect data to test and validate the proposed model a questionnaire was prepared and
sent to SNIRH users on the context of groundwater. The questionnaire was divided in four categories,
related to the success dimensions of the model constructs, namely System Quality, Information
Quality, Global Satisfaction, Usefulness and Suitability (in the model as System Use), and Benefits (in
the model as Perceived Net Benefits). The questions are directly linked to the measurement Items of
the Table 6.1. This questionnaire also included a few questions about the background characteristics
of the respondents and a free text comment/suggestion field in case the respondent feels he/she
should write some constructive ideas or suggestions. The organization by dimension and questions is
explicit on the Table 6.2. Characteristics like gender, age, level of education, level of experience with
SNIRH and professional activity were registered. The respondents’ name and the belonging
company/institution were not registered though, with the objective to make each respondent
completely anonymous and unfearful of any possible reaction to their answers or exposure.

The answers were provided using a Likert scale. Likert scale is a psychometric scale that is commonly
involved in research employing questionnaires. It is the most widely used approach to scaling
responses in survey research. When responding to a Likert question, respondents specify their level
of agreement or disagreement on a symmetric agree-disagree scale for a series of statements. Thus,

190
the range captures the intensity of their feelings for a given question. Likert scaling assumes distances
between each level of agreement or disagreement are equal. Likert scales can be unipolar and bipolar.
The unipolar scales are more contoured, allowing users to measure one single feature, mostly the
times generating more accurate answers. An example of a unipolar Likert scale is related to
Satisfaction, where the respondent could have the following options: not at all satisfied, slightly
satisfied, moderately satisfied, very satisfied, and completely satisfied. The bipolar scales indicates a
respondent to balance two different qualities, defining the relative proportion of those qualities.
Where a unipolar scale has one "pole," a bipolar scale has two polar opposites (Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction). For example, a common bipolar scale includes the following options: completely
dissatisfied, mostly dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, mostly satisfied, and completely
satisfied. That is a scale with a Neutral proportion in the middle (option “neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied”).

For the dimensions System Quality, Information Quality, System Use (Utility and Suitability) and
Perceived Net Benefits the scale used was a bipolar 5 point Likert scale (1 - 5) ranging from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree”:

1. Strongly disagree
2. Partially disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Partially agree
5. Strongly agree

Added to the Likert scale is a Null point (“I don’t know”), representing the inability of the respondent
to answer the questions. This Null point filters the respondents familiarized with the studied object
from the ones that are not familiarized with the object. Two more reasons to include this point are:

a) give respondents the chance to answer in the most possible honest way;
b) it is assumed that an absent of knowledge does not necessarily means a non-partial opinion
(“I don’t agree neither disagree” in the 3 point Likert scale).

For the User Satisfaction dimension the respondents were provided a bipolar five-point Likert Scale,
ranging from “totally dissatisfied” to “totally satisfied” in order to better characterize their level of
general satisfaction:

1. Totally dissatisfied
2. Dissatisfied
3. Indifferent

191
 4. Satisfied
5. Totally satisfied

This scale is equivalent to the previous Likert scale for any statistical purposes. So when the
respondents choose their level of agreement or satisfaction upon the situation or question, what is
registered is the corresponding number to the answers from the 5-point Likert scale. For example,
when a respondent chooses as answer “Partially disagree” then the number 2 is registered for that
answer.

Table 6.2 - Questions of the online questionnaire for the assessment of SNIRH success

Dimension Questions Scale

Gender Male , Female

Age <21 , 21-30 , 31-40 , 41-50 , >51

User High school , Bachelor’s or Master’s

Education level
characterization degree , PhD

Student , Private Sector , Public

Professional activity
Institution , Education/Research
None, Little experience, Some
What is your level of experience using SNIRH? experience, Good experience, Much
experience

The data/information available in SNIRH is provided quickly

System Quality 5 point Likert Scale + Null option*

The methods used to provide the data are adequate

SNIRH is user-friendly and easy to learn

The data provided is sufficient and consistent
The data meet your needs

The IS provides updated data

Information The IS provides reliable data

5 point Likert Scale + Null option*
Quality

The data is adjusted and adequate to the aquifer scale

The type and frequency of reporting is adequate

System Use
The data is accessible to different kind and levels of users and
(Utility and 5 point Likert Scale + Null option*
stakeholders
Suitability)

The IS is used to foster public participation

192
 The IS improves transparency, trust and comparability of data and
information

User Satisfaction Overall, to what extent are you satisfied with SNIRH? 5 point Likert Scale**

The IS enhances a better understanding of the problems

Perceived Net
The IS provides improvement and execution of work 5 point Likert Scale + Null option*
Benefits
The IS contributes to reducing risk in the decision making process
Comments Comments / Suggestions Not Applicable
* The 5 point Likert Scale + Null option is the following scale, on this order: 0. I don’t know; 1. Strongly
disagree; 2. Partially disagree; 3. Neither agree nor disagree; 4. Partially agree; 5. Strongly agree

** The 5 point Likert Scale is the following scale, on this order: 1. Totally dissatisfied; 2. Dissatisfied; 3.
Indifferent; 4. Satisfied; 5. Totally satisfied

Each question assesses not only a particular criteria of each dimension as it also provides individual
information of certain aspects regarding the characteristics of the respondents. This data is later
analysed by means of Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA).

Before the questionnaire become published some interviews with hydrogeology specialists and
experienced users/developers of water information systems were conducted in order to follow up a
testing of the measures and to subsequently validate the measurement items. The specialists
interviewed belong to institutions such as Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (National
Laboratory of Civil Engineering, LNEC) and Instituto Superior Técnico (University of Lisbon, IST-UL).
After this validation some questions were improved or adjusted following up the suggestions collected
on the interviews. Must be noted once again that the targeted respondents are users and stakeholders
who potentially use groundwater data and information available in SNIRH.

The questionnaire was then built on the Google Docs online application in a way to be very
comprehensive and user-friendly, with the aim of not taking more than 3-5 minutes to be answered
(Figure 6.4). The online publishing date was April 20th of 2017, and was promoted nationally
throughout the main Portuguese stakeholders on the subject and clearly related to groundwater,
namely Associação Portuguesa dos Recursos Hídricos (Portuguese Association of the Water Resourses,
APRH), Portuguese Group of the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH-PT), Agência
Portuguesa do Ambiente (Portuguese Environment Agency, APA), Parceria Portuguesa para a Água
(Portuguese Water Partnership, PPA) and Portuguese Universities that include public and private
sectors, educational and research institutions, as well as scientific and economic organizations of
substantial importance.

193
This way, the application was available online during two months, between April 20th and June 20th
of 2017, period that was considered to collect answers from the notified users and stakeholders.
Despite setting the deadline to June 20th the last registered answer was June 2nd of 2017.

Figure 6.4 - Print screen of the questionnaire made available online, via Google Docs
(https://goo.gl/forms/qBEx5Nras2SWV9cb).

Throughout the time the questionnaire was available online, 122 answers were received. Respondents
with more than 30% of null answers - the “I don’t know” answer - were rejected from the sample. This
way, 111 answers were considered for the study after filtering the null answers. In order to proceed
with the analysis, the remaining 111 answers were now transformed into a 5-point scale, converting
each null answer into a neutral answer of the 5-point Likert scale.

The sample is then representing 91% of the original sample which is considered to be a good number
given the specificity of the study. Detailed descriptive statistics regarding the characteristics of the
respondents are shown in the Table 6.3. These statistical data indicates that there is a good sample
distribution in terms of gender, age and users activity. Nevertheless could be emphasised the biggest
slice of answers related to people from the education/research sector (30.3%), and on the other hand,
the smallest slice belonging to the private sector (15.6%). Here would be desirable to have a better
response from the latter. In terms of education, the great majority (95.5%) of the respondents are at
least graduated which clearly indicates that the targeted population to answer the questionnaire

194
behold high education level. Regarding the targeted experience level of users it is satisfactory to
realize that almost 75% of the respondents have at least some experience with SNIRH.

195
Table 6.3 - Characteristics of the questionnaire respondents

Characteristics Number Percentage

Female 59 53.2%
Gender
Male 52 46.8%

21-30 32 28.8%
31-40 21 18.9%
Age
41-50 28 25.2%
>51 30 27%

Undergraduate 5 4.5%

Education Graduate/M.Sc 74 66.7%

PhD. 32 28.8%

Student 30 27.5%

Private Sector 17 15.6%

Activity Public Sector 29 26.6%

Education/Research 33 30.3%

No answer 2 1.8%

Little 18 16.2%

Some 47 42.3%
Experience
Good 25 22.5%

Very Good 21 18.9%

Below on the Figure 6.5, is a graph with the number of answers in each option of the Likert scale by
measured item. From this perspective can be said that the option “1 - Strongly disagree/Totally
dissatisfied” has little representation on the results. The data shows that for the measured items the
representativeness of that option is between 1% and 17%. The measured items with the biggest
expression on disagreeing are IQ1 and IQ3, regarding completeness of data (The data provided is
sufficient and consistent) and timeliness (The IS provides updated data) respectively. The same two

196
measurement items are also the measures with more answers with the option “2 – Partially
disagree/Dissatisfied“, representing about 34% of all the answers for those measures. According to
this sample and to the moment the questionnaire was answered, this might mean that the dimension
Information Quality faces serious challenges in terms of completeness and timeliness of the
data/information available on SNIRH.

The items SQ1 (Response time), SQ2 (Operability), SQ3 (Ease of use), IQ2 (Relevance), IQ5 (Scale), U1
(Reporting/Appropriateness), U2 (Accessibility) also show that the sum of the options “1 - Strongly
disagree/Totally dissatisfied” and “2 – Partially disagree/Dissatisfied” are above 20 answers out of 111.
Although they are not as significant as for the aforementioned measures (IQ1 and IQ3)), this sum of
disagreeing answers can represent up to 31%, as for the case of U1 (Reporting/Appropriateness).

Another phenomenon that could be described from this sample is the large percentage of answers
with option “3 - Neither agree nor disagree” for the measured items IQ5 and U1, representing 40%
and 31% respectively. For IQ5, this means that the users might not be totally aware of what is the
scale (of the aquifer) or they didn’t quite understand the question or, that they don’t have a solid
opinion for this criteria. The same happens to U1, where the evaluation criteria were the type of
reporting and its appropriateness. On the other hand, one could think of an indifferent reaction to a
question that they do not consider to be important or relevant. Nevertheless, can surely be said that
the respondent’s answers about the scale and reporting/appropriateness of the data is generally
smooth and probably due to a phenomenon of unfamiliarity with the usual data requirements for the
several applications.

Regarding the positive answers of the Likert scale, namely options “4 - Partially agree/Satisfied” and
“5 - Strongly agree/Totally satisfied” there are some measured items with quite favourable answers.
This is the case of SQ1 (Response time), SQ2 (Operability), SQ3 (Ease of use), IQ2 (Relevance), IQ4
(Reliability), U2 (Accessibility), U3 (Public participation/Society), U4 (Society), NB1 (Understanding),
NB2 (Efficiency), NB3 (Effectiveness) and GS (Overall satisfaction). The highlights goes for IQ4 which
measures the reliability of the data and information provided by SNIRH and NB1 that evaluates the
perceived net benefit of SNIRH to provide a better understanding of the problems to be solved. The
two options alone (4 and 5) gathered 78% of the answers on the item IQ4 and 82% for NB1. The
measured item GS sums 63% of answers with 4 points, while the answers with 5 points are only
represented by 5%. This might mean that despite the good levels of agreement on most items the
general satisfaction is attenuated by some item yet to be identified, which has probably a greater
weight in the respondents’ satisfaction. That fact is seen on the lowest percentage of the option “5 -
Strongly agree/Totally satisfied” for the GS item, of only 5%. On the other hand, the item that presents

197
the highest number of answers with “5 - Strongly agree/Totally satisfied” is NB1 with 44%. Generally
speaking, from the observation of the Figure 6.5 could be said that the success dimension Perceived
Net Benefits gathers the most favourable answers. And on the contrary, the success dimension
Information Quality gathers the most unfavourable answers.

Figure 6.5 – Answers to the questionnaire by measured item

A box plot with the data from the 111 answers to the questionnaire is presented on the following
graph (Figure 6.6). The y-axis is the Likert scale and the x-axis are the questions, identified by the code
readable on the Table 6.1. At this point, the box plots can advance already some information regarding
the general trends on some measurement items. In a first analysis, and considering the intervals Q1-
Q3 of the plots, could be said that Users tend to disagree on the items SQ3, IQ1, IQ2, IQ3 and U1. So
the users tend to disagree on “SNIRH is user-friendly and easy to learn”, “The data provided is
sufficient and consistent”, “The data meet your needs”, “The IS provides updated data” and “The type
and frequency of reporting is adequate”. It seems therefore, according to this data that the dimension
that gathers more discontentment is related to Information Quality, namely on the completeness,
relevance and timeliness of the data/information available on SNIRH. The following aspects that the
users tend to disagree are related to the ease of use of the System Quality dimension, and related to
reporting/appropriateness of the System Use dimension.

The users tend to agree on the items U3, U4 and NB3, and tend to strongly agree on the items IQ4 and
NB1. In a tendential manner positive opinions are given to the items “The IS is used to foster public
participation” regarding public participation/society, “The IS improves transparency, trust and

198
comparability of data and information” linked to the relation of SNIRH to society, and “The IS
contributes to reducing risk in the decision making process” regarding the evaluation criteria of
effectiveness. The items that raised higher levels of agreement were the items “The data is adjusted
and adequate to the aquifer scale” regarding the scale criteria, and the item “The IS enhances a better
understanding of the problems” regarding the benefit of understanding and problem-solving criteria.
The descriptive statistics of the questionnaire data is on the Table 6.4.

0
SQ1 SQ2 SQ3 IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ5 U1 U2 U3 U4 NB1 NB2 NB3 GS
Mean Minimum/Maximum

Figure 6.6 - Box plots of the questionnaire data

From the Table 6.4 below it is possible to confirm the statistical values of the box plots. Quartiles are
useful, but they are also somewhat limited because they do not take into account every score in the
group of data. To get a more representative idea of spread we need to take into account the actual
values of each score in a data set. The variance and standard deviation are such measures. As a
measure of variability, the variance is useful. If the answers in our dataset are spread out then the
variance will be a large number. In opposition, if the dataset are spread closely around the mean, the
variance will be a smaller number. In this case, the variance is confirmed to be higher to the items SQ3
of the System Quality dimension and IQ1, IQ2 and IQ3 of Information Quality. This means that these
dimensions are probably the ones that raise more controversy and divergent opinions. These
observations are corroborated by the standard deviation, even if this measured is more often used in
conjunction with the mean to summarise continuous data.

199
Table 6.4 - Descriptive statistics (Quantitative data) of the questionnaire data

Dimension Item 1st Quartile Median 3rd Quartile Mean Variance (n- Standard deviation (n-1)
1)
SQ1 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.66 1.06 1.03
System Quality SQ2 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 1.07 1.03
SQ3 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.60 1.51 1.23
IQ1 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.04 1.45 1.21
IQ2 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.41 1.43 1.19
Information
IQ3 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.74 1.50 1.23
Quality
IQ4 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.03 0.77 0.88
IQ5 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.14 1.00 1.00
U1 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.06 1.13 1.06
U2 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.45 1.05 1.02
System Use
U3 3.00 4.00 5.00 3.62 1.35 1.16
U4 3.00 4.00 5.00 3.86 1.12 1.06
Global GS 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.52 0.78 0.88
Satisfaction
NB1 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.14 1.02 1.01
Perceived Net
NB2 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.86 0.83 0.91
Benefit
NB3 3.00 4.00 4.50 3.87 0.91 0.95

The questionnaire finishes with a free-text comment field in which the user can freely express himself
about any matter concerning SNIRH within the groundwater context. On this field is given the
respondent the chance to highlight any aspect or characteristic that was not contemplated on the
questionnaire. This could be made in a form of a critic, a suggestion, a review, a note or simply a call
of attention. Nevertheless, one has to be aware that working with this kind of qualitative data does
not usually involve a theory or a definitive method, and is thus different from the hypothesis testing
model that goes with quantitative research. However, this field and answers are particularly important
because it carries the potential to elaborate responses to closed questions, allow respondents to
identify new issues not captured in the closed questions or even to increase response rates. In the
context of this study it is expected to collect comments, in a customized way that could give a personal
view regarding the users’ perspective of SNIRH as a system and as database and its utility. This may
serve also the purpose of having future research clues, particularly identifying new variables or new
dimensions of existing variables.

Alternatively, may be possible also to do some analysis of outliers. In this case, the idea is to use the
quantitative analysis to identify respondents who do not fit the overall results, and then determine if
they contributed any qualitative responses that would indicate why they are different.

A total of 22 respondents wrote comments on this field which means that about 20% of the
respondents commented on the free-text field. This rate is not considered to be a representative
sample though. Nevertheless, those who choose to answer the free-text comment could be different

200
from respondents overall, either being more articulate or having a greater interest in the
questionnaire topic. Therefore, it is important to consider and report on who has made written
comments so that bias can be considered. From the 22 answers all were considered valid and used for
the present analysis. As the amount of comments was not large enough to justify an automated
algorithm to process the answers, these were categorized and analysed manually.

So the methodology applied to analyse these comments was quite straight forward. For each
comment were identified the most palpable themes. This procedure lead to cataloguing all the themes
raised by the respondents and to group them into categories. So categories were created based on
the themes. The number of times each theme was mentioned is also accountable. And the variability
of the answers was quite good. Some respondents registered short comments which included only
one theme, and in other cases, some short comments ranged several themes. Long comments tend
to cover more themes, but never more than four in this case.

The Table 6.5 lists the categories and themes identified on the free-text comments of the
questionnaire. On the Figure 6.7 is presented a graph with the number of comments on each theme.
The catalogued categories based on the identified themes are Financing, Interface, Data/Information,
Transparency and Society, and Improvement. The first four categories tend to be towards criticism
and revision of any related aspects. The category Improvement englobes suggestions and ideas to
improve the information system SNIRH.

On the category Financing, some respondents appointed the ‘lack of financing’ one of the major
problems of SNIRH that, consequently affected several aspects related to one the main function of
this information system: the generation, processing and sharing of data and information.

The themes raised within the category Data/Information, as it is going to be presented, are closely
linked to the lack of financing. These themes are ‘Discontinued maintenance of monitoring networks’,
‘Insufficient/unsuitable data’, ‘Limited timeliness of data updates’, ‘Degradation of data’, and ‘Existing
data not available’. Some of the most mentioned problems related to data and information are framed
on the first three themes of this category. Furthermore, the apparent matter of biggest concern of the
respondents is without a doubt related to the category Data/Information. This category alone carries
about 44% of the total comments. The weight respondents gave to this matter only proves the
importance they give to this category, as a source of data and information on groundwater. Not only
the quantity of data but also the quality are aspects highlighted on these comments. It is believed that
the frequency and continuity of the data series are dramatic events to any user, and this case is not
different. In general, the frequency on which the data is collected defines quantity, as well as the
continuity of data series to ensure, between many other reasons, a statistical significance of the data.

201
For many users, whether related to management a long data series is essential for a valid and solid
analysis. Of course that the spatial representativeness and number of observation points within a
groundwater body are also important variables to have into account. If, for some reason, the
availability and continuity of data is interrupted then both quantity and quality of a data series are
going to be degraded severely.

An example of the linkage made by some of the respondents between the financing and the problems
inherent to data/information is the comment “Due to the lack of funding and the consequent non-
maintenance of monitoring networks, in recent years there has been a deterioration of the system,
both on the interface for data availability (slower, with more errors), and in terms of quality and
quantity (complete temporal sequences) of the data”. Another example of this approach is the
following comment saying that “SNIRH’s funding appears to be inadequate and its development has
been erratic and inconsistent”. In truth, these comments introduces the idea that the data collecting
has been affected by financing, which cuts not only the monitoring networks maintenance but the
data collecting as well. And when this happens, the quantity and quality beholds a random and useless
character. Furthermore, could be said that even if the frequency would be limited consistency is
certainly required.

The category Interface also showed that the respondents are sensitive to the matters of technology,
accessibility and download methods of data and information. They recognized that the interface is
outdated and needs intervention for the modernization of the web portal: “SNIRH is quite outdated,
both its database and the site's template”. Even if the respondent admits that “the information is
there, the extraction methods (csv, xls, kmz) are weak and insufficient. The platform is also not easy
to use“. And that comment certainly fits on the themes ‘Limited capacity on data download’ and
‘Outdated and unsuitable interface’. In fact, the theme that raised biggest concern within the Interface
category was the latter, as it is reported here, “SNIRH could have a more user-friendly interface in the
monitoring data collection part because a date range is often requested and the search has to be
repeated due the differences between the wide range of data and the values that can be exported.”
Therefore, based on comments of this type could be said that the improvement of the interface is
urgent, namely in the section where the data is searchable and exportable. Should be “more
interactive and more uncomplicated” just like a respondent claims. This situation eventually lead the
users to feel that there is a limited capacity of the website to provide the data in the best conditions
as well as a limited capacity to make the users comfortable while using the website. The interactivity
was not an expected new coming variable but it indeed does present a new idea. The idea of
interactivity where it is valued the “possibility of reporting errors, if identified or send suggestions”.

202
There is the feeling that more value should be given to SNIRH. Quoting a respondent “This is a system
of major importance and needs more investment”. Without investment the system will outage due to
lack of maintenance funds, degradation of data/information and eventually collapse. Consequently,
loses its value and importance to society. The importance to society might be also associated to values
such as awareness, information, safety, responsiveness to emergency situations, effectiveness, trust
and engagement. So, certainly some respondents had that kind of background in mind when they
commented about transparency and society. The lack of transparency is also related to “sudden and
unjustified changes” which lead the user to question the reasons for such anomalies on the service.
These apparent irregularities may diminish the user’s trust on the service and limit his will in using the
data/information. It seems that a justified and clear explanation of the changes would make the
respondents more aware of what is on stake. An apparent state of uncertainty may take the
respondent to step back in terms of confidence on the data and its use.

The improvement category is an interesting part of the comments as they may create new variables
of research. This may focus on aspects that require improvement and development in order to update
the information system quality, usage and consequent benefit to society in general. The themes
identified on the answers were ‘Integration of SNIRH with other data plataforms’, ‘Enrolment with
third parties and stakeholders on the data collecting process’, ‘Adapt type of information per user’,
‘Optimize monitoring networks’, ‘Publish more studies and analysis reports’. The most contemplated
was the one related to the optimization of the monitoring networks. It is perceived by the respondents
that an improvement on this field would help to keep a tight but steady network, based on fewer
monitoring points but, simultaneously, keeping its integrity and continuity. This is not only important
to reduce the expenses of maintenance of such networks but also, and maybe more importantly, to
keep strategic monitoring points with already long data series recording and collecting data. The
continuity of data series is seen here as a major issue, “otherwise the available information will lose
its informative content and therefore interest”. One should realize that “each time a monitoring point
is replaced by another by some minor reason (possibly allegedly innovative), it will necessarily take a
long time until the information acquired by that new point can be used. That is by all means a double
loss of information - at the old and new monitoring points”. Adapting the type of information visible
to each type of user profile is a suggestion made to improve the reading depending on the limitations
of each user. This would help to cover other type of users that do not hold an advanced level of
understanding in the field of groundwater. Helping the society in general to understand the data and
information provided on SNIRH might raise levels of trust and awareness within the population. For
that matter, possibly a way to improve that section is to publish more reports and complete studies
in a more accessible language. The integration of SNIRH with other data platforms “managed by the

203
same organism” be a way of a respondent to induce the need to have more integrated information
regarding licensing or other environmental data. Another aspect raised on this category was the
enrolment with third parties and stakeholders on the data collecting process. The argument on this
comment was not clear though.

Table 6.5 – Categories and themes identified on the free-text comments of the questionnaire

Category Themes Comments

Financing Lack of financing 4
Limited capacity on data download 3
Limited accessibility to data/information 1
Interface
Outdated and unsuitable interface 6
Limited interactivity 2
Discontinued maintenance of monitoring networks 6
Insufficient/unsuitable data 6
Data/Information Limited timeliness of data updates 6
Degradation of data 3
Existing data not available 1
Transparency and Lack of transparency on processes 1
Society Lack of importance given to SNIRH 2
Integration of SNIRH with other data platforms 1
Enrolment with third parties and stakeholders on the data 1
collecting process
Improvement
Adapt type of information per user 2
Optimize monitoring networks 3
Publish more studies and analysis reports 2

204
Figure 6.7 – Number of comments for each theme identified on the free-text comments of the questionnaire

The following chapters will introduce the methodology for the analysis of the questionnaire results
and the assessment of SNIRH performance based on the application of the respecified DeLone &
McLean model.

6.4 Analysis and Results

6.4.1 Methodology

One of the challenges of this study was to assess the model fit and turn empirical findings and
hypothesis into quantifiable measures. In order to obtain quantifiable results from the empirical
respecified DeLone & McLean model, presented before and aimed at assessing web-based Water
Information Systems Success, in the context of Groundwater Governance, a Structural Equation Model
was applied. Hence, to resume this analysis, some steps had to be taken. The Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) was applied as a confirmatory technique and for exploratory purposes. SEM allowed

205
quantifying relationships among variables and the process encompasses a confirmatory stage and a
structural model.

A major component of the confirmatory stage is the test to the reliability of the observed variables, in
this case, the measurement items of the questionnaire. Therefore, like commonly is applied, the
examination of the extent of interrelationships and covariation (or lack thereof) among the constructs
was made. As part of the process, factor loadings, unique variances, and modification indexes (should
a variable be dropped or a path added) were estimated to derive the best indicators of variables prior
to testing a structural model.

The structural model comprises the other component in SEM. The structural model displays the
interrelations among constructs and observable variables in the proposed model as a succession of
structural equations (Schreiber et al, 2010). In other words, SEM allowed to test theoretical
propositions regarding how constructs are theoretically linked and the directionality of significant
relationships between the proposed dimensions/measures to assess SNIRH success.

To support the analysis, a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) was applied on the questionnaire
results in order to map and visually observe the relationships between the measurement
items/dimensions and the characteristics of the questionnaire respondents.

6.4.2 Structural Equation Modeling

6.4.2.1 General Characteristics

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a statistical methodology used in many scientific fields, namely
social, behavioural, and educational scientists as well as biologists, economists and marketing. Its
extensive use is mainly due the capacity of SEM to provide researchers with a comprehensive method
for the quantification and testing of substantive theories. Another major characteristics of SEM are
that it takes into account measurement error that is pervasive in most fields, and typically contain
latent variables. Latent variables are theoretical or hypothetical constructs that can be viewed as
variables that do not have observed realizations in a sample from a focused population.

The measurement of behaviour (observed variables) is usually carried out using pertinent
instrumentation, for example tests, scales, self-reports, inventories, or questionnaires like this study
uses. Once studied constructs have been assessed, SEM can be used to quantify and test plausibility

206
of hypothetical assertions about potential interrelationships among the constructs as well as their
relationships to measures assessing them.

Due to the mathematical complexities of estimating and testing these relationships and assertions,
computer software is a must in applications of SEM. To date, numerous programs are available for
conducting SEM analyses, from which EQS (Bentler, 2004) and LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2017) are
just a few examples.

The following points are some general characteristics of structural equation models (Raykov &
Marcoulides, 2006).

1) The models are usually conceived in terms of not directly measurable, and possibly not
(very) well-defined, theoretical or hypothetical constructs. For instance, attitudes, goals,
motivation and performance can be considered representative of such constructs.
2) The models usually take into account potential errors of measurement in all observed
variables, in particular in the independent (predictor, explanatory) variables. This is achieved
by including an error term for each fallible measure, whether it is an explanatory or
predicted variable. The variances of the error terms are, in general, parameters that are
estimated when a model is fit to data. Tests of hypotheses about them can also be carried
out when they represent substantively meaningful assertions about error variables or their
relationships to other parameters.
3) The models are usually fit to matrices of interrelationship indices, as the covariance or
correlation matrices, between all pairs of observed variables, and sometimes also to variable
means.

In the classical approaches, typical models are fit to raw data and no error of measurement in the
independent variables is assumed. In SEM, the chi-square difference test is used to examine the
plausibility of model parameter restrictions, for example equality of factor loadings, factor or error
variances, or factor variances and covariances across groups.

There are a few types of commonly used structural equation models: 1) Path analysis models and 2)
Confirmatory factor analysis models. The former models are usually conceived of only in terms of
observed variables. The latter models are frequently employed to examine patterns of
interrelationships among several latent constructs, using observable variables.

Using the SEM framework, one can easily fit structural models constructed within the path analysis
approach. The basic idea of path analysis is similar to solving a system of equations obtained when
setting the elements of the sample covariance matrix S equal to their counterpart elements of the

207
model reproduced covariance matrix S(γ), where γ denotes the model parameter vector. In fact, this
approach can be viewed as a special case of structural equation models. One can consider any path
analysis model as resulting from a corresponding structural equation model that assumes (Raykov &
Marcoulides, 2006):

i. explanatory relationships between its variables;

ii. the independent variables to be associated with no error of measurement;
iii. all variables to be measured by single indicators with unitary loadings on them.

6.4.2.2 Suitability of SEM

Structural equation models can be used to represent observed data about phenomena studied in
practical cases, as it is the assessment of a web-based Geographic Information Systems success,
namely the SNIRH. The models are usually, and should best be, based on proposed theories that
describe and explain the features under research. The proposed theory for the explanation of SNIRH
success is exposed on the constructs and measures applied on the respecified DeLone & McLean
model, in the context of Groundwater Governance.

Typically, the statistical model is based on the existing knowledge of the related theory, on empirical
research in the area of study, or some combination of both. Once the model is specified, its plausibility
is tested based on sample data that comprise all the variables in the model.

As the proposed model only needed observable variables (over the use of latent variables), the
structural equation model applied to this study was the path analysis model. With their unique feature
of explicitly modeling measurement error, this model provides an attractive means for examining the
studied feature. Once the theory had been developed about the web-based Geographic Information
Systems success, the theory could be tested against empirical data using SEM. The data that was used
on the testing of the present study was the processed data from the questionnaire. This process of
testing is often called confirmatory stage of SEM applications. Because it is highly unlikely that a
perfect fit will be achieved between the observed data and the hypothesized model, there will be
necessarily a discrepancy between the two, called residual. This model-fitting process can thus be
summarized as:

Data = Model + Residual

where:

208
Data represent the measurements related to the observed variables as derived from persons
comprising the sample

Model represents the hypothesized structure linking the observed variables to one another

Residual represents the discrepancy between the hypothesized model and the observed data

Consequently, the general strategy is to generate a structural equation model to represent the case
that, after postulating and rejecting a theoretically derived model on the basis of its poor fit to the
observed data, will proceed to an explanatory analysis to modify and reestimate the model.

In addition to this model is the handling of measurement errors, that SEM also enables a readily
development, estimation, and testing complex multivariable models, as well as to study both direct
and indirect effects of variables involved in the given model. Direct effects are the effects that go
directly from one variable to another variable. Indirect effects are the effects between two variables
that are mediated by one or more intervening variables that are often referred to as a mediating
variable(s) or mediator(s). The combination of direct and indirect effects makes up the total effect of
an explanatory variable on a dependent variable. The standard errors are also obtained for purposes
of studying the indirect effects. Therefore, having into account the proposed model for the assessment
of web-based Geographic Information Systems success, and specifically for SNIRH, is possible to
quantify the effects of dimensions such as Information Quality and System Quality on the Perceived
Net Benefits.

The key elements of essentially all structural equation models are their parameters. Parameter is a
generic term referring to a characteristic of a population, such as mean or variance on a given variable,
which are essential elements of the statistical models used in empirical research. They reflect
unknown aspects of a studied phenomenon and are estimated by fitting the model to sampled data
using particular optimality criteria, numeric routines, and specific software. The parameters are
estimated from the sample covariance matrix and observed variable means, using specialized
software, such as LISREL 9.3 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2017).

In order to display the structural equation model a diagram of it was drawn, referred to as path
diagram, using predefined graphical notation. A path diagram is a form of graphical representation of
a model under consideration. Such a diagram is equivalent to a set of equations defining a model (in
addition to distributional and related assumptions), and is typically used as an alternative way of
presenting a model pictorially. Path diagrams not only enhance the understanding of the structural
equation model and its communication among researchers with various backgrounds, but also

209
substantially contribute to the creation of correct command files to fit and test the model with
specialized programs.

Finally, to properly conceptualize a proposed structural model, there is another important distinction
between variables that had to be made: the differentiation between dependent and independent
variables. Dependent variables are those that receive at least one path (one-way arrow) from another
variable in the model. Hence, when an entertained model is represented as a set of equations (with
pertinent distributional and related assumptions), each dependent variable will appear in the left-
hand side of an equation. Independent variables are variables that emanate paths (one-way arrows),
but never receive a path; that is, no independent variable will appear in the left-hand side of an
equation, in that system of model equations. A dependent variable also may act as an independent
variable with respect to another variable, but this does not change its dependent-variable status. As
long as there is at least one path (one-way arrow) ending at the variable, it is a dependent variable no
matter how many other variables in the model are explained by it.

For more details and more descriptive literature, one should consult authors as Byrne (1998), Raykov
& Marcoulides (2006) and Hooper et al. (2008).

6.4.3 Application of SEM to the proposed model

6.4.3.1 Reliability Analysis

A major component of the confirmatory stage of the proposed SEM is the test to the reliability of the
observed variables, which for this case are the measurement items of the developed questionnaire.
In a way to assess the data reliability, some reliability tests were executed. Reliability is a measure for
the inter-correlations among tests items. Refers to the consistency or stability of the questionnaire
results and fewer errors lead to a higher level of reliability.

The examination of the extent of interrelationships and covariation (or lack thereof) among the
constructs was made. The questionnaire reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, that will
generally increase as the inter-correlations among test items increase, known as an internal
consistency estimate of reliability of test results. Thus, this coefficient considers each item equally
weighted. Many authors commonly accepted that a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient exceeding 0.7
represents as the recommendable threshold for the internal consistency (George & Mallery, 2003;
Hair et al., 2006). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the following constructs of the model are

210
displayed on the Table 6.6. The Cronbach’s Alpha for Information Quality, System Quality and
Perceived Bet Benefits are higher than the recommendable thresholds, ranging from 0.773 to 0.865
but the alpha coefficient for System Use is questionable (0.640). Nevertheless, a summary of a
reliability test for all the items results on a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.881. There is no calculated alpha for
the construct User Satisfaction because the dimension is measured by a single item (global
satisfaction).

Table 6.6 - Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis

Construct (Cronbach’s Alpha) Items Item-total correlations

IQ1 0.665
IQ2 0.672
Information Quality (0.785) IQ3 0.567
IQ4 0.437
IQ5 0.476
SQ1 0.517
System Quality (0.773) SQ2 0.660
SQ3 0.666
U1 0.400
U2 0.527
System Use (0.640)
U3 0.276
U4 0.504
NB1 0.701
Perceived Net Benefits (0.865) NB2 0.817
NB3 0.719

This analysis also reveals how strongly each item in the scale is associated with the overall scale, to
check if any item in the set of tests is inconsistent with the averaged behaviour of the others, and thus
to be discarded. This is called item-total correlations. The analysis is performed to purify the measure
by eliminating dispensable items prior to determining the factors that represent the construct, that is,
the meaning of the averaged measure. In a reliable measure, all items should correlate well with the
average of the others. A small item-correlation provides empirical evidence that the item is not

211
measuring the same construct measured by the other items included. A correlation value less than 0.2
or 0.3 indicates that the corresponding item does not correlate very well with the scale overall and,
thus, it may be dropped. For this case, the item U3 (“The IS is used to foster public participation”)
presents an item-total correlation of 0.276 which means that the item is not measuring exactly the
same construct as the other items. This may be the reason why alpha coefficient for System Use is
lower than the other constructs. Even though, this item was not dropped because its value is still
above 0.2 and represents an item of interest for the construct System Use. All the other items seems
to have a similar behaviour to the other items of the construct.

6.4.3.2 Structural Model

As mentioned before, SEM has been used for exploratory purposes but is more of a confirmatory
technique based on factor analysis (theory driven) and multiple regression (Ullman, 2001). In other
words, SEM allows quantifying relationships among variables and the process encompasses a
confirmatory stage (Reliability test) and a structural model. The structural model displays the
interrelations among constructs and observable variables in the proposed model as a succession of
structural equations —akin to running several regression equations (Schreiber et al, 2010). This way,
it is possible to test theoretical propositions, how constructs are theoretically linked and, the
directionality of significant relationships between the proposed dimensions/measures to assess SNIRH
success.

The model of interest in this study is presented in Figure 6.8. The path analysis included the following
steps:

1) Define the model equations relating measured dimensions, which on this case indicate the
directional paths according to the Figure 6.8;
2) The improvement of correlations among the dimensions;
3) Solve the resulting system of equations by using LISREL;
4) Examine the outputs and fit indexes in order to establish if the model is acceptable.

Therefore, to resume the model analysis and turn empirical findings and hypothesis into quantifiable
measures, a structural model was developed using LISREL 9.30 Student Edition (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
2017).

To demonstrate the path analysis model the path diagram for the present research is considered,
which is based on the application of the respecified DeLone and McLean model, in the context of

212
Groundwater Governance (Figure 6.8). The rectangles represent the Observed Variables and
respective model dimensions, whilst the arrows represent the unidirectional paths. The research
hypothesis, identified by H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6 and H7 are positioned by the corresponding
unidirectional paths.

System Quality H3 (γ3)

System Use (U)
H6 (γ6)
(SQ)
H4 (γ4)
Perceived Net
H5 (γ5)
Benefits (NB)
H1 (γ1)
Information Global H7 (γ7)
Quality (IQ) H2 (γ2) Satisfaction (GS)

Figure 6.8 - Path Diagram with research hypothesis (H1-H4).

The independent variables defined to the proposed model are the dimensions Information Quality
and System Quality. The dependent variables are the dimensions System Use, Global Satisfaction and
Perceived Net Benefits.

Hence, in terms of equations, the following relationships are simultaneously postulated:

U = γ3SQ + γ1IQ + EU

GS = γ4SQ + γ2IQ + γ5U + EGS

NB = γ6U + γ7GS + ENB

where γ1 to γ7 are parameters of main interest – partial regression coefficients, also called path
coefficients. These coefficients reflect the predictive power/weight of the particular independent
variables as System Quality and Information Quality on the other dependent variables that assess
generally interrelated aspects of SNIRH’s success. Furthermore, the variables EU, EGS and ENB represent
residuals of the model equations, which as indicated earlier may contain measurement error in
addition to all influences on the pertinent dependent variables over and above those captured by a
linear combination of their presumed predictors.

Thus, in order to study the relationships between the model dimensions we could proceed to examine
the path coefficient of the structural model and corresponding residuals (errors) associated to the
variables. Path coefficients are standardized versions of linear regression weights which can be used
in examining the possible causal linkage between statistical variables

213
To examine the path coefficient of the structural model one must look for the outputs of the structural
equations. This is also called the Path Analysis, which is an approach to modelling explanatory
relationships between observed variables and is a form of graphical representation of the model. Such
a diagram is equivalent to a set of equations defining the model (in addition to distributional and
related assumptions), and is typically used as an alternative way of presenting a model pictorially.

The parameters used for the path analysis were estimated from the sample correlation matrix,
standard deviations and observed variable means, using the software LISREL 9.3 (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
2017).

To verify the results the following SIMPLIS command file was run in LISREL:

Observed Variables: SQ IQ U GS NB
Correlation Matrix from File Correlations.dat
Standard Deviations from File Correlations.dat
Sample Size = 111
Relationships:
U = SQ
U = IQ
GS = SQ
GS = IQ
GS = U
NB = U
NB = GS
Path Diagram
Number of decimals = 5
End of Problem

The correlation matrix of all the variables (measurement items) is displayed in the Table 6.7. The
correlation matrix used in the path analysis had into account the variable means and the model
dimensions. The derived correlation matrix for the model dimensions is presented in the Table 6.8,
and was calculated from the variable means of the matrix for the measurement items. The correlation
matrix and corresponding standard deviations were used on the path analysis as an input file for the
model executed on LISREL.

214
Table 6.7 - Correlation matrix for the data by measurement item

SQ1 SQ2 SQ3 IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ5 U1 U2 U3 U4 GS1 NB1 NB2 NB3
SQ1 1
SQ2 0.378 1
SQ3 0.414 0.622 1
IQ1 0.212 0.319 0.162 1
IQ2 0.121 0.229 0.043 0.681 1
IQ3 0.284 0.152 0.031 0.441 0.361 1
IQ4 0.078 0.075 0.020 0.267 0.248 0.229 1
IQ5 0.139 0.179 0.149 0.375 0.398 0.355 0.297 1
U1 0.321 0.240 0.201 0.416 0.367 0.448 0.257 0.509 1
U2 0.097 0.113 0.243 0.317 0.296 0.229 0.160 0.329 0.451 1
U3 -0.092 0.253 0.165 0.086 0.184 0.100 0.107 0.173 0.132 0.136 1
U4 0.155 0.191 0.180 0.291 0.194 0.139 0.393 0.290 0.291 0.374 0.293 1
GS1 0.317 0.339 0.444 0.438 0.364 0.297 0.350 0.420 0.383 0.347 0.317 0.340 1
NB1 -0.048 0.185 0.179 0.170 0.259 0.105 0.298 0.177 0.202 0.304 0.305 0.208 0.410 1
NB2 0.079 0.336 0.298 0.266 0.416 0.211 0.236 0.233 0.220 0.408 0.473 0.228 0.490 0.699 1
NB3 -0.035 0.186 0.250 0.257 0.405 0.173 0.224 0.199 0.173 0.327 0.440 0.163 0.385 0.584 0.753 1

SD* 0.796 0.844 0.880 0.939 0.896 0.933 0.575 0.761 0.833 0.824 0.757 0.709 0.785 0.617 0.658 0.642

* Standard Deviation

Table 6.8 - Correlation matrix for the data by dimension

SQ IQ U GS NB
SQ 1.000
IQ 0.233 1.000
U 0.209 0.308 1.000
GS 0.445 0.454 0.411 1.000
NB 0.253 0.282 0.321 0.446 1.000
Standard
Deviation 0.840 0.821 0.781 0.785 0.639

The Maximum Likelihood method of parameter estimation was applied (based on the likelihood
function – using corrected statistics), which estimates parameters of a statistical model, given
observations (Myung, 2003). It is considered to be a robust method (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006) and
it is available in all the main statistical software in the market, as it is LISREL. Provides overall model
fit test statistics and parameter standard errors that are all robust to mild deviations from normality.
One important output of this method include the structural equation for the estimates, here
calculated in LISREL. This way, every observed variables of the model will be explained by the set
relationship in the path diagram with research hypothesis (Figure 6.8). The hypothesis testing results

215
could also be called as the estimated causal relationship or the path coefficient (γ). Path coefficients
are standardized versions of linear regression weights which can be used in examining the possible
causal linkage between the variables in the structural equation model. This involves multiplying the
ordinary regression coefficient by the standard deviations of the corresponding explanatory variable:
these can then be compared to assess the relative effects of the variables within the fitted model.

This method is applied as an iterative estimation of model parameters. This is because it is necessary
to evaluate the parameters of the model in order to render the empirical covariance matrix S and the
model reproduced covariance matrix Σ(γ) to be as close as possible. To follow up this task there are
numeral routines that proceed in an iterative manner by selecting values for the model parameters
according to the following procedure: At each step, the method specific distance, i.e. the fit function
value, between S and Σ(γ) with the new parameter values, should be smaller than this distance with
the parameter values available at the preceding step. This procedure is continued until no further
improvement is observed (i.e. converges) in the so called fit function (typically .000001 or a very close
number). And this way, at that moment, there is no additional decrease possible in the generalized
distance between the empirical covariance matrix S and the model reproduced covariance matrix Σ(γ),
as defined by the used estimation method (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). The numerical values for
the parameters obtained in that final iteration step represent the required estimates of the model
parameters. When a model converges the final solution also provide a measure of the sampling
variability for each obtained parameter estimate, the so called standard error. This measure indicate
how stable is the parameter estimate, in case similar samplings are to be applied.

The output file of the model executed in LISREL starts with a summary of the variables in the model is
given, in terms of observed, unobserved variables, and sample size. This section is quite useful for
checking whether the number of variables in the model have been correctly specified. The covariance
matrix contained in the LISREL input file is also echoed in the output, and should be examined for
potential errors (Table 6.9).

Table 6.9 – Covariance Matrix of the model executed in LISREL

U GS NB SQ IQ
U 0.60996
GS 0.25198 0.61623
NB 0.16020 0.22372 0.40832
SQ 0.13711 0.29343 0.13580 0.70560
IQ 0.19749 0.29260 0.14794 0.16069 0.67404

216
The parameters converged after 4 iterations and the structural equations are presented below (Box 1
and Box 2).

Box 1 - Structural equations and estimated parameters, Z-values and P-values by Maximum Likelihood method

U = 0.13492*SQ + 0.26083*IQ, Errorvar.= 0.53995 , R² = 0.11478

Standerr (0.086160) (0.088154) (0.073140)
Z-values 1.56594 2.95880 7.38241
P-values 0.117 0.003 0.000

GS = 0.25200*U + 0.30120*SQ + 0.28845*IQ, Errorvar.= 0.37994 , R² = 0.38344

Standerr (0.080347) (0.073083) (0.076860) (0.051466)
Z-values 3.13646 4.12139 3.75297 7.38241
P-values 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000

NB = 0.13556*U + 0.30762*GS, Errorvar.= 0.31778 , R² = 0.22173

Standerr (0.075837) (0.075451) (0.043046)
Z-values 1.78748 4.07710 7.38241
P-values 0.074 0.000 0.000
Note: R² for Structural Equations are Hayduk's (2006) Blocked-Error R²

Box 2 - Reduced Form Equations and estimated parameters, Z-values and P-values

U = 0.13492*SQ + 0.26083*IQ, Errorvar.= 0.53995, R² = 0.11478

Standerr (0.086558) (0.088561)
Z-values 1.55874 2.94520
P-values 0.119 0.003

GS = 0.33521*SQ + 0.35418*IQ, Errorvar.= 0.41423, R² = 0.32779

Standerr (0.075814) (0.077569)
Z-values 4.42139 4.56603
P-values 0.000 0.000

NB = 0.12141*SQ + 0.14431*IQ, Errorvar.= 0.37825, R² = 0.073638

Standerr (0.037089) (0.039439)
Z-values 3.27333 3.65907
P-values 0.001 0.000

217
The standard output contains both the structural form and the reduced form and the R2’s calculated
from each.

One of the main parameters that is calculated is the squared multiple correlation or the also called
the coefficient of determination, defined. R2 is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the
fitted regression line. R2 stands for the percentage of the response variable variation that is explained
by a linear model. By other words:

R2 = Explained variation / Total variation (0<R2<100, in percentage) (1)

Generally, 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its
mean and, on the other hand 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response
data around its mean. But, in some fields, it is entirely expected that the R2 values will be low. For
example, any field that attempts to predict human behaviour, such as psychology, typically has R 2
values lower than 50%. Let us say that the Humans are simply harder to predict than, for example,
physical processes. Therefore, for this field, the higher the R2, the better the model fits the data.

And since there is a set of observations, there is also a set of errors. Then its variance is computed. If
the observations are seen as a random variable, the estimation of its variance is possible. That is the
error variance (Errorvar in the Box 1 and Box 2) that is presented on the output.

The programme also provides the Z-values and P-values for the models. To understand these values
one must have present the Null hypothesis. The Null hypothesis for pattern analysis tools essentially
states that there is no spatial pattern among the features, or among the values associated with the
features. On this context, the Z-value is the test value of statistical significance that helps deciding
whether or not to reject the null hypothesis. The P-value is the probability of having falsely rejected
the null hypothesis. Very high or a very low (negative) Z- values, associated with very small P-values,
are found in the tails of the normal distribution. When it is performed a feature pattern analysis and
small P-values and either a very high or a very low (negative) Z-value is yield, this indicates it is very
unlikely that the observed pattern characterizes a pattern represented by your null hypothesis.

According to Jöreskog & Sörbom (1996, pp 143-145), a better definition of R2 for this type of systems
can be obtained by using the reduced form (Alwin & Hauser, 1975), which is based on an equation that
reflects a multivariate regression (as implied by the model). The reduced form can be interpreted as

218
the relative variance of the dependent variable explained or accounted for by all explanatory variables
jointly. By Jöreskog (2000), it should be expected to have large differences between the R2 defined in
equation (1) and this definition. Nevertheless, most researchers have used some combination of these
techniques (eg. Structural equations and Reduced Form equations) and became a common practice
to achieve the total, direct and indirect effects in the structural equation models (see definitions at
the section 6.4.2.2) (see results on the Table 6.11).
A set of fit indexes are used to examine the structural model in order to establish whether, overall,
the model is acceptable. If the model is acceptable, then it is established whether specific paths are
significant. On the assessment of the model fit some measures were calculated by the software (Table
6.10). Acceptable fit indexes do not necessarily imply the relationships are strong. Depending on the
case, some high fit indexes are often easier to obtain when the relationships between variables are
low rather than high because the power to detect discrepancies from predictions are amplified. This
means that caution need to be taken on the interpretation of these indicators. But, on the other hand,
if the vast majority of the indexes indicate a good fit, then there is probably a good fit (Schreiber et
al., 2010).

Many of the fit indexes are derived from the X2 value (Maximum Likehood Estimation). Conceptually,
the X2 value, in this context, represents the difference between the observed covariance matrix and
the predicted or model covariance matrix. Researchers use numerous goodness-of-fit indicators to
assess a model. Some common fit indexes are the Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non-Normed Fit Index
(NNFI, also known as TLI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). The popularity of fit-index research can be seen by the
number of indexes that exist. It is suggested to review the indexes before their use in research studies
for an understanding of which indexes appear to work well with different samples sizes, types of data,
and ranges of acceptable scores to decide whether a good fit exists (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In general,
the authors prefer the NNFI, CFI, and RMSEA for one-time analyses. When modifications are made to
the model after an initial analysis, best practices appoint to use different indexes afterwards.

The measures used for this study are: the ratio of X2 to degrees-of-freedom (df), goodness-of-fit index
(GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normalized fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root
mean square residual (RMSR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). This group
includes the indexes that are considered by many authors the most common for the best assessment
of the model’s overall goodness of fit (e.g.: Hu & Bentler, 1999; Hooper et al., 2008; Wang & Liao,
2008; Schreiber et al., 2010; Eldrandaly et al., 2015). As shown in the Table 6.10, all the model-fit
indexes exceeded their respective common acceptance levels suggested by previous research (Byrne,
1998; Miles and Shevlin, 1998; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Ullman, 2001; Steiger, 2007; Hooper et al., 2008),

219
thus demonstrating that the measurement model exhibited a good fit with the data collected (x2/df =
0.533 with x2 = 1.066 and df = 2, GFI = 0.996, AGFI = 0.971, NFI = 0.989, CFI = 0.997, RMSR = 0.011,
RMSEA = 0.002).

Table 6.10 – Model-fit indexes

Fit Indices Acceptable Threshold Levels Structural Model

x2 Low X2 relative to degrees of freedom with an insignificant p 1.066

value (p > 0.05)
Degrees of freedom (df) 2

x2/df Values less than 2 (Ullman, 2001) 0.533

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Values greater than 0.95 (Miles and Shevlin, 1998) 0.996

Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) Values greater than 0.95 (Hooper et al., 2008) 0.971

Normed Fit Index (NFI) Values greater than 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) 0.989

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Values greater than 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) 0.997

Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) Values less than 0.05 (Byrne, 1998) 0.011

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

Values less than 0.07 (Steiger, 2007) 0.002
(RMSEA)

This way, the properties of the causal path, including the path coefficient, p-values and variance (R2)
explained for each equation in the hypothesized model, are presented in the Figure 6.9.

Figure 6.9 – Hypotheses testing results

R2=0.12
0.14+
System Quality System Use
0.14+
R2=0.74
0.30***
Perceived Net
0.25**
Benefits
0.26**
Information Global 0.31***
Quality 0.29*** Satisfaction
R2=0.33
+
p<0.1, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

220
As expected, Information Quality (IQ) had a significant influence on both System Use (U) and Global
Satisfaction (GS). Thus, H1a and H1b were supported (with path coefficients of γ=0.26 and γ=0.29,
respectively). System Quality (SQ) had a significant impact on both Global Satisfaction (GS) and System
Use (U). H2a and H2b were supported (with path coefficients of γ=0.14 and γ=0.30, respectively).
Consequently, Information Quality (IQ) exhibited a stronger effect than System Quality (SQ) in
influencing System Use (U) and Global Satisfaction (GS). In addition, System Use (U) had a significant
influence on both Global Satisfaction (GS) and on Perceived Net Benefit (NB). H3a and H3b were
supported (with path coefficients of γ=0.25 and γ=0.14). Finally, Global Satisfaction (GS) appeared to
be a significant determinant of Perceived Net Benefit (NB). H4 was supported (path coefficient
γ=0.31).

Altogether, this model accounted for 74 percent of the variance in Perceived Net Benefit with Global
Satisfaction exerting the stronger direct effect on Perceived Net Benefit than System Use. 31 percent
of the variance in Global Satisfaction was explained by Information Quality, System Quality, and
System Use while 14 percent of the variance in System Use was explained by Information Quality,
System Quality, and Service Quality. The direct and total effect of User Satisfaction on Perceived Net
Benefit was 0.31. However, the direct and total effects of Use on Perceived Net Benefit were 0.14 and
0.21, respectively. Thus, User Satisfaction exhibited stronger direct and total effects on Perceived Net
Benefit than those of Use. Among the two quality-related constructs, Information Quality had the
strongest total effect on Perceived Net Benefit.

The direct, indirect, and total effects of Information Quality, System Quality, Service Quality, Use, and
User Satisfaction on Perceived Net Benefit were summarized in Table 6.11. Therefore, could be
concluded that this model is a reasonably good means of data description.

Table 6.11 – The direct, indirect and total effect of dominants on Perceived Net Benefits

Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

U GS NB U GS NB U GS NB
SQ 0.14 0.30 0.04 0.12 0.14 0.34 0.12
IQ 0.26 0.29 0.06 0.14 0.26 0.35 0.14
U 0.25 0.14 0.25 0.21
GS 0.31 0.31

221
6.4.3.3 Multiple Correspondence Analysis

As discussed previously on this chapter, one of the major concerns regarding the application of this
model is the analysis and interpretation of the relationships between the various model dimensions
or even measures. Therefore, Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) was applied on the
questionnaire results in order to map and visually observe the relationships between the
measurement items/dimensions and the characteristics of the respondent. In order to facilitate the
analysis, the Likert scale used for the questionnaire answers was rearranged into 3 levels: 1
corresponding to the first two Likert levels (1-2); 2 corresponding to the middle value as a neutral
answer; 3 that assigns to agreement answers of the Likert scale (4-5). This means that now each
measure accounted will have only 3 possible answers, limited to disagreeing, neutral and agreeing
answers.

A series of transformations allows the computing of the coordinates of the dimensions (categories) of
the measures (qualitative variables), as well as the coordinates of the observations in a representation
space that is optimal for a criterion based on inertia. In the case of MCA the inertia does not only
depend on the degree of association between the categories but is seriously inflated. To assess the
quality of the maps, Greenacre et al (2005) suggested an adjusted inertia which gives a better idea of
its quality. The corresponding scree plot is based on the eleven non null eigenvalues and on the
corresponding percentage of the adjusted inertia. What can be seen here is that while the usual
computation gives us only 27.37% with the first two axes, the method based on the adjusted inertia
gives us 74.23%, which is considered to be quite acceptable (Table 6.12). From the observation of the
eigenvalues and percentages of inertia based on the adjusted inertia can be observed on the Figure
6.10.

Table 6.12 - Eigenvalues and percentages of inertia

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11
Eigenvalue 0.339 0.208 0.146 0.130 0.098 0.093 0.086 0.081 0.070 0.066 0.064
Inertia (%) 16.962 10.407 7.304 6.487 4.891 4.658 4.322 4.048 3.499 3.294 3.203
Cumulative % 16.962 27.370 34.674 41.161 46.052 50.709 55.031 59.078 62.578 65.872 69.075
Adjusted Inertia 0.087 0.024 0.008 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Adjusted Inertia (%) 58.128 16.101 5.302 3.432 0.946 0.713 0.435 0.259 0.043 0.009 0.002
Cumulative % 58.128 74.229 79.531 82.963 83.909 84.623 85.057 85.316 85.358 85.367 85.369

222
 0.1 100
0.09
0.08 80

Adjusted Inertia (%)

0.07
Eigenvalue

0.06 60
0.05
0.04 40
0.03
0.02 20
0.01
0 0
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11
axis

Figure 6.10 - Scree plot of eigenvalues and percentages of inertia based on the adjusted inertia.

The plots (or maps) are the ultimate goal of MCA, because they considerably facilitate our
interpretation of the data. The following Figure 6.11 shows the correspondence map where both the
characteristics and the answers to the questionnaire are displayed on the first two axes. The question
codes are the same listed on the (Table 6.1) and the numbers next to it refer to the rearranged Likert
scale (1-3). According to the plot, the group of answers in the first level (Disagreeing answers) of the
rearranged Likert scale is explained by F1 (58.13%) on the positive quadrants, but apparently does not
have a clear relation with any user characteristic (represented in the plot by grey dots). On the other
hand, the neutral answers (level 2 of rearranged Likert scale) seems to be related to the first level of
each user characteristic, namely students with low experience with SNIRH and lower academic
qualifications. In regard of the education level, could be assumed that E-1 (lowest level of education)
is associated to neutral answers, probably derived from the inability of the respondents to answer
what was asked on each question. The positive answers (agreeing answers) are clustered on the
second quadrant of the graph and it seems that they have some relation to the activities 2 and 3 (A-2
and A-3), Private and Public sectors respectively. There is no clear relation between the level of
experience of the respondent and these answers.

223
Figure 6.11 – Symmetric Variable Plot for axes F1 and F2: 74.23%

The Table 6.13 presents the correlation matrix (Pearson) between the respondent answers to the
questionnaire. Each code refers to a question (measure) as listed on the Table 6.1. This might give
some hints on what kind of aspects could influence the user’s satisfaction the most and which ones
contribute to a better user perception of the net benefit of the system. From this table is possible to
observe a good correlation between some measures from distinct dimensions as well as from the
same dimension. The shaded cells represent the correlations above 0.4, which range is between 0.4
and 0.7.

224
Table 6.13 - Correlation matrix (Pearson) for the measures of the questionnaire.

SQ1 SQ2 SQ3 IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ5 U1 U2 U3 U4 GS1 NB1 NB2 NB3
SQ1 1
SQ2 0.378 1
SQ3 0.414 0.622 1
IQ1 0.212 0.319 0.162 1
IQ2 0.121 0.229 0.043 0.681 1
IQ3 0.284 0.152 0.031 0.441 0.361 1
IQ4 0.078 0.075 0.020 0.267 0.248 0.229 1
IQ5 0.139 0.179 0.149 0.375 0.398 0.355 0.297 1
U1 0.321 0.240 0.201 0.416 0.367 0.448 0.257 0.509 1
U2 0.097 0.113 0.243 0.317 0.296 0.229 0.160 0.329 0.451 1
U3 -0.092 0.253 0.165 0.086 0.184 0.100 0.107 0.173 0.132 0.136 1
U4 0.155 0.191 0.180 0.291 0.194 0.139 0.393 0.290 0.291 0.374 0.293 1
GS1 0.317 0.339 0.444 0.438 0.364 0.297 0.350 0.420 0.383 0.347 0.317 0.340 1
NB1 -0.048 0.185 0.179 0.170 0.259 0.105 0.298 0.177 0.202 0.304 0.305 0.208 0.410 1
NB2 0.079 0.336 0.298 0.266 0.416 0.211 0.236 0.233 0.220 0.408 0.473 0.228 0.490 0.699 1
NB3 -0.035 0.186 0.250 0.257 0.405 0.173 0.224 0.199 0.173 0.327 0.440 0.163 0.385 0.584 0.753 1

The best correlated answers according by evaluation criteria of the questionnaire measures are listed
on the Table 6.14. According to this study, it seems that the pairs of best correlated measures
(correlation above 0.5) are mostly within the same dimension (Net Benefits, Information Quality and
System Quality). This might mean that the respondents tend to assume the same values for different
measures within the same dimension or, on the other hand, they might understand that these
measures complement the others of the same dimension. Analysing, for example, the dimension
Perceived Net Benefits, which shows good correlation between the measures NB1-NB2 and NB1-NB3
can indicate a complementary and consequential relation where a better understanding of the
problems influences the improvement and execution of work and contributes to reduced risk in the
decision making process. The same goes for the related criteria Completeness (IQ1) and Relevance
(IQ2) of the information quality provided by SNIRH, which means that the provided data being
sufficient and consistent will meet the user needs. For the case of Operability (SQ2) and Ease of Use
(SQ3) regarding the system quality can be stated that the methods implemented by SNIRH on
providing data are adequate and aids the user to feel comfortable with the system.

Having into account the Pearson correlations, and looking to the criteria that influence users' opinion
regarding the Overall Satisfaction (GS1) on using SNIRH it seems that the Ease of use (SQ3), the
Completeness (SQ1), the Scale (SQ5), the Understanding (NB1) and the Efficiency (NB2), are the
aspects that do play the most important role.

225
Table 6.14 - List of the best correlated answers according by evaluation criteria of the questionnaire measures.

Code Evaluation Criteria Pearson Correlation

NB1-NB2 Understanding – Efficiency 0.699
IQ1-IQ2 Completeness – Relevance 0.681
SQ2-SQ3 Operability - Ease of use 0.622
NB1-NB3 Understanding – Effectiveness 0.584
IQ5-U1 Scale - Reporting / Appropriateness 0.509
GS1-NB2 Overall Satisfaction - Efficiency 0.490
U1-U2 Reporting / Appropriateness - Accessibility 0.451
IQ3-U1 Timeliness - Reporting / Appropriateness 0.448
SQ3-GS1 Ease of use - Overall Satisfaction 0.444
IQ1-IQ3 Completeness - Timeliness 0.441
U3-NB3 Public Participation / Society - Effectiveness 0.440
IQ1-GS1 Completeness - Overall Satisfaction 0.438
IQ5-GS1 Scale - Overall Satisfaction 0.420
IQ1-U1 Completeness - Reporting / Appropriateness 0.416
IQ2-NB2 Relevance - Efficiency 0.416
SQ1-SQ3 Response Time - Ease of use 0.414
GS1-NB1 Overall Satisfaction - Understanding 0.410
U2-NB2 Accessibility - Efficiency 0.408
IQ2-NB3 Relevance - Effectiveness 0.405

6.5 Discussion and Conclusions

A methodology to assess the effectiveness and performance of SNIRH in the context of groundwater
governance is presented, based on the refinement of the updated DeLone and McLean IS Success
model (2003) and in previous studies. The results indicated that Information Quality, System Quality,
System Use (Utility and Suitability), User Satisfaction and Perceived Net Benefits were valid
dimensions to measure WIS performance, along the 16 items presented. The proposed model proved
to produce good reliability estimates thus demonstrated that the measurement model exhibited a
good fit with the data collected. The empirical data showed that Information Quality had a significant
influence on both System Use and Global Satisfaction. Adding to this, System Quality had a significant
impact on both Global Satisfaction and System Use. Furthermore, Information Quality exhibited a
stronger effect than System Quality in influencing System Use and Global Satisfaction. In addition,
System Use had a significant influence on both Global Satisfaction and on Perceived Net Benefit. And
finally, Global Satisfaction appeared to be a significant dimension for Perceived Net Benefit. From
these results it is observable that users tend to agree on the Perceived Net Benefits of SNIRH, mainly
regarding efficiency (SNIRH provides improvement and execution of work) and effectiveness

226
(contributes to reducing risk in the decision making process). There is a general manifestation of
satisfaction with SNIRH but one the most influencing dimensions, Information Quality, shows that
some areas present serious challenges, namely in the areas of completeness and timeliness. This could
be explained by the timing of the survey, when the monitoring activities were suspended, and long
data series were discontinued and/or long lags of observation were practiced. At the meanwhile, in
Portugal, the revision of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) was in progress and the
degradation of data certainly did not give as much input as it would be desirable, mainly for the re-
evaluation of the quality and quantity status of groundwater bodies since the first publication of the
RBMP, in 2009. Nevertheless, it is observed that despite the given events users tend to respond
positively on SNIRH reliability and transparency. In fact, perhaps due the timing and aftermath of the
financial crisis, the survey is considered to be quite successful for gathering over 120 answers in
Portugal, for a specific technical field as Groundwater. This could be interpreted as the sense of
responsibility of the users in contributing to this study and assessment. Regarding the activity sector
it is observed that the education/research sector is the most participative in contrast with the private
sector. This could be explained by the dissemination means or by a reason that was not identified.
This point requires further research that could study more effectively how, when and what for the
private sector uses data from SNIRH. As it is known the private sector, mostly the times, generate data
at works of smaller scale that requires local data. If possible, could be very useful to integrate data
from the private sector in SNIRH, as a complement to the existing data at a larger scale.

This assessment is considered to be a first step to improve and achieve a model for measuring the
performance of a web-based WIS, in the context of groundwater governance. For this reason cannot
be assumed as definitive model as it is only based in a single study. Requires to be revisited, improved
and extended to future events, and validation of measurement is necessary for different properties
and over a variety of contexts and situations.

227
228
7 A case study for the improvement of groundwater management
and governance

This work was developed in the context of the Soil Take Care project, financed by the Interreg Sudoe
Program, with the objective to provide an information and data base for the development of a decision
support system for a) a better groundwater management and b) for the definition of more integrated
information systems applied to groundwater management.

A list of other objectives for this chapter are the following:

a) Identify aspects from the SNIRH monitoring networks that need improvement,
b) Develop a low-cost method for a more effective groundwater monitoring,
c) Contribute for the improvement of information and characterization related to groundwater
management in contaminated aquifers, for the formulation of vulnerability and risk maps to
groundwater-dependent ecosystems and populations.

For this purpose, the case study of the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System was analysed, more
specifically in the northern part, nearby the town of Estarreja, where the interaction of ecosystems,
population and industry is highly active, presenting various types of pressures to the aquifer, described
in the next sections.

7.1 Case Study

The present study was carried out in an area of the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System (SAQA) with a
long history of surface and groundwater contamination. It is situated within the river basin district
PTRH4A: Vouga, Mondego e Lis, and almost entirely in the Vouga river basin, administrated by ARH
do Centro. Part of the municipalities of Estarreja and Murtosa are within the study area that covers
an area of about 83 km2. The area is fully represented on maps 163 and 174 of the Portuguese
Cartography (scale 1: 25000). The study area is presented in Figure 7.2.

229
Figure 7.1 – Location of the area of the study in Portugal, and within the Vouga River Basin

The study area is located around a chemical complex about 1 km north of Estarreja, known as the
Estarreja Chemical Complex (ECC) (Figure 7.2). This area has been subject of several studies over time,
and it is already known for the significant levels of contamination of groundwater, surface water, soils,
ditch sediments and of the Esteiro de Estarreja, a river branch of the coastal lagoon Ria de Aveiro. It is
an area particularly vulnerable to contamination due to the high permeability of its soil, constituted
mainly by permeable sands. The low thickness of the unsaturated zone, flattened topography with
very gentle slopes and high groundwater recharge rates are some regional characteristics that also
contribute to its vulnerability to contamination.

The study area is located next to Ria de Aveiro, both a coastal lagoon and a wetland of great
importance at the regional and national levels, both from an environmental and economic point of
view. Ria de Aveiro is the natural habitat of several aquatic and terrestrial species. It is the habitat for
more than twenty thousand waterfowl and it is classified as Special Protection Zone (SPA) under the
Birds Directive (PTZPE0004, Decree-Law No. 384- B / 99 of 23 September). This lagoon system thus
constitutes one of the most important ecosystems of the Portuguese coast, constituting one of the
most relevant wetlands located in the national territory, not only in terms of extension but
fundamentally in terms of biodiversity, but also of undeniable economic relevance (Figure 7.2).

230
 Coastal lagoon Ria de Aveiro

Figure 7.2 – Area of case study next to the coastal lagoon of Ria de Aveiro, and the location of the Estarreja Chemical Complex
(ECC).

7.2 Brief characterization of the region

Unlike the majority of rivers that flow into the sea, the Vouga river meets the sea by way of great
expanses of marshes and lagoons. The natural characteristics of its estuary is quite similar to what can
be found in a delta. Its geographic extension goes from Ovar (up north) till Costa Nova and Vagos (to
the South), about 30 km away. Aveiro, the district capital, lies southeast, some 5 km away from the
coast, while the study area nearby Estarreja, and its industrial regional pole, is located 10 km to the
North of Aveiro and 15 km away from the Vouga mouth, artificially opened almost every year.

231
This large region of more than 500 km2 is known to be one of the most beautiful natural regions of
Portugal – the Ria de Aveiro region, famed for its wildlife. It is also very rich in terms of fishery and
agricultural resources. Together with industry, these activities are able to support nearly a quarter of
a million people, with one of the lowest ratios of unemployment in the country (PORDATA, 2019).
However, health and welfare are clearly threatened by the urbanisation and industrialisation of the
last 50 years. This situation has imposed unbearable stress on the lagoons and the wetlands, as well
as in the aquifer systems, with both direct discharge of domestic and industrial effluents into natural
water streams and waste disposal on the ground.

7.3 Previous studies

The Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System has been the subject of several geological, hydrogeological and
contamination studies. Some studies have been done at the aquifer system scale while others have
focused on smaller areas, notably in the ECC area.

The first hydrogeological studies, at the aquifer system scale, are made by, Peixinho de Cristo (1985),
Marques da Silva (1990) and Cunha et al. (1992). Ferreira (1995) published a hydrogeological study of
the northern part of the aquifer system. Almeida et al. (2000) synthetized the existing information on
aquifer systems in Continental Portugal, including the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System. Condesso
de Melo (2002) presented a detailed description of the hydrochemical composition of the Aveiro
Quaternary Aquifer System, where the identification of the main geochemical processes was made.
Condesso de Melo and Marques da Silva (2008) made the first study regarding the definition of the
background values of the aquifer system. Ordens et al. (2007, 2006) worked on the first study on a
cost-effective analysis of measures to improve groundwater quality in the aquifer system, and
delimited the contamination plume in the upper aquifer through geophysical methodologies.
Condesso de Melo and Ordens (2006) proposed quality thresholds for the concentration of certain
substances that endanger the good chemical status of groundwater in the aquifer system.

In the surrounding area of the ECC, several studies were made, mostly related to contamination. A
site investigation on heavy metals contaminated ground was made by Costa and Jesus-Rydin (2001).
Very detailed studies related to the lithostratigraphy of the zone were made by Moitinho d’ Almeida
and Zbyszewski (1949, 1947). Some studies on the groundwater contamination in the region were
made by Barradas (1992), Ferreira da Silva (1989), Taunt (2001), Ordens (2007), Neves (2015) and
(Oliveira, 2016). Also related to groundwater contamination, Leitão (1996) proposed methodologies

232
for the rehabilitation of the polluted aquifer. The groundwater recharge was studied by Oliveira
(2005), which also include the area surrounding the ECC. The ERASE project (Estarreja Water and Soil
Regenerating Company) ERASE (2000) carried out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the
removal and storage of contaminated waste and sediments. This EIA characterized the natural
conditions of the area as well as the environmental liability due to decades of industrial pollutant
activity.

The Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System was also studied in the context of the European projects
BASELINE and BRIDGE, coordinated in Portugal by the Department of Geosciences of the University of
Aveiro. The BASELINE project aimed to set background values for the concentration of substances in
groundwater, while the BRIDGE project aimed to establish quality thresholds for the concentration of
substances in groundwater.

The Institute for Environment and Development (IDAD) has also carried out several EIAs, in the context
of projects aiming to expand or change existing industrial units in the ECC, namely DOW Portugal
(IDAD, 2007a), Air Liquide (IDAD, 2007b) and Bondalti (former CUF) (IDAD, 2007c).

7.4 The industry

7.4.1 Industrial activities and contamination risks

In the study area, the main source of groundwater contamination is largely associated to the past
activities of ECC. This industrial area of 2 km2 is only 1 km away from Estarreja town. The most
significant industrial units, working for many decades, are (Costa and Jesus-Rydin, 2001):

 Quimigal (CUF, recently changed to the name to Bondalti), installed in 1952, produced
ammonium sulphate, from sulphuric acid and ammonia, sinde the beginning, and nitric acid
and ammonium nitrate since 1974. These productions stopped in the early 1990s. A new unit
(Anilina de Portugal) started in 1978 for the production of nitric acid and aniline and
nitrobenzene, which is still running. It is estimated that 150 000 tons of pyrite waste, including
ashes, dust and sludge from gaseous effluent treatment, have been stored inside the chemical
complex.

233
  Uniteca, working since 1956 to produce sodium and chlorate compounds from rock salt
through electrolytic cells using mercury cathodes. It is estimated that 60 000 tons of sludge
containing Hg are stored inside the chemical complex.
 Cires, installed in 1963 to produce synthetic resins, mainly PVC (polyvinyl chloride) from vinyl
chloride monomer (VCM). This raw material was also produced in this plant until 1986. The
estimation for the produced waste is about 320 000 tons of calcium hydroxide sludge, stored
in an area of 5 hectares without any kind of impermeabilization.
 Dow Portugal, producing since 1978 isocyanide polymers or aromatic base, using aniline,
formaldehyde, chlorine, synthesis gas and caustic soda as raw material (IDAD, 2000). The
company's liquid effluent consists essentially of monochlorobenzene, aniline, methanol,
hydrocarbons, mercury, chlorides and sodium. This effluent is treated by a sludge rich in
mercury, chromium and sodium chloride, and constitutes the company's solid waste that is
incinerated abroad. A total of around 4 000 tonnes of sludge has been accumulated through
years. In the past, liquid effluent was sent to Esteiro de Estarreja (a river branch of the coastal
lagoon Ria de Aveiro), through an underground channel (IDAD, 2000; Leitão, 1996). Currently
the effluents are sent to SIMRIA.

These industrial units are greatly inter-dependent for the exchange of raw materials and subproducts.
Over the decades, as presented, these industrial units have produced high quantities of waste. The
solid waste has been disposed directly on the ground, while the liquid effluents have been discharged
directly into manmade water streams (Vala de S. Filipe, Vala da Breja and Vala do Canedo).
Consequently, the pollutants were transported, for several kilometres, through the agricultural fields
mainly to the river branch Esteiro de Estarreja. Only after 1975, one emissary pipe was constructed
for the Quimigal/Uniteca effluents, while the Dow Portugal industrial unit has its own pipe. The
impermeable pipes are both connected to the Esteiro de Estarreja river branch. The Cires unit still
maintains discharge to the Vala da Breja water stream. The liquid effluents from these industrial units
contain mainly aniline, benzene, monochlorobenzene, mononitrobenzene, arsenic, mercury, zinc, and
lead, among others (Figure 7.3).

234
Figure 7.3 –Location of the Estarreja Chemical Complex, the location of the solid waste deposits, and the pathway of the
water streams and pipes.

235
In addition to contamination from industrial origin, agriculture and the use of septic tanks for domestic
effluent storage also contribute to groundwater contamination in the study area.

7.4.2 Projects for the minimization of contamination

The ERASE project was proposed in 1994. This project aimed to minimize the environmental impacts
associated with the historical industrial waste, accumulated in the ECC. The main goals of this project
were to avoid soil and groundwater contamination resulting from the leaching industrial processes,
and to rehabilitate the areas that were used as waste deposits.

The beginnings of the ERASE project were related to contamination problems found in soils,
groundwater and bivalves of the Ria de Aveiro. Initially, studies focused on mercury due to Minamata
disease which had shown the harmful effects of mercury not only on human health but also on the
region's ecosystems (Hall et al., 1987). According to several studies, mercury was present in the Esteiro
de Estarreja (Pereira and Duarte, 1997) in soils, sediments and groundwater (Barradas, 1992) and in
soils within the ECC area (Ferreira, 1993). In addition to mercury, arsenic had a high representativeness
in soils and sediments near the Veiros lagoon (Costa and Jesus-Rydin, 2001).

After some discussion and adjustments, the project started in 1998, but the in situ works only started
in December 2003. The project consisted of the removal and confinement in a waterproofed landfill,
of about 300 000 m3 of pyrite waste, sludge from former Quimigal and UNITECA factories, and
contaminated soil. The process was completed in 2005 and the landfill is currently monitored through
monitoring points (Figure 7.4). The location of these monitoring points was taken from the ERASE
network monitoring annual reports.

The construction of this landfill is not the perfect solution, but it carries some advantages, such as the
reduction of discharges in the area of contamination focus, associated with pyrite sludge. However,
this area of contamination focus has never been remedied and it is still today a hotbed of
contamination.

236
Figure 7.4 – ERASE landfill and location of the monitoring points.

The project also foresees a second phase, where contaminated sediments would be removed from
the water streams. As it was said before, these streams were used in the past to transport the liquid
effluents to Esteiro de Estarreja, and still represent a potential source of contamination.

Later on, the research project CRUDE (Contamination of soil and gRoUnDwatEr by organic
compounds), funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology (PTDC/CTEGEX/72959/2006), had
as main objective to define new methodologies for the spatio-temporal characterization of transport
processes of organic contaminants in the soil - unsaturated zone - aquifer, allowing:

 to assess the risk of contamination of groundwater;

237
  to make a characterization of this contamination, in case it is still present;
 to define the natural composition of groundwater for the application of monitoring and
mitigation measures.

In the context of this project, Neves (2015) worked on the definition of criteria and procedures to
assess the risk of contamination of soils, unsaturated areas and groundwater. These criteria aimed at
supporting the definition of mitigation and rehabilitation strategies to be applied in the affected areas
of the aquifer system. Modeling tools with forecasting capabilities were also developed to the
contribution of a more efficient groundwater quality management in the Quaternary Aveiro in the
industrial area of Estarreja.

More recently, EIAs have been carried out on restructuring of several ECC plants. These studies
contribute to a better knowledge of the contamination problem of the area and propose monitoring
networks and strategies for the remediation the region.

7.5 Geology

Generally, the geologic formations that support this aquifer system are all detrital in nature, and can
be individualized into three large units: 1) river terraces and ancient beaches, of Pliocene age, 2) a
gravelly sequence, and mostly covered by one or more layers of organic sludge, known for basic
formation of quaternary (Pleistocene), and, 3) a dune mantle and modern alluvium, of Holocene age
(Figure 7.5).

In the study area, these deposits settle discordantly on a substrate consisting of either lower
Cretaceous clayey formations, or schist-greywacke, belonging to the Schist-Greywacke Complex (SGC),
from the Precambric age.

The Cretaceous formation that forms the substrate for the Holocene and Plio-Pleistocene detrital
sedimentary is “Arenitos de Requeixo”, a clay, conglomerate stoneware with intercalations of clays,
sands and pebbles (quartz or quartzite), also with light colour. This sandstone emerges near Estarreja
train station, and further south of the study area (Ordens, 2007).

238
Figure 7.5 – Geology of the study area, digitalized from the geologic maps 13 C – Ovar and 16 A – Aveiro (scale 1:50k).

7.5.1 Holocene

Holocene formations consist essentially of dune sands, beach sands and modern alluvium. The dune
and beach sands cover virtually the entire study area. They are fine to very fine sands with a weak clay
component, generally light, whitish or yellowish in colour. Figure 7.6 shows dune sands in the study
area immediately west of the ECC.

The alluvium is associated with the Antuã River and other less important water lines, and also to the
coastal lagoon Ria de Aveiro. They are constituted by sands, muddy silts and silts.

239
Figure 7.6 – An example of the Dune sands found nearby Estarreja.

7.5.2 Plio-Pleistocene

The Plio-Pleistocene formations consist of ancient beaches or river terraces, at the altitude of 5 - 8 m
(Q4 b) and 15 - 20 m (Q4 a). They are fine to coarse sands with intercalations of clay sands and muds,
and gravels are present in the base. Both the sands and the base gravel have small to medium sized
rolled pebbles. Figure 7.7 shows a terrace located immediately northwest of the study area. This
terrace is composed of fine to medium sands and no larger clasts are observed.

240
Figure 7.7 – An example of a terrace composed of fine to medium sands.

7.6 Lithostratigraphic interpretation

The lithostratigraphy of the study area was established by Moitinho d’ Almeida and Zbyszewski (1949,
1947), based on numerous surveys conducted in the 1940s, at various points on the coastal plain,
especially in the region where the Old Massif can be found in shallow depth. These surveys were made
in the context of research works to the construction of boreholes for urban and industrial water
supply. The surveys provided very important data for the geological and hydrogeological knowledge
of the Quaternary formations, and several detailed geological profiles were made. A sedimentary
sequence with great vertical and lateral heterogeneity was shown by these surveys, in which an
alternation of nine layers of more or less sandy sands and muds is observed. These layers settle
discordantly on a deeply altered substrate of schists and clay sandstones.

Based on the interpretation of borehole logs, in the area surrounding the ECC, Ordens (2007)
presented a different lithostratigraphic model, taking into account the classification made by Moitinho

241
d’ Almeida and Zbyszewski (1949, 1947). The analysis of the logs allowed to differentiate the
lithostratigraphic units in a different manner, by aggregating the units proposed by Moitinho
d'Almeida and Zbyszewsky, respecting the same geologic sequence. This aggregation allowed to group
seven layers that seemed to fit better in the spatial correlation, that were based on the data provided
by the borehole logs. This interpretation has been, since then, quite well accepted in the scientific
community, constituting the base for other concluded studies in the area (Neves, 2015; Oliveira,
2016).

The lithostratigraphic sequence (top to bottom, indicating in parentheses the correspondence to the
units proposed by Moitinho d'Almeida and Zbyszewsky, is the following:

1. Superficial Sands (Layer 8 and 9): Unit consisting of dune sands that cover most of the study
area. Included in this unit are some levels of compact clay and humus;
2. Muds with vegetable remains (layer 7b): unit consisting of dark grey sludge with vegetal
remains. To the east, this unit presents lateral variation for grey sandy clays with vegetal
remains;
3. Fine sand (layer 7 and 7a): this unit consists of fine sand (layer 7) in the base, sometimes with
small rolled stones on top (layer 7a). It is not always possible to distinguish this unit from layer
9, especially when no rolled stones are present and layer 7b is not present;
4. Muds and sandy mud with vegetable remains and lamellibranchs (complex 6): unit consisting
of mud, sandy mud and fine muddy sands, always dark grey in colour, with vegetable remains
and lamellibranchs. To the east, this unit presents lateral variation for grey sandy clays with
vegetable remains;
5. Fine to coarse sands with rolled stones (layer 5): unit consisting of fine to coarse sands with
presence of rolled stone. From East to West, the pebble size and layer thickness increases;
6. Mud with vegetal remains (layers 3 and 4): unit consisting of mud, sandy mud and very muddy
fine sands, always of dark grey colour, with vegetable remains. To the east this unit presents
lateral variation for clays, sometimes sandy, dark grey, with vegetal remains;
7. Medium to coarse sands with rolled stones (layer 2): Unit consisting of medium to coarse
sands with small and large rolled stones. Sometimes when mud from layer 3 and 4 are not
present, it may be difficult to distinguish layer 5 from this layer.

Supporting layer 2, and according to Moitinho d’ Almeida and Zbyszewski (1949, 1947), lithologies
belonging to the Cretaceous formation “Cretaceous Sandstones and clay” (layer 1) are found, followed
by the Schist-Greywacke Complex in depth, attributed to the Pre-Cambric.

242
A 3D-model for the lithostratigraphy and spatial geometry, considering the aforementioned
interpretation, is presented in Figure 7.8 (Ordens, 2007).

Figure 7.8 – 3D diagram of the lithostratigraphy of the study area (Ordens, 2007).

From the model of the Figure 7.8, it was possible to extract some cross-sections in the area. The
lithostratigraphic cross-sections represent a section of the model that goes through the indicated logs.
Each profile results not only from integrating existing logs along the cross-section itself, but also from
interpolating information from all logs for the entire area. The horizontal scales of the figures are
approximate, since the cross-sections do not always correspond to straight lines. The vertical scale is
also exaggerated ten times to make its visualization easier and more understandable.

The cross-section of the Figure 7.9, to the south of the ECC, with the direction W-E, shows the structure
and geometry of the lithostratigraphy of the Aveiro Quaternary. The thickness of the layers does not
very significantly, at least in this area, although a visible irregularity is found on the East side, in

243
particular, on the layer 6 and layer 2. The layer 6 (mud) is quite thick, compared to the others, making
a clear separation between the layer 5 (Fine to coarse sands) and layer 7 (Medium to coarse sands).

Figure 7.9 – Cross-section in the direction W-E, south of the ECC. Vertical exaggeration: 10x (Ordens, 2007).

In the Figure 7.10, a cross-section in the direction N-S, located west to the ECC, is displayed. The Veiros
lagoon is located between the logs ACP-12A and ACD20. Once again, the mud layers are found to be
quite thick, and the layer of fine to coarse sands (layer 5) is, apparently, discontinuous in this area.
The substrate in this cross-section is always made of Cretaceous formations.

Figure 7.10 – Cross section in the direction N-S, located west to the ECC, right over the Veiros lagoon. Vertical exaggeration:
10x (Ordens, 2007).

244
From the analysis of these cross-sections can be said that:

 The thickness of the layers gradually increases from east to west, and from north to south;
 There is considerable vertical and lateral heterogeneity;
 A discontinuous distribution of the layers 7-7a and 7b throughout the area is observed;
 It is also observed that sometimes Layer 5 is discontinuous, but it is quite present and
important on the separation of the layer 6 and layer 3-4.
 The layer 3-4 isolates the layer 2 from the rest of the layers in almost its extension, at least
taking into account these cross-sections.
 No major geologic accidents are observed on this area, regarding the Quaternary formations.

7.7 Hydrogeology

7.7.1 Aquifers and confining units

For the definition of the hydrogeologic units, an inventory and analysis of borehole logs was made, in
the context of the Soil Take Care project. An inventory of 49 boreholes was the starting point for the
analysis. These logs, mainly taken from technical reports of research works for the construction of
large wells for water supply in the region of Estarreja, were the base for the work for other authors.

Such as Ordens (2007), Neves (2015) and Oliveira (2016). Their studies were focused in the
surroundings of the ECC, mainly to west, in areas of about 25 km2, which is clearly smaller than the
study area for the present work, with about 83 km2. Therefore, a new inventory had to be made in
order to cover the study area as better as possible. The extension of the horizontal area had to be
taken into account, but also the depth of the logs, to make sure they could be used to interpret the
lithostratigraphy in-depth. For that purpose, 87 logs were inventoried and analysed. From the analysis,
considering the scale of work and the quality of the logs, 41 were selected to define the hydrogeologic
units. The location of both inventoried and selected logs is shown in the Figure 7.11.

245
Figure 7.11 – Location of the inventoried and selected logs for the definition of the hydrogeologic units of the study area.

Ordens (2007) considered the existence of three main aquifer units with different hydrogeological and
hydraulic characteristics, based on the lithostratigraphic model described in the previous sub-chapter.
The first unit, corresponding to the upper aquifer unit, consists of the first three layers defined in the
lithostratigraphic model: superficial sands (layer 9), fine sand with small rolled stones (layers 7 and
7a), sludge intercalations and muddy sands with vegetable remains (layer 7b).

The second unit, generally referred to as the Quaternary base, consists of fine to coarse sands with
rolled stones (layer 5) and medium to coarse sands with rolled pebble (layer 2). It presents
intercalations of mud and muddy sands with vegetal remains (layers 3 and 4).

These two aquifer units are considered to be part of the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System (SAQA).

The third aquifer unit consists of Cretaceous formations, but this aquifer system is not part of the
scope of this work. The Cretaceous formations and the Precambrian shales constitute the substrate of
the SAQA.

246
The mud and muddy sand layers of layer 6 constitute an aquitard, which semi-confines the second
aquifer unit. Due to both aquitard and the Quaternary base geometry, the confinement is either
locally, or it is semi-confined in the other part of the aquifer extension.

This interpretation has been followed by some authors (Neves, 2015; Oliveira, 2016), and was applied
in groundwater models for the study of the contamination plumes in the area nearby ECC.

However, from the careful analysis of the logs, and taking into consideration the lithostratigraphic
model, and the scope of this work (Aveiro Quaternary) a refinement was made for the aquifer units.

The first unit, the upper aquifer (layers 8+9, 7b, 7-7a), and the aquitard (layer 6) is equivalent to the
definition made by Ordens (2007). Regarding the Quaternary base aquifer, taking into account the
lithostratigraphic model of the previous sub-chapter, and from the analysis of the logs, it is considered
that there is room to refinement. By calculating the average thickness of each layer for all the logs,
the graph of the Figure 7.12 is composed. In the Figure 7.12, it is possible to realize that layer 5, 3+4
and 2 have a significant thickness, compared to the overall thickness of the quaternary formations.
Layer 3+4 has an average thickness of 5.65 m. Adding to this, the layer 3+4 is observed in 90% of the
selected logs. While layer 5 and layer 2 are formed by geological materials with characteristics to be
considered an aquifer, layer 3+4 are formed mainly by sludge and muds with a significant thickness
and horizontal continuity in the area.

Figure 7.12 – Average thickness of each lithostratigraphic layer for the selected logs, in meters.

For the reasons presented, an aquitard corresponding to the layer 3+4 is considered for this work.
Therefore, three aquifer units (upper aquifer, aquifer C5 and aquifer C2) and two aquitards (aquitard

247
C6 and aquitard C3+4) were defined, with different hydrogeologic and hydraulic characteristics (Table
7.1).

Table 7.1 – Aquifers and aquitards considered and corresponding lithostratigraphic layers.

Aquifer and confining units

Layer 1 Description Ordens (2007) Refinement
8+9 Superficial sands and some levels of compact clay and humus
7b Sludge with vegetable remains Upper aquifer Upper aquifer
7-7a Fine sands
Sludge and sandy sludge with vegetable remains and
6 Aquitard Aquitard C6
lamellibranchs
5 Fine to coarse sands with rolled stones Aquifer C5
Sludge with vegetal remains Quaternary
3+4 Aquitard C3+4
base aquifer
2 Medium to coarse sands with rolled stones Aquifer C2
1 – Classification by Moitinho d'Almeida and Zbyszewsky (1947, 1949)

To create a three-dimensional hydrogeological model with the redefined aquifer and confining units,
the GMS 10.3 software (Aquaveo LCC, 2019) was used. To verify and validate the borehole logs spatial
distribution a 3-D projection and cross-sections between them were made (Figure 7.13).

In the Northeast zone of the study area there are practically no sludge layers between the upper
aquifer layers corresponding to superficial sands (layer 8+9) and fine sands (layers 7 and 7a). These
layers are actually very thick and lie directly on the rocky substrate made of schists. This aquifer
decreases thickness towards west, and disappears right before the wetland of the Ria de Aveiro. Its
contour follows the geologic limits of the “River terraces and ancient beaches”, visible in the Figure
7.5.

The aquitard C6, consisting of sludge and sandy sludge with remains and lamellibranch (layer 6),
appears in the rest of the study area and increases significantly its thickness to the south and west,
but in the southern part it starts to decrease thickness again. In the great majority of the area, this
aquitard is confining the underneath aquifers.

The aquifer C5, constituent of the Quaternary base, is not represented significantly in the eastern part
but is quite important on the western and southern part of the area. Its average thickness is 9.12 m
and represents the most important semi-confined to confined aquifer of this area.

248
The sludge layer (layers 3 and 4) that constitutes the Aquitard C3+4 is present in almost of the entire
area, and gets thicker in the direction of southeast. The aquitard is very thin in the west and
southwestern area, where the aquifers C5 and C2 are almost in contact.

The medium to coarse sands with rolled stones (layer 2), attributed to aquifer C2, is also a semi-
confined to confined aquifer. It appears in the north, south and west and its average thickness is about
6.73 m.

The colours of each cell of the Table 7.1, in the column “refinement”, corresponds to the aquifers and
confining units identified with the same colours from the Figure 7.13 and Figure 7.14, for better
identification.

Figure 7.13 – Three-dimensional projection of the boreholes information through the study area.

249
Figure 7.14 – Cross-sections W-E showing the geometry of the aquifer and confining units in the study area.

7.7.2 Hydraulic properties

According to Peixinho de Cristo (1985), the Quaternary Aveiro aquifer system, has average hydraulic
conductivity values between 15 and 20 m/day, calculated for the entire extension of que aquifer
system. These hydraulic conductivity values correspond to average transmissivity of 250 to
600 m2/day. These values are lower in the upper aquifer than in the aquifers of the base, the aquifer
C5 and C2.

The storage coefficient for the semi-confined aquifers was determined to be between 10-3 to 6x10-4.
The effective porosity for the upper aquifer ranges between 1 and 5%. The specific capacity of the
aquifers uptake ranges from 2 to 6 L/s/m.

250
For the aquifers of the Quaternary base, particularly in the northern region of Ria de Aveiro, an
average hydraulic conductivity values from 25 to 40 m/day is reported by Ferreira (1995). The
transmissivity values range from 150 to 760 m2/day. The storage coefficients are in the order of 10-4.

The hydraulic conductivities for the different layers present in the Isopor zone (present DOW Portugal)
were calculated by A. Cavaco (1986), using the Hazen method. The average values reported are:
104 m/day for the upper aquifer, 73 m/day for the upper semi-confined aquifer C5 and 1037 m/day
for the semi-confined aquifer base layer C2. In this zone the upper aquifer consists of a thick layer of
very clean dune sands, which may justify these rather high values of hydraulic conductivity. However,
based on the interpretation of three aquifer tests performed in a borehole that abstracts both
aquifers, an average hydraulic conductivity of 33 m/day was calculated, under transient regime. For
steady state regime, an average hydraulic conductivity value of 48 m/day was calculated.

In the work of Ordens (2007), the transmissivities were also determined, based on aquifer tests
performed in seven holes that are located in or near the ECC. The abstraction wells capture the upper
aquifer and hydraulic conductivity values of 20, 25, 54, 61, 66, 68 and 105 m/day were obtained. The
large discrepancy between the observed values should be due to the great heterogeneity of the upper
aquifer layers, since it is possible to find large thicknesses of clean dune sands, as well as to find sands
with significative amounts of silts, or intercalations of clay or sludge.

7.7.3 Groundwater levels

For the definition of the groundwater levels in the study area, the SNIRH quantitative monitoring
network was considered. The monitoring network contains 11 monitoring points within the area, with
data series for different timeframes (Figure 7.15). As it can be seen, the monitoring network does not
quite cover the entire area. The north part has only two monitoring points, and at south there is only
one as well. As the objective is to make a groundwater model, it is necessary condition to have a
representative network for the entire area, for example, for the definition of boundary conditions, or
for the best model calibration in order to have a more robust model, or for the identification of the
flow paths.

From the analysis of the timeframes and data series of the monitoring points, it is possible to see that
some of these points have relatively good data series, with several years of continuous measurements
of the groundwater levels. The longevity and timeframes of these data can be observed in the Figure
7.16. However, at present only a couple of these points are being monitored, namely the points

251
163/31 and the 163/52, southwest of the ECC area. In fact, these two points are only about 79 m away
of each other, according to the data given by SNIRH. For its proximity and, given that no other points
are being monitored, it was decided that other sources of data should be found.

Figure 7.15 – SNIRH quantitative monitoring network.

Figure 7.16 – Longevity and timeframes of data series in SNIRH monitoring sites (source: SNIRH, 2018).

252
One of the characteristics of this region is that the groundwater levels are quite close to the surface
and stable. According to the data available in the monitoring points 163/9, 163/52 and 163/58 (Figure
7.17), the seasonal variation between wet season and dry season is not considered to be much
accentuated. In the case of the point 163/9, for example, the average seasonal variation is about 2 m,
and it is quite constant every hydrologic year. The variation can even be lower, as it is for the point
163/52, or for the point 163/58, where the level variation in some years, is less than 1 m.

Figure 7.17 – Groundwater levels in Estarreja, observed in the monitoring points 163/9, 163/52 and 163/96 (source: SNIRH,
2018).

Adding to this, besides the industrial activity of the ECC and surroundings, the agriculture is one of the
main economic activities of the region. For this reason, it is very frequent to find large diameter wells
in the agriculture fields, most of them with a very easy access, or even in private properties for various
uses. This way, in order to make an inventory of the wells that can be used to monitor the groundwater
levels of the upper aquifer, the high-resolution imagery map service of the Instituto Geográfico
Português (IGP) through ArcGIS was used (ESRI, 2019). This service provides satellite imagery with 1 m
resolution, which is considered to be adequate to make an inventory of the wells in the region, which
diameter can have up to 6 m or more. Another reason to make this, is the potential that an inventory
of this kind can have. This inventory can provide a very low-cost and comprehensive monitoring
network for the upper aquifer groundwater levels in the region. The access to most of them it is easy,
nearby to the main roads and don’t need any maintenance.

Therefore, an inventory of 779 wells as made within the area and surroundings, focusing attention
mainly in the nearby area of ECC, but also in other areas not so frequently studied by other authors,

253
namely the extremity west area and the northern part, namely in Bunheiro and Pardilhó, respectively
(Figure 7.18).

Figure 7.18 – Inventoried wells in the region for groundwater levels monitoring.

To make a campaign to measure the groundwater levels in these wells, considering an optimization of
efforts and time, and also taking into account a representative campaign for the entire studied area,
some monitoring planning was needed. For that purpose, a grid composed by 11x11 cells of 1000 m
was built (Figure 7.19). This grid was built with the intention a) to a avoid the excessive and/or
insufficient measurements for all the zones of the area, b) to optimize the effort is required usually
for this kind of tasks, namely in terms of costs and time, c) to ensure that a representative network is
made, by assuring that, when possible, a least 1 or 2 wells are monitored, to guarantee a tight distance
between monitoring points. In the Figure 7.19 it is possible to observe the selected wells (red dots)
for measurements that cover the entire area, as much as possible. Selection was not possible in the

254
southeasternmost edge of area, as well in the northwesternmost area, because simply no wells were
found, mainly because these areas are wetlands. The shaded cells of the map represent these areas.

Figure 7.19 – Grid for the groundwater level measurements.

The well measurements campaign was made in the context of the Soil Take Care project, between
April and May of 2019, and it carried out the measurement of groundwater levels in 120 wells. The
elevation of the measured wells was determined using the digital terrain model provided by the
Instituto Geográfico do Exército on the 1: 10000 scale of the National Cartographic Series. It is noted
that 62 cells were contemplated, making up about 65% of total area, what corresponds to 62 km2
monitored. Given the extension of the area and the available resources, this is considered to be a quite
good campaign, with relatively few financial costs.

255
For the definition of the groundwater levels, geostatistical methods were applied, namely the kriging
technique method. The output surface type is a prediction map for the groundwater levels, based on
the application of a spherical model in the variogram. The resulting groundwater levels map (Figure
7.20) allows us to determine that the groundwater flow follows the topography of the zone. Generally,
it develops from east to west towards the main surface water streams. The water streams present in
the study area are just like Figure 7.3 indicates: Vala da Breja, that starts from the ECC to NW heading
for a wetland zone; Vala de S. Filipe, which starts also from the ECC to the south towards the Esteiro
de Estarreja; Vala do Canedo, which departs from a swamp zone near the Vala de S. Filipe to NW, and
which will feed the Veiros lagoon; and the Veiros stream, which departs from the Veiros Lagoon to the
south towards the Esteiro de Veiros, a branch of the Ria de Aveiro.

It is also noted that in the area of the higher beach deposits, to the dune sands, alluviums and lower-
level beach deposits (central area), there is a groundwater division, where the flow in the area north
of the ECC takes the direction EW, while south it takes the direction NE-SW. The lowest areas (NW and
S-SE) are also the coherent with the topography, where wetlands are found, and which elevation is
really close to the water level in the Ria de Aveiro (near sea level).

Figure 7.20 – Groundwater levels based on the monitoring campaign of April-May, 2019.

256
7.7.4 Groundwater recharge

It is considered that the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System’s recharge has a high contribution of direct
infiltration of precipitation. Different authors have estimated different values depending on the
methodology used.

Peixinho de Cristo (1985) estimated annual recharge values from 200 to 250 hm3/year, i.e. 308 to
385 mm/year for the upper aquifer system.

Leitão (1996), for the same study area applied the methodology described in Vermeulen et al. (1993),
and estimated a recharge in the upper aquifer system of 462 mm/year for forested areas,
659 mm/year for agricultural areas and 527 mm/year for discontinuous urban areas.

Oliveira (2005), for the same study area applied four different methods for the estimation of recharge
in the upper aquifer, by time intervals and by calculation subareas, considering different types of
landuse. A summary of the obtained results for the timeframe from 10/26/1993 to 1/02/1995, for
each method is presented in the Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 – Estimated recharge values for the upper aquifer in the study area, by Oliveira (2004).

Recharge estimation method Recharge (mm/year)

Below Groundwater Balance Model (MBASF) 52
Daily sequential water balance model (MBHSD) 520
MBASF, considering the occurrence of evapotranspiration 737
from the saturated zone
MBHSD, considering the position of the water table 385

Ordens (2007) applied two physical methods: a) Penman-Grindley, and b) water table fluctuation
methods, and also a geochemical method: the chloride mass balance in the saturated zone. Table 7.3
summarizes the recharge values obtained by this author with the different calculation methods of the
upper aquifer recharge and which confirm the uncertainty associated with the estimation of this
parameter.

Table 7.3 - Estimated recharge values for the upper aquifer in the study area, by Ordens (2007).

257
 Recharge estimation method Recharge (mm/year)
Penman-Grindley 446
Water table fluctuations 460
Chloride mass balance 199 - 733

The aquifers C2 and C5 are mainly recharged in the eastern part of the study area, where the thickness
of the aquitards is smaller or even non-existent. It is also considered that the recharge also originates
from the infiltration of precipitation water due to the eventual communication between upper and
deeper aquifer systems. The amount of infiltration that recharges will depend on the thickness of the
aquitards.

For this work, the spatially distributed water balance model Wetspass (Abdollahi et al., 2012) was used
to quantify the recharge in the study area. Wetspass performed an individual water balance for each
raster cell considering fractions of vegetation, bare soil, open water and impervious land. The software
WetSpass-M 1.3, developed by the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, is a free interface available for academic
purposes that helps in the raster calculation processes and was used in this study.

Spatial discretisation of 100 m was defined for all the input raster; this decision was made to fit them
with the available input data, and considering the grid resolution for the groundwater flow model,
described in the next chapter.

The Digital Elevation Model (DEM), was produced from altimetry information from the 1:50 000 scale
cartographic series (Direção-Geral do Território, 2019). The service provided for this product was
created from an image of a DEM with a resolution of 50 m, and this is the one used in this analysis.
The slope map was obtained through a direct derivation of the DEM (Figure 7.21).

258
Figure 7.21 – Left: Digital elevation model (DEM); Right: Slope map, built from DEM.

Taking into account that the purpose of the analysis is to make an annual calculation for the
distribution of recharge, a groundwater depth map was built with groundwater level measurements
from 2006 till 2019 (Figure 7.22).

Figure 7.22 – Groundwater depth, built from measures between 2006 and 2019.

259
Just like the groundwater levels maps, the depth also shows the close relation between the depth and
the topography. On the other hand, some areas might be over abstracted, like the area around the
ECC, at the east side and at southwest. To the east, it is where the groundwater is found deeper, up
to 4 m depth. In the central north area, a small drawdown is also visible, in the region of Pardilhó.

The landuse map was built from the Continental Portugal Land Use and Occupation Charter (COS) and
from the high-resolution imagery map service of the Instituto Geográfico Português (IGP) through
ArcGIS was used (ESRI, 2019). The COS map presented in Figure 7.23 (left image) shows the mega-
classes of the land use. These mega-classes are described in more detail in the original file, and define
for example the type of agriculture (rice field, orchard, etc) or the type of build up areas (construction
areas, city centre, urban green areas, etc). These classes were analysed and validated in the field and
through the high-resolution imagery map service in order to build the Wetspass landuse map. In
Wetspass, landuse characteristics are linked to respective maps via lookup tables, and tables with
fixed names and default values. This version of WetSpass allows the user to use up to 12 different
landuse maps for respective months and may amend the parameter values as required. However, as
the objective is to get one single map for the annual distributed recharge, and because it is assumed
that landuse does not change significantly through the year in the study area, only one landuse map
was used (Figure 7.23: right image).

Figure 7.23 – Landuse: Continental Portugal Land Use and Occupation Charter (COS) (left); Reclassification to WETSPASS
classes (right).

260
The different types of land use and their characteristics are resumed in Table 7.4. Sixteen categories
were defined: city center build up, build up, industry, sea harbour, open build up, agriculture,
meadow, wet meadow, coniferous forest, mixed forest, shrub, lake, unnavigable river, district road,
pine and reference grass. Each of them presents a fraction of the vegetated area, bare surface and
impervious surface. Also, the root depth, leaf area index and vegetation height for each landuse type
are detailed.

Table 7.4 - Land use types present in the study area and their main characteristics.

Landuse type Runoff Vegetation Bare Impervious Root Leaf Vegetation Percentage
Vegetation área (%) surface surface depth area height (m) of Area (%)
área (%) área (%) (m) índex
(-)
City center build up grass 0.2 0 0.8 0.3 2 0.12 0.13
Build up grass 0.5 0 0.5 0.3 2 0.12 10.23
Industry grass 0.4 0 0.6 0.3 2 0.12 2.09
Sea harbour grass 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 2 0.12 0.04
Open build up grass 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 2 0.12 0.21
Agriculture crop 1 0 0 0.4 4 0.6 45.06
Meadow grass 1 0 0 0.3 2 1.5 1.94
Wet meadow grass 1 0 0 0.3 2 1.3 15.52
Coniferous forest forest 1 0 0 2 6 15 10.87
Mixed forest forest 1 0 0 2 5 16 2.05
Shrub grass 1 0 0 0.6 6 2 0.05
Lake open water 0 0 0 0.05 0 0 0.74
Unnavigable river open water 0 0 0 0.05 0 0 0.08
District road grass 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 2 0.12 0.64
Pine forest 1 0 0 2 6 15 6.21
Reference grass grass 1 0 0 0.3 2 1.7 4.14

The main land use in the study area is the agricultural land, with 45.06 % of the land surface. Since
most of the recharge of the study area comes from the infiltration of irrigation, it is important to
address the recharge associated with this activity. To that purpose, an irrigation map was built to use
it in Wetspass, identifying the agriculture areas (Figure 7.24). A value of 226 mm is assumed to each
of the agriculture cells. This value is the annual deficit calculated by Ordens (2007), through a
sequential water budget (Penman method) from 1985 to 2005.

261
Figure 7.24 – Irrigation map for Wetspass.

Regarding the soil texture, it was built based on Soil Charter of the Environment Atlas (Atlas do
Ambiente, 1982) (Figure 7.25: left). Three classes were defined in the study area. Table 7.5 present
each soil type class with the referenced field capacity, wilting point, plant available water, residual
water content and tension height. Figure 7.25 (right side) shows the spatial distribution of the soil type
with the Wetspass classes in the study area, which is quite dominated by sand due to the type of
geologic formations in the area. Clays are found in the south, mainly associated to the wetlands and
meadow lands that exist around the river branches of Ria de Aveiro, namely the rio Antuã, Esteiro de
Estarreja, and other small streams that flow southward.

Table 7.5 - Soil texture type present in the study area and main characteristics.

Soil type Field capacity Wilting point Plant Residual water Tension height
available content
water
Sand 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.07
Sandy clay 0.26 0.16 0.1 0.068 0.28
Clay 0.46 0.33 0.13 0.09 0.37

262
Figure 7.25 – Soil type maps: Environment Atlas (left); classified according to Wetspass (right).

Besides these maps, other maps must be input in Wetspass for the recharge calculation: the
precipitation (rain), temperature, wind speed and potential evapotranspiration maps.

To build the temperature map, the data series of Barragem de Castelo Burgães station (08G/01C)
(SNIRH, 2019b) was used. In this case, a single value for the entire area was used, based on the
calculation of the average annual value of temperature, using a data series between 1946 and 2001.
The assumed value of temperature was 14.14 ºC.

Similarly, to the wind speed map, also data series from SNIRH were used, in this case a data series of
Albergaria-A-Velha station (09G/01UG) between 2001 and 2019. The resulting map features the
average annual wind speed for the region of Estarreja of 0.579 m/s.

The precipitation map is also made of only one value, calculated from the precipitation data series of
the Espargo station (08F-02UG) (1933-2016) and Albergaria-A-Velha station (09G/01UG) (1984-2018)
(SNIRH, 2019b), which monthly precipitation values are displayed in the Figure 7.26. The value
assumed to the precipitation map is the average annual precipitation of 1301 mm/year, considered
the data from both stations.

263
Figure 7.26 – Monthly precipitation data series of Espargo station (08F-02UG) (top); and Albergaria-A-Velha (09G-01UG)
(bottom) (SNIRH, 2019).

The value required for the potential evapotranspiration is taken from Talaia (2017), that made an
estimation of 597.6 mm/year, which corresponds to 49.88 mm/day.

According to all the data and maps presented, the spatial distribution of estimated recharge is
obtained after applying the Wetspass method (Figure 7.27). As Figure 7.27 shows, the groundwater
recharge varies from 0 to 516.18 mm/year, with an average of 297.31 mm/year. This means that an
average of 22.85% of the precipitation plus irrigation recharges the upper aquifer. The higher recharge
rates seem to be associated to the agriculture areas, in particular, in the west and south-eastern areas,
although the recharge also happens more intensively but sporadically in the central area. The relative
frequency of these values is presented in the histogram of the Figure 7.28, where it shows that the
most frequent classes are the ones from the aforementioned areas. On the other hand, the areas
associated to low recharge rates are located in wet meadows, due to its soil characteristics, and most
likely because these areas are also discharge points of the aquifer. Although the groundwater levels
map carry a certain level of uncertainty, these very same areas present very low groundwater levels,
near sea-water level.

264
Figure 7.27 – Spatial distribution of the estimated recharge values for the study area, by Wetspass method.

Figure 7.28 – Histogram of the estimated recharge values for the area.

265
Accordingly, it is concluded that the recharge rate in this region is high, associated to the very humid
zones and high precipitation (which may be over 1000 mm), to the high permeability of geologic and
soil formations, especially the dune sands, to the reduced thickness of the unsaturated zone, and to
the flattened geomorphology. The low local surface drainage density confirms this fact.

7.7.5 Discharges and abstractions

The main discharge processes of the Quaternary Aveiro aquifer system differ according to the
hydrogeological formation that constitutes it. In the upper aquifer, the discharge is made to the Ria
de Aveiro, to the water lines and streams or by vertical drainage through sludge to the underlying
layers. The Figure 7.29 displays the main rivers, water streams, lakes and drains that were identified
in the area, considered to be some of the discharge points that make the interface surface-
groundwater. Some of the streams and drains are seasonal and highly dependent on the groundwater
level, as it is also Veiros lagoon located in the centre of the area. Just like the groundwater flow
directions, these water streams and drains flow towards Ria de Aveiro. The water streams that carry
out the effluent discharges from the industries, namely the ECC, are also groundwater-dependent in
some sections, closer to the main water streams, for example, nearby Ria de Aveiro and Antuã river.

It should be also noted that there are several ecosystems dependent on this aquifer system, namely
in the areas bordering the Ria de Aveiro.

266
Figure 7.29 – Main rivers, water streams, lakes and drains within the study area.

The abstractions of groundwater in this aquifer system are mainly for public supply and private use.
Private use includes groundwater abstracted for private human supply, irrigation, industries, livestock
and other mixed uses. There are still some abstractions whose end use of the abstracted groundwater
could not be identified. According to the data provided by ARH do Centro, 32 licenced wells exist in
the area that are in use (Figure 7.30). Its use is mainly for industrial activities and irrigation and the
abstraction volumes range from 100 to 144 000 m3/year. These wells pump groundwater from the
deeper aquifers of the system, where the productivity and quality is usually higher, to comply the
industry requirements of larger water abstraction volumes. To complete this list, the inventoried
wells, of large diameter, were also considered as they are still used for domestic supply and
agriculture. Although the abstraction rates in these wells are usually low, they must be considered
because 1) they pump water from the upper aquifer, with potential direct impact on the groundwater
levels; and 2) the inventoried wells altogether make the abstraction more significant due the large
number, even if isolated they might not represent any significative impact.

267
Figure 7.30 – Abstractions map, according to the data provided by APA (2018).

7.8 Hydrogeochemistry

According to the RBMP (2016), the analysis of the hydrogeochemical characterization of Aveiro
quaternary aquifer system was made with measurements data carried out during the hydrological
year 2009/2010.

In this area, predominance groundwater with low electrical conductivity (median values of 475 µS/cm)
and pH with median values in the order of pH ~ 6.7, i.e. within the range of values for human
consumption. These waters have a median nitrate value of 24,5 mg/l, well below the parametric value
for human consumption but with a maximum value of 300 mg/l. Regarding the smallest elements, the
most abundant are iron and manganese, but with medians of 0.01 and 0.015 mg/l, respectively. For
arsenic, cadmium, lead and nickel the medians of the measured values correspond to the detection
limits, which are always well below the parametric values for human consumption.

268
Figure 7.31 - Hydrogeochemical characterization of Aveiro quaternary aquifer system (source: RBMP, 2016).

Neves (2015) studied in detail and defined the ranges of natural concentrations in the upper aquifer
comparing it to rainwater and groundwater chemistry. From the comparison between chloride,
sulfate, sodium, potassium and calcium concentrations in sampled waters of the upper aquifer and
the natural values defined by Neves (2015), it is found that almost 75% of the samples exceed their
natural concentrations. This indicates the presence of contamination processes and most likely
associated with agricultural and industrial activities. Magnesium and bicarbonate exhibit distributions
that are within the range of natural concentrations suggesting that the sources of these ions are
predominantly natural.

The aquifers C2 and C5, corresponding to the Quaternary Base, presents levels of chlorine, sodium,
calcium, potassium and bicarbonate below the mean value of upper aquifer concentrations. The
sulfate and nitrate levels also present a considerable difference between them (Neves, 2015). The
reduction of sulfates and nitrates in the semi-confined aquifers is related to the most reducing
conditions of this aquifer level.

In Veiros lagoon the concentrations of chlorine and sodium are very high, but the remaining ions
present similar levels to natural concentrations, those found in upper aquifer (Neves, 2015).

269
7.9 Groundwater contamination

In the study area, the current chemical composition of groundwater has changed due to
contamination processes originating mainly from agricultural or industrial activities. Studies by Ordens
(2007) and Neves (2015) show that very high electrical conductivity values, high acid or alkaline pH
indicators (depending on the area) and very high concentrations of chemical elements are observed
in the groundwater of the upper aquifer in many areas. Potentially contaminants (chlorides, sulphates,
nitrates, arsenic, mercury and some metals) and also the trace presence of some organic compounds
with a high risk to human health (aniline, benzene, nitrobenzene and vinyl chloride) are also found in
the groundwater.

As it is out the scope of this work to make an in-depth chemical characterization of the groundwater
contamination, it is only important to highlight the groundwater contamination status with the
electrical conductivity, one of the parameters for the identification of groundwater contamination. A
contamination plume map in the upper aquifer, for the area around the ECC, based on inverted
apparent electrical conductivity data from the electrical resistivity data measured by Ordens (2007)
during a geophysical campaign with electromagnetic methods (EM34) was made by Oliveira (2016).
The electrical conductivity data measured in groundwater samples collected in the same area
validated the plume (Figure 7.32).

270
Figure 7.32 - Comparison between the groundwater contamination plume mapped by Ordens (2007) using geophysical
methods (EMF data), and the electrical conductivity values measured in groundwater samples by Oliveira (2016).

For the Soil Take Soil project, a new fieldwork campaign was made during May 2019 by Ayodeji (2019),
based on the inventoried wells (Figure 7.18), which collected more data in a wider area, for example,
on electrical conductivity (EC) and pH, measured directly in large diameter wells. In this way, the
interpretation is only valid to the upper aquifer. The data processing of these parameters and its
interpolation through geostatistical tools, resulted in an electrical conductivity map for the entire
study area, presented in Figure 7.33. This map confirms, once more, the hot-spot located to south of
the Vala do Canedo, on the eastside of Veiros lagoon. It is also possible to observe a visible relation of
the high EC values to the position of the water streams and drains that were used to transport the
industrial effluents of the ECC. EC values of up to 1440 µS/cm are found where Vala de S. Filipe reached
the Esteiro de Estarreja (southeast), and in the terminal section of the drain that flows from Veiros
lagoon. The high values of EC on the west side may be influenced by the proximity of Ria de Aveiro,

271
the coastal lagoon. Up north, another hot-spot is identified in an area where the Vala da Breja is
crossing towards Ria de Aveiro.

Figure 7.33 – Electrical conductivity map, based in measurements made in May 2019 (Ayodeji, 2019), in the context of Soil
Take Care project.

The pH map, based in measurements made by Ayodeji (2019) in May 2019, in the context of Soil Take
Care project is in Figure 7.34. In this map, the relation of the groundwater pH to the water streams,
specifically to the south of the lagoon, is clear. The acid waters (4.9 < pH < 5.5) are coming from Vala
de S. Filipe, Vala do Canedo and from the lagoon, through the drain towards Esteiro de Estarreja, at
south.

With these two maps it is clear that there is a relationship between the groundwater contamination
and the water streams, specially in the area between the ECC and Veiros lagoon towards south-
southwest, following the same path of the groundwater flow, in direction of Ria de Aveiro.

272
Figure 7.34 – pH map, based in measurements made in May 2019 (Ayodeji, 2019), in the context of Soil Take Care project.

273
274
8 Groundwater flow and transport models for the identification of
management and governance areas needing improvement

Science-based decision making depends upon an acceptable understanding of groundwater systems.

Hydrogeology describes aquifers and groundwater flow principally through the use of data and
models. Aquifer performance factors reflect physical processes commonly assessed through
geological observations, and field measurements of flow conditions that are encoded and integrated
into simulation models by subject matter experts. On the other hand, the interdependency of
community drivers and science-based analyses must be recognized and integrated to determine the
actual availability of a resource under various management policies.

Groundwater governance includes the social and contextual aspects of a case that may be used by
groundwater managers, together with operational definitions, to implement management regimes
(Pierce et al., 2013). Modelling approaches that are well suited can be of great use to unravelling the
issues of groundwater governance.

Combining scientific knowledge with perspectives, preferences, and concerns generates opportunities
to 1) address misconceptions about the science content, 2) establish a shared learning and visioning
environment, and 3) increase the likelihood of adoption for solutions that may be identified. Applied
groundwater modelling offer mechanisms and methods for merging a plurality of views and
information that are needed to achieve effective groundwater governance and reduce the potential
for conflict.

The complexity of groundwater management creates, indeed, the need for computational assistance
to support reasoned consideration of available scientific knowledge in conjunction with the
preferences of the resource users. Decision support systems (DSS) are computational systems that use
data and models interactively to aid in the formulation, analysis, and selection of management
strategies. The design, architecture, and implementation of DSS are extensive, highly variable, and,
ultimately driven by the needs of the decision problem and instance that is under evaluation. At the
simplest levels, DSS may provide repositories of data and information in accessible formats and could
offer tools to search and discover repository content. At the other end of the spectrum, DSS may
incorporate sophisticated simulations, link with optimization algorithms, or other intelligent systems
components to enhance decision making. Regardless of the level of sophistication, DSS are well suited
for application to integrated groundwater problems because they can provide a set of applications,
methodologies, and tools to cope with the inherent complexity and uncertainty.

275
If constructed appropriately, DSS can provide ways of exploring and explaining trade-offs, provide a
tool for adoption and adaptation, create a repository to document the project methods, archive a
library of integrated data sets, models, methods, visualization and other tools, a focus for integration
across researchers and stakeholders, and act as a training and education tool (Jakeman and Letcher,
2003). A first step towards designing, developing, and using hydrogeological information to support
decisions depends on identifying what kind of information and knowledge is necessary to describe the
problem adequately. Physical system attributes for groundwater are the first necessary elements. The
groundwater models constitute a useful and appealing tool in the process of describing and simulating
the problems affecting groundwater systems, whether in quantitative or qualitative terms. A
secondary set of necessary elements includes the considerations related to users and environmental
concerns and what are the feedbacks from modelling to be applied to the improvement of
groundwater governance.

8.1 Approaches and methodology applied

In the context of the Soil Take Care project, which aims at the conceptualization and development of
a Decision Support System, a methodology was adopted that covers four implementation tasks: 1)
database compilation of bibliography data and information, monitoring and field work data, 2)
groundwater flow and transport modelling, 3) integration of results into a geographic information
system, and 4) production of vulnerability maps and identification of aspects to improve capacity and
provision for better management and governance (Figure 8.1).

The first task, database compilation of bibliography data and information, monitoring and field work
data, for the case study of the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System was made in the previous chapter,
as well as its socio-economic relationship with the groundwater resources. In this chapter, the
groundwater flow and transport modelling are presented, and how the integration of results into a
geographic information system can contribute to the production of vulnerability maps as a
management tool.

276
Figure 8.1 - Stages of the adopted methodology for the production of tools to support groundwater management and
governance.

8.2 Groundwater flow modelling

Groundwater models provide a scientific and predictive tool for determining appropriate solutions to
water allocation, surface water – groundwater interaction, landscape management or impact of new
development scenarios. However if the modelling studies are not well designed from the outset, or
the model doesn’t adequately represent the natural system being modelled, the modelling effort may
be largely wasted, or decisions may be based on flawed model results, and long term adverse
consequences may result.

By definition, groundwater model is a computer-based representation of the essential features of a

natural hydrogeological system that uses the laws of science and mathematics. Its two key
components are a conceptual model and a mathematical model. The conceptual model is an idealised
representation (i.e. a picture) of our hydrogeological understanding of the key flow processes of the
system. A mathematical model is a set of equations, which, subject to certain assumptions, quantifies
the physical processes active in the aquifer system(s) being modelled. While the model itself obviously
lacks the detailed reality of the groundwater system, the behaviour of a valid model approximates
that of the aquifer(s). A groundwater model provides a scientific means to draw together the available
data into a numerical characterisation of a groundwater system. The model represents the
groundwater system to an adequate level of detail, and provides a predictive scientific tool to quantify
the impacts on the system of specified hydrological, pumping or irrigation stresses.

277
Typical model purposes include:

- Improving hydrogeological understanding (synthesis of data),

- Aquifer simulation (evaluation of aquifer behaviour),
- Designing practical solutions to meet specified goals (engineering design),
- Optimising designs for economic efficiency and account for environmental effects
(optimisation),
- Evaluating recharge, discharge and aquifer storage processes (water resources assessment);
- Predicting impacts of alternative hydrological or development scenarios (to assist decision-
making),
- Quantifying the sustainable yield (economically and environmentally sound allocation
policies),
- Resource management (assessment of alternative policies),
- Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis (to guide data collection and risk-based decision-making),
- Visualisation (to communicate aquifer behaviour).

There is no such thing as a perfect model (Spitz and Moreno, 1996). Nevertheless, groundwater flow
models have been, and will continue to be, used as an integral part of decision support systems for
the management of groundwater resources. The development and evaluation of management
strategies for sustainable water allocation, and for control of land and water resource degradation,
are heavily dependent on groundwater model predictions. Regional scale groundwater flow modelling
studies, usually undertaken by consultants, are commonly used for water resource evaluation and to
help quantify sustainable allocation distributions. Models are also used at a range of scales to assess
drainage strategies, simulate aspects of groundwater dependent ecosystems, evaluate irrigation
development and drainage impacts, optimise salt interception schemes and disposal basins, and
investigate dryland salinity processes. Many other resource management or impact assessment issues
could be envisaged, associated with proposed developments including feedlots, effluent re-use,
residential and commercial property development, and aspects of mining developments for water
supply, dewatering, discharge and waste management.

Notwithstanding the great advantages offered by modelling, models always carry a degree of
uncertainty that should be omnipresent in any interpretation, reconstitution, evaluation or decision
making based on the generated predictions. The uncertainty applies at all stages throughout model
studies:

278
 - at the initiation of a modelling study, when objectives and study purpose may have been
poorly considered or specified, or data availability, integrity and reliability was uncertain,
- during the study, when poor communication may result in models being developed that are
not fit for purpose, and,
- at the end of a study, when the modelling results may not have been well-presented to, or
understood by, the end-users.

However, in order to make modelling possible, simplifications have to be introduced into the
complexity of real systems. Promoting transparency in modelling methodologies, and encouraging
consistency, applying best practice and greater confidence in the outcomes of the different predictive
scenarios are all ways to reduce uncertainty in groundwater modelling.

Regarding Estarreja and the Aveiro Quaternary, three decades of research works in the industrial area
of Estarreja that have been carried out (from 1980s to the present work), made it possible to
understand the functioning of the Aveiro Quaternary aquifer system in that area and the
contamination problems that affect it. Many features were characterized, namely lithostratigraphic,
piezometric, hydraulic, geophysical and hydrochemical features, rather enough to formulate a
conceptual model of the region. The conceptual model must reproduce the actual conditions of the
system as faithfully as possible, and should also synthetize the main hydrogeological and
contamination features. At this point, it is considered that the formulated conceptual model for the
groundwater in the Aveiro Quaternary in the region of Estarreja is solid, and constitutes the basis for
the development of the groundwater flow and transport model.

In addition, the calibrated flow model may provide very important outputs to integrate in a GIS
platform that will constitute a tool for the management and risk assessment of contaminated sites.

8.3 Numerical modelling method

8.3.1 Governing equation for groundwater flow

All process-based models of groundwater flow are derived from two basic principles: conservation of
mass, which states that water is not created or destroyed; and Darcy’s law, which states that
groundwater flows from high to low potential energy. A mathematical model for groundwater flow
consists of a governing equation (derived from conservation of mass and Darcy’s law) that represents

279
processes within the problem domain, boundary conditions that represent processes along the
boundaries, and, for time-dependent (transient) problems, initial conditions that specify values of the
dependent variable (i.e., head) at the start of the simulation.

The general governing equation (differential equation) representing three-dimensional transient

groundwater flow, is given by (Anderson et al., 2015):

𝜕 𝜕ℎ 𝜕 𝜕ℎ 𝜕 𝜕ℎ 𝜕ℎ (2)
(𝐾𝑥 ) + (𝐾𝑦 ) + (𝐾𝑧 ) = 𝑆𝑠 −𝑊
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑡

In which:

Kx, Ky and Kz are values of hydraulic conductivity [LT-1] along the x, y and z cartesian axis which are
assumed to be parallel to the directions of greater hydraulic conductivity, h is the hydraulic
potential [L], W is the volumetric flux per unit of volume [L3T-1L-3] that represents fluid gains and losses
and Ss is the storage coefficient, necessary to simulate transient variations on the reserved volume of
water [L-1].

The hydraulic conductivity, related to the hydraulic permeability, is defined by the following
expression:

𝜌𝑔𝑘 (3)
𝐾=
𝜇

Where ρ is the density of water [ML-3], g is the gravitational acceleration [LT-2], k is the intrinsic
permeability [L2] and μ is the dynamic viscosity [ML-1T-1].

The piezometric level, also known as hydraulic potential (h [L]), corresponds to the energy per unit of
mass of the fluid, if kinetic energy is disregarded, as is expressed as the sum of the elevation potential,
z [L] of the fluid and the pressure potential, p [ML-1T-2] at a given point:

𝑝 (4)
ℎ =( )+𝑧
𝜌𝑔

The storage coefficient [L-1] is defined by the expression:

𝑆𝑠 = 𝜌𝑔(𝛼 + 𝑛𝛽) (5)

Where α is the compressibility of the porous media [LT2M-1], n is the effective porosity (non-
dimensional) and β is the waters compressibility [LT2M-1].

280
When the flow is made in steady state or approximately steady, there is no change in piezometric
levels over time, so the groundwater flow equation ( 2 ) turns into the simplified form:

𝜕 𝜕ℎ 𝜕 𝜕ℎ 𝜕 𝜕ℎ (6)
(𝐾𝑥 ) + (𝐾𝑦 ) + (𝐾𝑧 ) = 0
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧

Simplifying, the Laplace equation is obtained:

𝜕2ℎ 𝜕2ℎ 𝜕2ℎ (7)

+ + =0
𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑦 2 𝜕𝑧 2

8.3.2 Boundary conditions

In a numerical model, besides defining the groundwater governing equation, it is also necessary to
define the boundary conditions and the initial conditions, the latter particularly necessary to model
groundwater flow in transient regime. The proper selection of boundary conditions is one of the most
critical steps in model design, as a poorly defined boundary can lead to serious errors in the results.

Mathematically, boundary conditions are classified into three types.

1. Specified head boundary (Dirichlet conditions) where head along the boundary is set at a
known value. Heads along a specified head boundary may vary with space. A constant head
boundary is a special case Type 1 boundary where the heads along the boundary are set to
the same value.
2. Specified flow boundary (Neumann conditions) where the derivative of head at the boundary
is specified. Flow is calculated from Darcy’s law. A no flow boundary is a special case Type 2
boundary where the flow across the boundary is zero.
3. Head-dependent boundary (Cauchy conditions) where flow across the boundary is calculated
from Darcy’s law using a gradient calculated as the difference between a specified head
outside the boundary and the head computed by the model at the node located on or near
the boundary. It is the condition under which the boundary crossed by the flow depends on
the head. This type of boundary condition is sometimes called a mixed boundary condition
because it relates a boundary head to a boundary flow.

8.3.3 Numerical model

281
The numerical methods most commonly used in groundwater modelling are the finite-difference (FD)
method and the finite-element (FE) method. The equation describing groundwater flow can be solved
for particular boundary conditions by the FD method, which is a particularly well suited approach for
integrating partial differential equations over space and thus to simulate flow in complex geometry
flow domains. Numerous texts and reports cover the basic theory of these methods. For example,
Remson et al. (1971) discuss finite differences, while Anderson et al. (2015) and Wang and
Anderson (1982) provide an elementary introduction to both methods.

The FD method approximate solutions of the differential equation obtained for a series of point
locations, in which the volume under study has been discretized. More details in the mathematical
formulation and solution of the method can be found, for example, in Anderson et al. (2015).

8.4 Aveiro Quaternary groundwater flow model: region of Estarreja

8.4.1 Conceptual model

The conceptual model of this study considered a simplified representation of the Aveiro Quaternary
aquifer system and was built from the information presented in Chapter 7. The formulated conceptual
model expresses the interpretation of the main hydrodynamic characteristics, processes and
interactions relevant to groundwater modelling (Figure 8.2). It is considered that this degree of detail
will not compromise the proper reproduction of the behaviour of the aquifer system.

The area to be modelled is between the eastern geologic limit of the Aveiro Quaternary and the
western natural boundary of the coastal lagoon Ria de Aveiro. Up north is limited by Fontela river, a
small river that flows to Ria de Aveiro, and at south by the Ria de Aveiro branchs, in the river mouth
of Antuã.

282
Figure 8.2 – Conceptual model for the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System in Estarreja region (modified from Neves, 2015). The
scale is not representative of the real dimensions.

This aquifer system is constituted by three aquifer units: the upper aquifer (recent Holocene dune
sands and alluvial deposits, unconfined), the aquifer C5 and the aquifer C2, associated to layer 5 and
layer 2, respectively, from Moitinho d’ Almeida and Zbyszewski (1949, 1947). These two deeper
aquifer consist in a unit differentiation of the system aquifer known as the Quaternary Base. The upper
aquifer is separated from aquifer C5 by aquitard C6, and the aquifer C5 is divided from the aquifer C2
by the aquitard C3+4.

The thickness of the units progressively augment from East to West but the cross-section of the Figure
8.2 represents the minimum observed thickness in the east side, very close to the location of the ECC.
To north and south the thickness of the units is quite closer to what is observed in the central area,
where the whole system structure can reach up to more than 50 meters thick. The west limit of the
upper aquifer is contoured by the geologic limits of the dune sands, river terraces and ancient beaches.
The unit that outcrops beyond these limits, towards west and south is the aquitard C6, composed
mainly by alluvial materials.

The units are discontinuous and its geology is quite difficult to interpret on this case, when three
aquifer units are considered. Therefore, the aquifer C5 and aquifer C2 are considered to be
semiconfined to locally confined. The aquifer units communicate between each other through
drainage in the aquitards, up and downwards, or through direct hydraulic connection in areas where
an aquitard is not present. The hydrogeologic units considered for this model and its relationship to
the lithostratigraphic layers are presented in the Table 8.1.

283
Table 8.1 - Relationship between the lithostratigraphic layers and the hydrogeological units of the Aveiro Quaternary aquifer
system in the study area.

Hydrogeological
Layer 1 Description Type
unit
8+9 Superficial sands and some levels of compact clay and humus
7b Sludge with vegetable remains Upper aquifer Groundwater permeable unit
7-7a Fine sands
Sludge and sandy sludge with vegetable remains and
6 Aquitard C6 Semiconfinant to confining unit
lamellibranchs
Semiconfined to locally confined
5 Fine to coarse sands with rolled stones Aquifer C5
permeable unit
3+4 Sludge with vegetal remains Aquitard C3+4 Semiconfinant to confining unit
Semiconfined to locally confined
2 Medium to coarse sands with rolled stones Aquifer C2
permeable unit
1 – Lithostratigraphy classification by Moitinho d'Almeida and Zbyszewsky (1947, 1949)

The groundwater flow directions are quite well related to the geomorphology of the terrain, the
geologic formations and water streams, and generally, the groundwater is flowing towards the Ria de
Aveiro (Figure 8.3). The hydraulic gradients are higher at the eastern side (0.006 – 0.008), and smaller
in areas closer to the wetlands at west and south (0.001 – 0.003).

Figure 8.3 – Piezometric map and groundwater flow directions.

284
In Figure 7.29 are presented the main rivers, water streams and drains of the region. These surface
water streams are, mostly the times, interlinked with the groundwater of the upper aquifer. Due the
release of industrial effluents in the drains, they are considered to be quite important interfaces for
the diffusion of pollutants through the aquifer systems, particularly, in the upper aquifer. Therefore,
the industrial drains that were carefully mapped, and confirmed in the field, are taken into account
for this model, namely the drains Vala de S. Filipe, Vala da Breja, and Vala do Canedo.

Regarding the recharge, it is made mainly by the infiltration of the rain water from precipitation onto
the upper aquifer, with a spatial distribution presented in Figure 7.27. The recharge values range from
0 – 516.18 mm/year, and the average value is 297.31 mm/year. The areas with higher rates of recharge
are associated to irrigation areas, mainly in the central and south-western area of the region. Very low
recharge should be expected in the western and southern wetlands of the study area, nearby the main
water streams and the coastal lagoon.

In the study area, the groundwater discharges of the upper aquifer are the Ria de Aveiro, and to water
lines and streams or by vertical drainage through sludge to the underlying layers. Veeiros lagoon is
also a discharge point of this aquifer, but only during the wet season, when the groundwater levels
are higher and closer to the surface. Regarding the aquifer C5 and C2, no discharges points are known,
and the groundwater flow is made towards the ocean.

8.4.2 Code selection

The selection of a groundwater flow code for a particular modelling application depends on the
problem to be solved, the options available in the code for representing special features such as
surface water bodies, and the preference of the user. The main difference intrinsically between a
standard FD code and an FE is the nature of the spatial discretization. The FD method is easy to
understand and spatial discretization is easy to set up compared to FE. Increased computer power
allows standard FD codes to solve complex models effectively even though the requirement for a
rectangular grid may entail a large number of nodes. Consequently, high-resolution FD models are
sufficient for many problems.

The most widely used code for solving groundwater flow problems currently is the FD code MODFLOW
by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/modflow/). MODFLOW allows for
addition of modules and linking or coupling with other codes; it is freely available with detailed
documentation.

285
For this work, the FD code MODFLOW was used, with resource to the software package GMS 10.3.4
(Aquaveo LCC, 2019), for its architecture and design, and for the available tools for the aquifer
characterization, modelling tools and analysis packages.

8.4.3 Spatial discretization

The area of the model is 83 km2 and the limits of the active cells are displayed in the Figure 8.4. At
east is the geologic boundary between the quaternary and the Old Massif; at west and south the
natural boundary with the Ria de Aveiro; at north it is located the Fontela river that constitutes the
northern limit of the model. The resolution of the mesh is 100 m, and no refinement was made. The
topography was made from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM), with a resolution of 50 m that was
converted into a TIN of 100 m (Figure 8.5).

Figure 8.4 – Active cells of the finite-difference mesh, made for MODFLOW in GMS 10.3.4.

286
Figure 8.5 – Digital elevation model (DEM) for the study area (left); TIN used for the groundwater model (right).

In terms of vertical spatial discretization, five layers were used, and the hydrogeological units are
distributed in each layer according to Figure 8.6. As the model is going to be set up according to
materials type, it was considered that in this way the geometry of the hydrogeological units would be
well fit. Hence, in principle, no hydraulic conductivity zones would be required, assuming that the
parameters are defined per hydrogeological unit. As its geometry is built and parameters distributed
according the units, the behaviour of the aquifer should be reflected.

The layer 1 is the Figure 8.6a, layer 2 is Figure 8.6b, layer 3 is Figure 8.6c, layer 4 is Figure 8.6d and
layer 5 is Figure 8.6e. A 3D perspective of the mesh with the hydrogeological units in the layers is given
in the Figure 8.6f. Through these figures and Figure 8.7, it is also possible to observe that the Upper
Aquifer is in contact with Aquifer C5 and Aquifer C2, even if locally, and sometimes indirectly. As the
lateral variability and heterogeneity of each unit is reflected in each layer, the typical over-
simplification of hydrogeological spatial characterization is herein avoided. Although, a careful
characterization in the east side of the model was needed to reduce errors due the very thin layers in
that part. A minimum thickness of 2 m was imposed in each layer for a) error control purposes, mainly
to avoid having dry cells, and b) for calibration purposes, as the observed relatively high groundwater
levels of that part and the thin layers combined resulted in incompatible piezometry in the first runs.

287
Adding to this, to discretize the geometry of contact with the Old Massif, at east, the limitation of the
layer 4 and layer 5 is made (Figure 8.6d and Figure 8.6e).

a) b)

c) d)

288
 f)

e)
Figure 8.6 – Spatial characterization of each hydrogeological unit through the model layers.

Location Cross-section
Row 110

Row 121

Row 130

Figure 8.7 – Cross-sections of the model grid.

289
8.4.4 Time discretization

From the analysis of the piezometric levels, it is observed that seasonal variations are not significant
in this region of the aquifer. Likewise, the known water abstractions, in long periods of time, also do
not cause important drawdowns. These effects are compensated by natural discharges effects and
recharge in the upper aquifer. Although truly stationary conditions are not observed in natural
systems, for the reasons aforementioned, it is considered that the groundwater flow in the aquifer, in
this region, is a dynamic equilibrium system.

Another reason to assume a steady state regime for the modelling is the inexistence of a
representative quantitative monitoring network. The data series of the existing network only cover
part of the area, mainly concentrated in the surroundings of ECC. These monitoring points also have
the particularity of monitoring only the deeper aquifer units, with no clear specification of which unit
is monitored.

As no seasonal data is going to be considered but average annual values of piezometry, recharge and
other parameters, the flux simulations in steady state will produce outputs with average values. Given
the natural conditions and small piezometry variations, this assumption is considered to be
acceptable, from the point of view of the quality of results and uncertainty analysis.

8.4.5 Boundary conditions

The definition of appropriate boundary conditions is an essential part of conceptualising and

modelling groundwater systems (Anderson et al., 2015). Different types of boundary conditions were
used to represent different hydrogeological characteristics, as well as surface water features in the
numerical groundwater model. This section details the boundary conditions settled and their main
characteristics. The spatial distribution of the boundary conditions is shown in the Figure 8.8.

290
Figure 8.8 – Boundary conditions in the model.

Specified Heads

The area is limited at west and south by the coastal lagoon Ria de Aveiro. At west, where the water
body is very close to sea-level elevation, specified heads with a constant head of 0 m were fixed. At
south, this boundary is set as a changing head from point A (H=0 m) to B (H=0.9 m), C (H=1 m) and D
(H=4.28 m) from Figure 8.8, to simulate the gradually increasing heads from west to east. These heads
were fixed based on the topography and on the head-stages of the drains and rivers mouth at south,
namely the Antuã river and the Esteiro de Estarreja, and also on the few groundwater levels
measurements in the southern area. In the northern limit, where Fontela river is delimited till its river
mouth at Ria de Aveiro, the specified heads are established between 10 and 0 m, at points E and F,
respectively, from Figure 8.8. The gradual distribution of the heads along the boundary were found
through trial-and-error during the calibration process.

291
At the contour in the east side, constant heads in some cells had to be imposed for calibration
purposes, based on the groundwater levels observed nearby the boundary. Similarly to the work made
by Neves (2015), this assumption had to be made in order to encounter the best diverging solution for
the model, and to control accumulated errors in this area. In this work, it is considered that this can
be caused by the observed small thickness of the upper aquifer in this area, where the geologic contact
with the Old Massif is made. Adding to this, the other units are inexistent or present only punctually.
Also, in this region, the topography raises considerably, compared to the dominant plain geometry of
the rest of the area, just like the groundwater levels that are also high in the eastern limit of the area.
During calibration, the distributed recharge between 296-516 mm/year for the same area, was not
enough to prevent the cells to go dry. Therefore, establishing a constant head in this area is the same
as assuming that, in this small area, the upper aquifer is horizontally recharged by a formation in the
eastern geologic limit.

General Heads

The General Head Boundary conceptually is a fixed head far from the model where it is assume as a
fixed head with time. The General Head package is similar to the Drain and River packages in that flow
in or out of a cell is proportional to a difference in head. General head cells are also often used to
simulate lakes (Anderson et al., 2015; Aquaveo LCC, 2019). Accordingly, and due the lack of data about
physical characteristics of the surface water bodies of Antuã river and Veiros lagoon, and also the
Esteiro da Tojeira (see general head set of cells at west in Figure 8.8), the general head was used to
simulate the exchange of water between surface and groundwater. General head conditions are
specified by assigning a head and a conductance to a selected set of cells. If the water table elevation
rises above the specified head, water flows out of the aquifer. If the water table elevation falls below
the specified head, water flows into the aquifer. In both cases, the flow rate is proportional to the
head difference and the constant of proportionality is the conductance. By definition, this parameter
is related to the ease of water infiltration of these structures into the underlying layer and is expressed
by Equation ( 8 ).

𝐾𝑊𝐿𝑅 (8)
𝐶=
𝑏

Where C is the hydraulic conductance of the layer [L2T-1], LR is the length of the water body [L], W is
the width of the water body [L], K the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the layer [LT-1] and b the
thickness of the bed material [L]. For rivers, the length of the streams has to be considered:

292
 𝐾 (9)
𝑊𝐿𝑅 𝐾
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑐 =𝑏 = 𝑊
𝐿 𝑏

In the case of lakes, equation ( 8 ) as to be adapted to a polygon shape, taking the form of the equation
( 10 ):

𝐾 ( 10 )
𝑊𝐿𝑅 𝐾
𝐶𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦 =𝑏 =
𝐴 𝑏
Where:

𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑐= conductance per unit length [(L2/T)/L] or [L/T]

𝐶𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦= conductance per unit area [(L2/T)/L2] or [1/T]

𝑏 = the thickness of the material [L]

W = the width of riverbed along the length of the arc [L]

The head-stage of the lagoons was chosen, taking into account the elevation data given by the digital
elevation model (DEM), and the conductance was found through inverse calibration, by trial and error,
till corresponding cells resulted in flooded areas. The values for the parameters are presented in Table
8.2.

Table 8.2 – Parameters for setting the boundary conditions of Antuã river, Veiros lagoon and Esteiro da Tojeira.

W (m) K (m/d) b (m) Carc [(m2/d)m] CPoly [(m2/d)m2] Head-stage (m)

Antuã river 10 0.1 6 0.6 1 – 2.838
Veiros lagoon 10 2 5 10.5
Esteiro da Tojeira 150 2 75 1

The head-stage of Antuã river was given by subtracting between 0.5 m and 2 m to DEM, depending
on the area and topography, therefore varying between 1 m in the river mouth, and 2.838 m at the
eastern extremity of the model (Table 8.2).

Drains

293
To simulate the interaction surface-groundwater in the drains installed in the region, the most
important drains were simulated by assigning the cells with drain package, which is also a general
head boundary condition type. The Drain package is used to simulate the effect of drains on an aquifer.
Drains remove water from the aquifer as long as the water table is above the elevation of the drain. If
the water table falls below the elevation of the drain, the drain has no effect. The rate of removal is
proportional to the difference in elevation between the water table and the drain. The constant of
proportionality is the conductance of the fill material surrounding the drain.

There are two parameters that are associated with a drain: the bottom elevation and conductance.
The bottom elevation was specified from the DEM. Conductance may be constant or vary with time.
In this case, a constant value of 10 m/d was assumed to the hydraulic conductivity of the drains,
corresponding to sands with silts (Healy et al., 2007). The bottom elevation was taken from the used
DEM. In Table 8.3 are the parameters for the most important drains of the area. The other simulated
drains have the same assumptions of the Vala do Canedo/S. Filipe and are in Figure 8.8.

Table 8.3 - Parameters for setting the boundary conditions of the drains.

W (m) K (m/d) b (m) Carc [(m2/d)m] Bottom elevation (m)

Vala da Breja 1 10 0.3 33.33 Variable1
Vala do Canedo 0.75 10 0.2 37.5 Variable1
Vala de S. Filipe 0.75 10 0.2 37.5 Variable1
1- Extracted from topography cell-by-cell.

Wells

According to the data provided by ARH do Centro, 32 licenced wells exist in the area that are in use
(Figure 7.30). Its use is mainly for industrial activities and irrigation and the abstraction volumes range
from 100 to 144 000 m3/year (0.28 to 394 m3/day). According to the technical reports of the well
constructions, these wells are abstracting the aquifer C5 and aquifer C2, interchangeably, but mostly
the aquifer C5, for its better productivity. This group of wells represents the great majority of the
abstractions in this area, not only for the volumes abstracted but also for the continuous pumping
regime to comply with industrial demands for the entire year. For these reasons, the model is set up
to pump continuously for the whole simulation. The large diameter wells were also considered for the
model and are used mostly in the agricultural sector. According to the available data, and the required
pumping volumes for some of these wells, an average value of 1 m3/d was assumed for all of them. In

294
the agricultural sector a sum of 610 wells were set up to pump from the upper aquifer, and some of
the industrial wells were merged into one due to its proximity. A total of 635 wells are set up in the
model and its summary and statistics can be analysed in the Table 8.4. The Figure 8.9 presents its
spatial distribution along the area, as well as the indication of the unit abstracted.

Table 8.4 – Summary and statistics of the pumping wells in the study area. The units are in m3/d.

Type Count VT Max Min Average Standard deviation Unit abstracted

Industrial 32 2086.46 394.52 0.27 65.20 107.77 Aquifer C5
Industrial + 635 2696.46 394.52 0.27 4.20 27.52 Upper aquifer and
Agricultural Aquifer C5.
3
VT : Total abstracted volume (m /d)

Figure 8.9 – Location of the wells considered to simulate abstractions in the modelled region. Yellow colour: abstraction from
Upper aquifer; shaded yellow: abstraction from Aquifer C5.

295
8.4.6 Hydraulic parameters

In the initial simulation of the groundwater flow, the hydraulic parameters of the aquifers and
aquitards were adopted according to some aspects and previous existence literature, in order to verify
the behaviour of the model. The range of values for the hydraulic conductivity were previously
discussed and exposed in the section 7.7.2, based on the interpretation of pumping tests, including
the works by Peixinho de Cristo (1985), A. Cavaco (1986) and Ordens (2007).

The hydraulic parameters were assigned per hydrogeological unit. As the geometry of the units will
be represented in the model layers, and because of the large heterogeneity of the units, proved by
the broad range of, for example, hydraulic conductivity values (Ordens, 2007), the creation of
parameter zones was not considered necessary, in a first stage of the model construction. This
approach, “from simple to more complex characterization”, applied not only for the hydraulic
parameters, but also for the rest of the modelling, leaves room enough to the refinement of the
model, should the necessity comes. Hence, during the calibration process, the adoption of zones
would be an option for poor outcomes, consequent of an unsuccessful or poor calibration. Other than
that, the parsimony principle would be applied, as long as the resulting outcomes would meet the
quality expectations of the model, and the parameters would comply with expected values on its
context.

Regarding the aquifers of the Quaternary base, A. Cavaco (1986), in various reports highlighted the
differences between the geologic layers of aquifer C5 and aquifer C2. The major difference was
regarded the hydraulic conductivity, generally larger in aquifer C5 than in aquifer C2.

Vertical anisotropy (Kh/Kv), where Kh and Kv are horizontal and vertical K, respectively, is common to
most hydrogeological settings, and is caused by bedding planes and laminae (stratification) within a
model layer heterogeneity, and other structures that cause preferential flow in the horizontal
direction. Tests to measure vertical anisotropy are rarely performed in practice, and is often scale
dependent (not representative), hence usually vertical anisotropy is estimated during model
calibration (Anderson et al., 2015). For this model, an initial vertical anisotropy of 10 was given to all
the units, adopting this value from Custodio and Llamas (1983).

The other required data are estimated according to the lithological materials of the hydrogeological
units, taking into account the values of the literature (Custodio and Llamas, 1983; Peixinho de Cristo,
1985; Anderson et al., 2015). The adopted and assigned hydraulic parameters for the calibration of
the model are presented in Table 8.5.

296
Table 8.5 - Hydraulic parameters assigned to each hydrogeological unit for groundwater simulation in the study area.

Vertical
Hydrogeological Specific storage˟ Effective
Kh (m/d) Kv (m/d) anisotropy
Unit (1/m) porosity˟
(Kh/Kv)
Upper aquifer 10 1 10 0.00102 0.3
Aquitard C6 1 0.1 10 0.00049 0.1
Aquifer C5 30 3 10 0.00102 0.2
Aquitard C3+4 1 0.1 10 0.00049 0.1
Aquifer C2 40 4 10 0.00102 0.3
˟ - Based in (Anderson et al., 2015; Custodio and Llamas, 1983; Freeze and A.Cherry, 1979)

8.4.7 Groundwater recharge

Regarding the recharge, the spatial distribution of recharge calculated by the use of Wetspass
software was considered. The information required and the process of calculation is described in
section 7.7.4. The adopted regime of simulation of this model is steady-state, therefore, an annual
average value of recharge was calculated to each cell of the model. The map in Figure 8.10 shows the
range of values (m/d) and locations throughout the area.

297
Figure 8.10 – Spatial distribution of groundwater recharge, calculated with Wetspass (m/d).

8.4.8 Calibration process and results

The calibration process involved several tasks towards the best convergence to the observed
groundwater levels. The boundary conditions took a significant time to be calibrated, mainly related
to the areas where drains were present. The structure of the drains, with low head-stages and small
depth and width, combined with the resolution of the grid (100 m) resulted many times in an over-
drainage effect that had to be taken into account when analysing the drawdown of specific zones. The
very shallow groundwater levels, very close to the surface, also difficult the task of calibration in some
zones, 1) specially in the Veiros lagoon, which work as a discharge zone due to a topography
depression and terrains with higher permeability, 2) in the western limit, close to Ria de Aveiro, nearby
the Esteiro da Tojeira and up north, where the groundwater depth is between 0.5 m and 1 m, and 3)
to south of ECC area, where the Vala de S. Filipe is passing through (see Figure 8.11).

298
Figure 8.11 – Groundwater levels and relation to topography, drainage and surface water bodies. The delimited yellow area
is a deep groundwater zone, between 2.1 - 4 m.

Figure 8.11 shows the relationship between groundwater levels and topography, drainage and surface
water bodies. Despite the plain topography of the area, a zone with deeper groundwater levels can
be delimited (in yellow) in the west, right before Veiros lagoon, that shows that groundwater levels
are not completely controlled by topography. Some areas also show a relation to the water streams
Vala da Breja and Vala de S. Filipe, with low groundwater depth. This interconnectivity has to be taken
into account in the water budget, in order to figure out whether the effluents in the drains contribute
to the upper aquifer recharge or the other way around.

After the calibration of the boundaries, considering the topography, water streams geometry,
conductance and head-stages, the hydraulic parameters for the hydrogeological units were adjusted,
as well as the recharge map. The calibration of the hydraulic conductivity through the use of
Parameter Estimation (PEST) was unsuccessful, as problems of convergence and parameters
coherence arose. Therefore, single hydraulic conductivity values for each unit were found, by trial-
and-error, which led to fair outputs of groundwater levels. The resulting recharge map of Wetspass

299
was also subjected to calibration (Figure 8.10), as the controlling parameters for land-use and soil type
play an important role in the calculation of the recharge values and must be adjusted to the local
characteristics (Batelaan and Smedt, 2007). A solution was considered acceptable when the model
simulations presented flooded or dry cells in locals where they would be expected (e.g., the Veiros
lagoon). The simulated groundwater levels were compared to the observed ones in every model run
and results compared and analysed, according to the imposed changes and set ups. A total of 160
observed groundwater levels were measured between 2006 and 2019, in wet season (Figure 8.12).

Figure 8.12 – Groundwater levels observation points for the model calibration and its origin.

The origin of these measurements are Ordens (2007), SNIRH, ERASE and measurements made for the
Soil Take Care project. According to SNIRH data, displayed in Figure 7.17, the groundwater levels may
vary up to 2.5 m southwest of ECC, and up to 6 m to north of the ECC, but in some years the variation
can be less than 1 m. The considered measurements of observed points took into account surface

300
water bodies like Veiros lagoon, which area is flooded only in the wet season, due the groundwater
levels rise.

Considering all the aforementioned aspects and processes, the observed vs simulated groundwater
levels for the calibrated model is presented in Figure 8.13. The model presents an R2 of 0.923, a mean
absolute error (MAE) of -1.2267 m, an NRMSE of 4.1%.

Figure 8.13 – Observed vs simulated groundwater levels calculated in GMS.

Another statistical tool is the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of efficiency (E), which is commonly used as a
measure of the fit between observed and simulated values in hydrology models (Figure 8.14). It is the
sum of the deviations of the observations from a linear regression line with a slope of 1 (Nash and
Sutcliffe, 1970). For this model, a Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of 0.905 was obtained, following the linear
fit 1.10x – 1.63 with an R2 of 0.923. Figure 8.14 shows the Nash-Sutcliffe analysis, where purple line is
the 1:1 slope and in green is the linear fit.

301
Figure 8.14 - Observed vs simulated groundwater levels: comparison and calculation of Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient.

Figure 8.15 – Observed groundwater levels in GMS model. The colours are indicative of the difference between simulated and
observed heads. Red coloured bars: simulated levels with a difference higher of 1.5 m from the observed levels; Green and
yellow coloured bars: simulated levels with a difference smaller than 1.5 m from the observed levels.

302
From the Figure 8.15 it is possible to observe the locations where the model best fit the observed
groundwater levels. Some simulated levels in the east side are above or below 1.5 m of the observed
points. Some points are within the deep groundwater zone, and others north of the ECC. This area of
the model become more difficult to calibrate for better values due 1) the geometry of the
hydrogeological units in this area, where some layers do not have more than 2 m thickness, and 2) the
date discrepancy of the groundwater measurements, explained before in this section. The heads for
the upper layer of the model are in Figure 8.16, while in Figure 8.17 are presented the heads for the
lower layers of the Quaternary base. As is it can be seen in the upper layer, the groundwater levels
are quite controlled by the topography and by the drains, particularly at west and south areas. The
dry cells in the west limit and at south can be explained by the topography local reliefs that, given the
small thickness of the first layer and the low groundwater levels in these areas, resulted in dry cells.

Figure 8.16 – Simulated heads for the upper aquifer.

303
Figure 8.17 - Simulated heads for the aquifer C5 (left), and for the aquifer C2 (right). These two layers belong to the Quaternary
base.

The lower aquifer layers present smoother isopiezometric curves, in line with the groundwater levels
map presented in this work, made through geostatistical tools. The southeastern part indicates the
presence of a head depression, probably associated to the Ria de Aveiro branch, at south, that was
simulated by a boundary condition. The southern area also holds higher uncertainty for the lack of
observation points.

The final hydraulic parameters set in the model are presented in Table 8.6. In comparison to the initial
values, the most notorious change is the hydraulic conductivity of the upper aquifer. Nevertheless,
according to the literature (Ferreira, 1995; Ordens, 2007; Peixinho de Cristo, 1985), these values are
within what could be expected, for the three aquifer units.

Table 8.6 – Calibrated hydraulic parameters of each hydrogeological unit of the groundwater model.

Hydrogeological
Kh (m/d) Kv (m/d)
Unit
Upper aquifer 100 1
Aquitard C6 0.2 0.002
Aquifer C5 50 0.5
Aquitard C3+4 0.2 0.002
Aquifer C2 80 0.8

304
MODFLOW calculates a water balance with the IN and OUTs of the model for each time step of
simulation. Since the model is Steady-State, only one water budget for the complete stress period is
computed. Table 8.7 presents water budget, each component details the flow “passing through” each
boundary condition in m3/day. As the model is steady-state, a zero storage is observed. The constant
head shows the water entering to the system from the river cells at north and south is very
significative, as it is the contribution of some cells at the east limit of the model. The flow of water
that enters the aquifer from constant head is 13.48 m3/s. On the other hand, the water from the
aquifer going towards Ria de Aveiro is about 4.05 m3/s. The Antuã river also contributes significantly
to the recharge of the upper aquifer. The contribution of the lakes and the Antuã river (Head Dep
Bounds) alone is a flow rate of 8.17 m3/s. This difference between in-out is compensated by the
drainage in the drain structures that drain to Ria de Aveiro a flow of 19.97 m3/s. The recharge is
consistent to the presented values, with a recharge of 3.58 m3/s, but compared to rivers its
contribution is quite smaller. The calculated flow out of the wells is slightly smaller, due to dry cells in
the south. The percentage of difference between flow In and Out is 0.00045.

Table 8.7 – Water budget for the study area.

Sources/Sinks Flow IN (m3/d) Flow OUT (m3/d)

CONSTANT HEAD 48516.96 14565.63

WELLS 0.00 2683.05

DRAINS 0.00 71883.81
HEAD DEP BOUNDS 29395.73 1675.20
RECHARGE 12895.41 0.00
Total Source/Sink 90808.10 90807.69
0.00 0.00
TOTAL FLOW 90808.10 90807.69

Summary In - Out % difference

Sources/Sinks 0.40641 0.00045
Cell To Cell 0 0
Total 0.40641 0.00045

305
For this area the cells of drains are the element that most intervenes in the groundwater outlet,
totalling about 79% of the outlets. Since the presence of the water streams is related to the
piezometric level, they have a small contribution to the surface aquifer water input, being like the
Veiros lagoon a groundwater discharge site. Constant heads (rivers at north and south as natural
boundaries) are the most expressive component in the model, with a contribution of more than 53%
of input volume. Rivers and recharge contribute to the other half. The wells have little expression in
terms of budget, even if locally its importance is higher locally, for the population and economic
activities.

In Table 8.8 is the water budget for various budget zones created to a better analysis, focusing mainly
in the surface water bodies that could be of interest, namely the two still functional industrial water
streams of Vala da Breja and S. Filipe, and two known discharge points simulated here as lakes: the
Veiros lagoon and the Esteiro da Tojeira (included in the Head Dep Bounds) (Figure 8.18). Zone 1 here
represents the upper aquifer, in direct contact with these surface bodies. The budget zone for the
water streams is made of a buffer around the drain cells, which cannot constitute a zone by
themselves.

Figure 8.18 – Water budget zones: Esteiro da Tojeira, Veiros lagoon, Vala da Breja, Vala S. Filipe.

306
From the compiled table, it is possible to confirm that the upper aquifer is the main contributor to
Veiros lagoon. According to the simulation, during the year, the lagoon would receive from the aquifer
147.2 m3/d. Similar flow of about 449.1 m3/d, is received by the area of Esteiro da Tojeira. The
contribution of the aquifer to the zones 4 and 5, Breja and S. Filipe, respectively, is about 9421.7 m3/d
for the first case, and 9619.2 m3/d for the latter. The same volume is out drained through the structure
or by horizontal/vertical flow.

Table 8.8 - Water budget for different zones, in m3/d.

Zone 2 (Veiros) Zone 3 (Tojeira) Zone 4 (Breja) Zone 5 (S.Filipe)

IN:
CONSTANT HEAD 0 0 0 0
WELLS 0 0 0 0
DRAINS 0 0 0 0
HEAD DEP BOUNDS 11822.1 16419.9 0 0
RECHARGE 98.9 177.8 0 1.9
From Zone 1 147.2 449.1 9421.7 9619.2
Total IN 12068.2 17046.9 9421.7 9621.1
OUT:
CONSTANT HEAD 0 0 0 0
WELLS 0 0 1 19
DRAINS 34.9 16447.5 3588.7 5425.7
HEAD DEP BOUNDS 0 594.5 0 0
RECHARGE 0 0 0 0
To zone 1 12033.3 4.5 5832.1 4176.4
Total OUT 12068.2 17046.5 9421.7 9621.1
SUMMARY:
IN - OUT 0.001 0.416 0.002 0.004
Percent Discrepancy 1.27E-05 2.44E-03 2.01421E-05 4.21336E-05

8.4.9 Remarks on the model limitations

As well as the difficulties related to the modelling of groundwater flow in multi-layer aquifers
discussed in previous chapters, numerical flow models suffer from various other limitations. Despite
the reasonable results obtained with the steady state conditions, the use of this model as a
management tool must be done taking into account the potential limitations inherent to such models.

307
A ground-water-flow model represents a complex, natural system with a set of mathematical
equations that describe the system. Intrinsic to the model is the error and uncertainty associated with
the approximations, assumptions, and simplifications that must be made. Hydrologic modelling errors
typically are the consequence of a combination of 1) input data, 2) representation of the physical
processes by the algorithms of the model, and 3) parameter estimation during the calibration
procedure (Troutman, 1985).

The regional scale of this model does not have the same resolution as that of local models, therefore,
detail can be difficult to achieve, specially when the groundwater levels in the upper aquifer are so
close to surface. Each cell is simulating 100 m that do not necessarily discretize detailed topography
features as, for examples, very punctual elevations where an observation well is located. Also, related
to this, is the referential of the groundwater level measurement that, in this circumstances, might be
quite relevant for calibration purposes. Is not uncommon that two groundwater levels, measured in
wells close to each other, present significant local variation. One of the features that raise more
uncertainty, and a reason for further investigation, is the need of the constant heads in east side, in
order to achieve better calibration results. It is indeed true that the geometrical discretization of the
model with five layers is harder than with the one of three layers, but in this case, it was considered
that an improvement of knowledge would create new opportunities to other management and
governance options.

There is a significant lack of data in the south and west parts of the study area. This might compromise
both the quality of the stratigraphic model and the assertiveness of the expected/simulated
groundwater levels and its behaviour.

The number and distribution of piezometers monitoring the Quaternary Aquifer base is partial only,
basically limited to SNIRH and ERASE data, located mainly around ECC. A better representative
network would be particularly important for the quality assessment and contamination issues, and to
validate the transport model results. Some other input data also lacked, namely the real abstracted
volumes in the upper and deeper aquifers, and conductance in water streams, drains and lakes, that
was calibrated upon expected values.

308
8.5 Transport model

8.5.1 Introduction

Simulating the transport of solutes (including contaminants) involves solving linked or coupled
groundwater flow and transport models. In applied groundwater modelling, solute transport is based
on the advection-dispersion equation (for a detailed mathematical formulation consult Bear and
Cheng, 2010). The solute transport code is the MT3DMS (Zheng and Wang, 1999), which links to the
flow code MODFLOW. Although transport based on the advection-dispersion equation is the norm in
applied groundwater modelling “there are a number of conceptual weaknesses and flaws in the
underlying theory” (Konikow, 2011). When simulating solute transport in highly heterogeneous or
fractured media, the advection-dispersion equation is a poor predictor of transport processes.
Nevertheless, the literature on modelling solute transport in groundwater is immense and simplified
heterogeneous media have proved to get acceptable results, as basic solute transport code solves for
the concentration of a single chemical species. Although the term contaminant is used here, to
emphasize the primary interest of groundwater contamination, in this chapter is applicable to any
chemical species dissolved in the water that travels through the void space of the simulated aquifer
units. To simulate reactions between two or more chemical species, geochemical reaction modules
interface with the transport code. For example, MT3DMS interfaces with RT3D or PHT3D, which is not
done in the present work.

The solute transport in assumed homogeneous porous media is currently well studied and the
theoretical framework well developed (Bear and Cheng, 2010). However, aquifer systems are not
homogeneous neither from the point of view of geology and major hydrogeological characteristics
(transmissivity, storage coefficient, aquifer boundaries and geometry, underground recharge). Even
the properties of the flow media that normally affect the behaviour of solute transport (porosity,
dispersivity, reactivity, and sorption) are not homogeneous, thus hindering numerical simulation and
interpretation of contaminant movements in groundwater.

Mathematical modelling of groundwater contaminant transport processes can be done using either
deterministic or stochastic models, but in both cases the results are no more than very simplified
approximations of the actual movement of contaminants in the media. The limitations of both types
of mathematical models in representing reality often result precisely from the difficulty in
characterizing and quantifying heterogeneity of the aquifer and the behaviour of the contaminant in
the aquifer.

309
In this case, a coupled groundwater flow and transport model was made, using the solute transport
code MT3DMS that links to the groundwater model in MODFLOW, through the software GMS 10.3.4
(Aquaveo, 2019).

8.5.2 Objectives of the transport model

The main objective of the numerical simulation of contaminant transport for this case study was to
understand and confirm the possible origins of contamination from the ECC and the extent of this
contamination throughout the area, taking into account the interaction of groundwater with surface
water, namely the relation with the water streams, drains, lakes and the Ria de Aveiro. For this, a
behaviour of the contaminants was assumed conservative, corresponding therefore to the worst
possible scenario of contamination because they do not suffer sorption processes nor attenuation
and/or degradation. In this scenario, the circulation of contaminants is made throughout the aquifer
units, developing movements that are intrinsically associated to the media and groundwater flow
characteristics. It is also an objective to observe the distribution of the contamination plume in the
study area and its possible interaction with the groundwater use, in different depths, for various
timeframes.

8.5.3 Initial conditions

The design of the initial conditions of the transport model considered the use of ionic contaminants,
for example, chloride and mercury that is associated to potential contamination zones, the former
Uniteca sludge park (pyrites) and the current sludge park, from CIRES. In fact, any other contaminants
could have been considered, or given them any other designation, because they are essentially
assumed to be conservatives. They are only given names to facilitate discussion of the results. Other
sources of contamination are the industrial effluent drains that are in contact with the upper aquifer.
For their apparent importance in the control of the contamination hot-spots throughout the area, the
initial sector Vala da Breja and Vala de S. Filipe were used to simulate origins of contamination in the
transport model.

The background concentration for the entire study area were not considered to be higher than
0.025 μg/L for mercury and 25 μg/L for chlorides based on the hydrochemical data from Ordens (2007)

310
and Neves (2015). This initial concentration of these two solutes is low enough to not affect the
simulation of contamination plumes.

The transport model used, the MT3DMS (Zheng, 2010), and is based on the groundwater flow model
that will influence the trajectory of contaminants originating from various possible sources of
contamination. In the simulation is considered a final time period of 20 years with defined stress
period emissions from contamination sources in order to understand how the evolution of the plume
occurs over the years (showing the results for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years). The MT3DMS packages used
were the Advection, Dispersion, Source/Sink Mixing. The solver is the GCG solver package (Generalized
Conjugate Gradient Solver). The number of stress periods was set up to 20 with a length of 365 days
each, to guarantee the 20 years simulation.

8.5.4 Model parameters

In the MT3DMS transport model, after the initial conditions established, the various contaminant
transport processes such as advection and dispersion are selected. In dispersion parameters are
defined as longitudinal dispersivity and transverse dispersivity in the various directions uniformly
defined along each layer in the constructed model.

The values for the surface aquifer are referenced in the literature (Konikow, 2011), also used by
(Oliveira, 2016), and they consider the lithological characteristics of this unit. For the aquifers C5 and
C2, of the Quaternary base, were considered similar values for lack of more detailed information to
distinguish them. Due to its hydrogeological characteristics, values 100 times lower were applied to
aquitard. These settings were firstly used by (Oliveira, 2016), and both for lack of data and to allow a
comparison of results, the same values were applied. In the Table 8.9 are listed the established values
for the dispersivity parameter.

Table 8.9 – Dispersivity values applied to transport model.

Longitudinal
Hydrogeological Unit TRPT TRVT
dispersivity
Upper aquifer 7.60 0.84 0.30
Aquitard C6 0.76 0.30 0.15
Aquifer C5 7.60 0.84 0.30
Aquitard C3+4 0.76 0.30 0.15
Aquifer C2 7.60 0.84 0.30

311
8.5.5 Definition of scenarios

The most important limitation in the construction of this transport model is the scarcity of data on
contamination in the area surrounding the ECC. The punctual and permanent contaminant
concentrations of discharges are not known. To have this data would lead to more realistic scenarios
avoiding hypothetic conditions, either in volume of contaminant discharges, duration, timeframes and
involved species. These aspects, or even one of them, would allow a clearer definition of the
concentration on the sources of contamination defined in the model. The significant lack of data as
well as the lack of regular monitoring across the industrial effluent water streams also contribute to
the uncertainty whether this is a sound source of contamination.

To circumvent all these limitations, the numerical model is simplified by defining known pollutant
sources based on past studies in the area of study (Neves, 2015; Ordens, 2007). The high
concentrations obtained in these studies coupled with decades of pollutant emissions may be an
explanation for the existence of equally high concentrations over long distances from these
contaminant emission sites. More recently, in the context of the Soil Take Care project, and based on
field measurements of pH and electrical conductivity throughout the area (Ayodeji, 2019), the maps
in Figure 7.33 were made. The two maps that resulted from the measurements indicated a clear image
of the relationship between the groundwater contamination and the water streams, specially in the
area between the ECC and Veiros lagoon towards south-southwest, following the same path of the
groundwater flow, in direction of Ria de Aveiro.

Accordingly, two simulation scenarios were considered for the transport model:

I. Scenario A: A simulation of a contamination plume, resulting from pollutant discharges inside

the ECC (relative to CIRES’ calcium hydroxide sludge park) and also from the former Uniteca
sludge park, for the period of 20 years, depicting a scenario with emission of pollutants with
a concentration of 10 000 mg/L;
II. Scenario B: A simulation of a contamination plume, in the same conditions as previously
described, and pollutant discharges in the initial sectors of the industrial drains Vala da Breja
and Vala de S. Filipe, depicting a scenario with emission of pollutants with a concentration of
5 000 mg/L;

312
8.5.6 Transport model results

The results of the transport model are compared with 1) the electrical conductivity map of 2006, made
by the interpretation of geophysical data through the use of geostatistical techniques, whose depth
of investigation varies with the frequency and orientation of the dipole (vertical and horizontal)
(Ordens, 2007) combined with hydrochemical data from Neves (2015) for the same area (Figure 8.19);
and 2) with the electrical conductivity map of 2019, made by geostatistical tools using the kriging
method, with the field measurements in large diameter wells by Ayodeji (2019), in a regular sampling
grid covering the great majority of the entire study area.

In order to make the comparison possible, the reported results display the contamination plume for
the corresponding layers of the analysed works. Ordens (2007) studied and analysed the theoretical
depths of 11.8 m (H20), and 25.3 m (V20) for presenting a contamination plume with points where
the concentration is higher than it was expected, considering the pollutant sources. Taking into
consideration these depths, and analysing the average thickness of each lithostratigraphic layer of the
developed model for this work (Figure 7.12), it is concluded that the 11.8 m corresponds to the layer
2 (aquitard C6), and the 25.3 m corresponds also to layer 2. However, the average thickness is
calculated for the entire area of the model, which is much deeper towards west. On the other hand,
the analysis of Ordens (2007) is made in an area of small thickness, close to the east limit. Therefore,
in this way, the corresponding model layer is the aquifer C2 (layer 5).

Regarding the electrical conductivity maps based on Ayodeji (2019), the measurements were made in
the upper aquifer. As a significative part of the upper aquifer is also present in the east side of layer 2
of the model, the transport model results of layer 2 are compared, assessing this way both layers 1
and 2 of the model.

313
Figure 8.19 - Map of apparent electrical conductivity of V20 for a theoretical investigation depth of 25.3 m (Ordens, 2007):
geophysical data. Hydrochemical data from Neves (2015), for various depths.

The location of the simulated discharged contaminants, for the Scenario A, in layer 2, shortly after the
starting point, is displayed in Figure 8.20. In the map are also the location of the ECC, the Veiros lagoon
and the piezometric map of layer 2 for the calibrated groundwater model. The contamination plumes
for scenario A, in layers 2 and 5, for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years is presented in the Figure 8.21.

Figure 8.20 - Location of the simulated discharged contaminants, for scenario A.

314
Year Layer 2 Layer 5
5

10

15

315
 20

Figure 8.21 – Contamination plumes for scenario A, in layers 2 and 5, for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.

In this scenario, it is observed that the contamination plume travels from the source towards the
Veiros lagoon, according to the general flow direction in that area. This movement is made in 10 years
but between 5 and 10 years, a natural stretching in the axis N-S is observed. At this point, the edges
of the plume reach the north and the south of the lagoon but the lagoon itself is not affected. This
happens apparently because there is a water division in this area, and probably because the
groundwater discharge to the lagoon attenuates the concentrations in depth. This could be confirmed
by water quality samples from the lagoon, in the work of Neves (2015), where the electrical
conductivity (EC) was measured between 3680 – 4645 μS/cm. As the plume is only simulated in the
saturated media, the plume is not visible at surface. Between 10 and 20 years, the plume splits in two
and moves in different directions. One up to northwest, and another towards southwest, with
attenuated concentrations as time advances. It is also observed that a retardation effect between
layer 2 and layer 5 exists, particularly visible for the simulations of 10 and 15 years. This reflects the
presence of the aquitards, but do not necessarily shows influence in the final contaminant
concentrations.

The location of the simulated discharged contaminants, for the Scenario B, in layer 2 shortly after the
starting point and the immediate contamination in layer 5, is displayed in Figure 8.22. The
contamination plumes for scenario B, in layers 2 and 5, for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years is presented in the
Figure 8.21.

316
Figure 8.22 - Location of the simulated discharged contaminants, for scenario B.

Year Layer 2 Layer 5

317
10

15

20

318
Figure 8.23 - Contamination plumes for scenario B, in layers 2 and 5, for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.

In scenario B, the volume of contaminant discharged to the upper aquifer is quite bigger than the
previous scenario, but it takes into account the potential contamination resulting from the industrial
effluents in the drains of V. Breja and S. Filipe. The extension of the initial load is displayed in the Figure
8.22 and covers an extension of the drains where contaminated soils and water are documented
(Barradas, 1992; Costa and Jesus-Rydin, 2001; Ordens, 2007). Similarly to the previous scenario, it is
observed that the contamination plume travels from the source towards the Veiros lagoon, covering
a wider and continuous area, with an extension of 5 Km. Highest concentrations are located at the
centre of the plume, due the sources’ location. The simulation of 5 years shows a significant
contamination of the layer 5, in positions parallel to the drains, westwards, in the flow direction. In
the simulation of 10 years the plume extends to over 7 km in the layer 2, and splits in the layer 5. The
highest concentrations are located up north, between V. Breja and the wetlands at west. The plume
evolves to north and south of Veiros lagoon, to a distance of about 1 km of the Ria de Aveiro on both
locations. In 20 years, the plumes reach 500 m distance from Ria de Aveiro, in both layers. Layer 5
appears to have been withered and attenuated at north, while layer 2 still shows a large area with
high concentration.

These results appear to confirm the high concentrations in the surroundings of the Veiros lagoon, also
observed in Ordens (2007) and Neves (2015). Nevertheless, the attenuation effect of the lagoon is
quite visible in these results, and further research needs to be done in order to confirm whether this
effect is given by natural attenuation, groundwater divide, or by any other reason. The EC maps of
2019 (Ayodeji, 2019) also confirm the location of the plumes, after 20 years, at north and south.
However, the hot-spot visible in the EC map Ayodeji (2019), in the convergence point between V. S.
Filipe and the Esteiro de Estarreja, is not simulated properly by the model. Perhaps, in this drain, the
surface flow of the industrial effluents took an important role on the transportation of contaminants
to the Esteiro. In fact, extremely severe and widely spread out contamination with arsenic (several
samples above 10 000 mg/kg), mercury (1000 mg/kg), and other contaminants (Pb and Zn) were found
by Costa and Jesus-Rydin (2001) in the same area. Contamination seems to increase in depth but with
great spatial variability, result of changes in pollutant discharge at source. This discharge pattern and
the transport via surface water in the drain allied to the influence of the tides in the Esteiro, could be
the reason of a spread out of the contamination, both in depth and length, that is not considered in
this model. However, likely to the results of this model, it seems that the deeper aquifers are not
confined to contamination by the aquitards.

319
The western areas of the EC map also show some areas with high EC values, which could be justified
by the presence of agricultural activities and irrigation (Figure 7.24) and the use of nitrate-based
products in the east side of Esteiro da Tojeira, and, by the proximity of Ria de Aveiro at the extreme
southwest, an area also with very significant agricultural activity.

The Figure 8.24 is the location of the simulated discharged contaminants, for scenario B, and location
of simulated wells in the area. The purpose of this analysis is to realize how the wells and its use is
affected by the contamination plumes. In this way, the plumes in the abstracted modelled layers 1
and 3 are shown for the same years, with the corresponding wells indicated (Figure 8.25).

Figure 8.24 - Location of the simulated discharged contaminants, for scenario B, and location of simulated wells in the area.

320
Year Large Diameter Wells, layer 1 Deep wells, layer 3
5

10

321
 15

20

Figure 8.25 - Contamination plumes for scenario B, in layers 1 and 3, for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. Yellow point indicate an
abstraction well.

Based on the maps of the Figure 8.25, can be said that a great majority of the large diameter wells are
affected by the contamination plume. This is confirmed by the field measurements of Neves (2015)
for the surrounding area of ECC, and by Ayodeji (2019) for a wider area. The evolving of the plume,
from a punctual stress period, throughout the area till reaching Ria de Aveiro will pollute, at a certain
point, several wells being used for irrigation, livestock, industry and domestic use. As far as it can be
observed from the maps, abstraction wells exploring the layer 3, attributed to the Quaternary base,
between ECC and Veiros lagoon, and northern part can also be affected by the plume. These wells
abstract a significantly large volume of water from the aquifer and it is presumed that its quality is
highly compromised, specially, and more importantly, for direct or indirect domestic use.

322
8.5.7 Integration of model results for an improved management and governance

The decision-making process in groundwater can be supported on a conceptualized and developed

Decision Support System (DSS) based on computational systems to interactively process data,
information and models to aid in the formulation, analysis, and selection of management strategies,
taking into account the governance settings.

Like mentioned before, groundwater and governance settings includes social and contextual aspects
to be best used by groundwater managers, together with operational definitions, to implement
management regimes (Pierce et al., 2013).

While groundwater modelling approaches have advanced significantly in the Quaternary Aquifer, their
incorporation in decision support processes remains limited. The participation of stakeholders is
largely absent, and the generated knowledge is apparently only used by academics or to support
general characterization of other technical works at the operational level.

Based on the opinion of the interviewed experts (Chapter 3), in the field of groundwater, models are
not used to improve groundwater management and governance, but they declare that it is a step to
give forward. Groundwater model still remain in the academic or scientific domain, with no link to the
entities that could actually benefit from the modelling. A reason for that is the lack of financial and
human resources allied to the technical complexity of handling a groundwater model to apply
forecasts, analysis of operational options and impacts of given conditions, as well as analysis of
strategies, or even for licencing purposes.

To respond to these challenges, for this specific case study, the integration of the model results have
to be made, for example, in a Geographic Information System (GIS). Given the amount of data that
supports the models and the results, that can be difficult to handle, specially in the case of several
scenarios and forecasting (or hindcasting). To the best handle and comparison, the information has to
be organized and properly catalogued. This approach also facilitates, not only the interpretation of
the results and options, but also the process of passing the information and system to someone else.

It is also fundamental to the development and application of the DSS approach that the ARHs take
over on the process. If the link between management and governance is desirable and necessary, the
regional administration, as the entity that manages the groundwater at the local and regional level,
has to be the link to the national entity, in this case, the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA). This

323
does not exclude though, the possibility to collaborate with third-party experts, in the development
of the necessary tasks.

The approach to develop a more robust groundwater and transport model that support a decision-
making process, using low-cost methods with great benefit, was developed in the Soil Take Care
project. In order to improve the knowledge herein generated and to advance with the groundwater
and transport modelling, several actions were taken:

 The improvement of the quality and quantitative monitoring network with the installation of
groundwater data loggers in sectors of greater uncertainty, in continuum. This data will be of
major importance for the model calibration in the transition of the steady-state model herein
developed to a transient regime. It is also vital for the better characterization of the
contamination plume, specially to south of Veiros lagoon, where the data is scarce and
incomplete.
 The installation of the new monitoring points, by use of data loggers, is a support to an
improvement of the SNIRH monitoring points in the upper aquifer, which in this region, are
insufficient to cover the area, given the extent of the contamination plume. The improvement
is made not only in terms of spatial distribution, but also in terms of temporal distribution.
Nevertheless, more monitoring points are needed for the Quaternary base aquifers, which are
being used for important abstractions for the industrial and agricultural sector. As it was
shown, the contamination plume hit several of these abstractions and very few monitoring
data exist for the deeper layers of the aquifer.
 An alternate way to make a broad and low-cost monitoring in the upper aquifer was applied
through the definition of a regular grid for monitoring in large diameter wells. This type of
monitoring can be made in wet and dry season, covers the entire area, and aims to reduce the
uncertainty observed in certain areas with fewer or totally inexistent data.
 An installation of a meteorological station for this specific area was made, in order to collect
more precise data for both surface and groundwater models.

All this data and information processed can be used in decision analytic techniques and for the
development of tolls for decision support for a range of groundwater problems, most frequently
related to health and environmental quality concerns, just like the case. Risk assessment techniques
have been applied to groundwater problems associated with petroleum spills, waste site leachates
and agricultural contaminants, to mention a few cases (Correll and Dillon, 1993). Control and
management of groundwater supply is a primary topic in groundwater research and application, yet

324
few tools for decision-making have been developed specifically to address this topic. For example,
based on the groundwater level measurements, the recharge distribution map calculated with
Wetspass, available hydrogeological information, topography and land-use map, an evaluation of the
aquifer vulnerability on a large to medium scale was made by Ayodeji (2019), using the Susceptibility
Index (Ribeiro, 2000) (Figure 8.26).

Figure 8.26 – Susceptibility Index (SI) map for the study area (source: Ayodeji, 2019).

This information, combined with the contamination plume maps, resulting from the transport model,
and the distribution and use of groundwater from wells for human activities, given the problem
complexity and impacts on the environment and public health, leads to propose the creation and
definition of a Critical Zone for control and protection of groundwater, further than what is established
in the Vulnerable Areas Action Program (Ordinance 259/2012). Trade-offs and sensibility actions
would need to be taken hardly to minimize the impacts of the various types of contamination in this
part of the aquifer, specially in zones where contamination is known to be significant and harmful to

325
health, where groundwater wells do exist and are being used, most likely for the unawareness of the
population.

Contamination resulting from agriculture and industry activities should be closely monitored and
conditioned. Since long that the problems related to industrial contamination are known in the area
(Costa and Jesus-Rydin, 2001; Ferreira da Silva, 1989; Ferreira, 1995; Leitão, 1996; Peixinho de Cristo,
1985) but not much has been done to resolve them, with few exceptions like the ERASE programme,
that by itself is confined to a small area around the ECC. Other remediation solutions or actions to
prevent the continuous aggravation of the groundwater and environmental problems were presented
earlier (see for example Costa and Jesus-Rydin, 2001), but due to technical limitations, management
decisions, unfavourable cost-benefit analysis, insufficient trade-offs between local governments and
the industrial sector, scarce monitoring from the local water agencies, or even for a poor capacity and
provision to groundwater governance, the problems related to the aquifer contamination are still
quite present up to date. In this way, a DSS can make the difference. The proof of that is the
development of a wide-array of DSS for applications to groundwater, particularly contamination and
remediation problems made by (Camara and Cardoso da Silva, 1990; Lovejoy et al., 1997; Xiang, 1993),
to name a few. Furthermore, advances in linking groundwater with geospatial utilities are streamlining
approaches for incorporating spatially detailed models (Carrera-Hernandez and Gaskin, 2006).
Spatially-distributed models have been used for permitting and operation decisions while parameter
models are typically used to evaluate socioeconomic relationships. Therefore, it urges to further
develop a groundwater decision support system ought to be capable of providing alternative means
for approaching water resource management operations through adaptive management for water
resources, and to be used by entities who actually have the power to implement the necessary and
programed measures and policies, at the aquifer level.

326
9 Conclusions

This thesis aimed at making the characterization of water information systems and its role for
groundwater management and governance. For that purpose, three research lines were developed:

 Governance in the context of groundwater and current status of groundwater management

in some regions of Portugal, particularly in Alentejo and Algarve;
 Characterization and assessment of a water information system for groundwater
 Integration and application of groundwater and transport model results as an information
system for management and support decision making

A diagnosis of the governance provision and capacity status in Alentejo and Algarve regions was made.
A comprehensive analysis of groundwater management and governance at the level of river basin
districts, can be considered a tool to enhance the adoption of best practices through a comparison of
lessons learned along the process, and through the opinion and report of people who actually work
and deal with groundwater management on the day-by-day basis. The challenges, opportunities and
future developments were identified and brought an important input to the formulation of better
general and tailor-made policies, for all levels of governance.

Despite the modernity regarding the water legislation framework, shown by the integrative approach
and the introduction of tools for planning and monitoring, the laws and regulations are of EU origin
need a better adaptation for the national legal framework, in the financial, technological, and
institutional capabilities fields, as well as regarding the geographical and environmental specificities,
customs, culture, political system, and usual practices. Empowerment of the local government is
lacking for the improved groundwater management that, by the Portuguese Constitution and the
autonomous government power, has specific legitimacy to manage water resources at the regional
level.

In terms of legal and regulatory framework, the proposed activities towards strengthened
groundwater governance listed by themes from the GEF’s Global Framework for Action (Table 2.7)
(FAO, 2016b), the following activities must be highlighted:

g. Strengthen the capacity of government to implement, administer and enforce groundwater

legislation and regulations,
h. Facilitate conjunctive management through consolidation or coordination of surface water
and groundwater responsibilities, and through the removal of institutional and regulatory
obstacles,

327
 i. Engage with stakeholders via regulatory mechanisms and financial support, and consider
promotion of formal groundwater management associations,
j. Provide for cross-sector coordination of policies, starting with an inventory of uses of the
entire subsurface space, and provide consistent regulatory mechanisms, in closely related
fields such as rural land use, urban construction, environmental health, hydrocarbon
exploitation and mining activities,
k. Linking groundwater management to land use and land use practices, having into account that
this is one of the most relevant and essential key to groundwater pollution control,
l. Mainstreaming groundwater in other policies, identifying how potential interactions with
groundwater are to be factored into the policies and programs of other sectors.

In terms of policies, management planning and financing, a proposed activities towards strengthened
groundwater governance is listed:

h. Pursue integration of the responsibilities for groundwater resource conservation and quality
protection
i. Defining area-specific groundwater management issues and groundwater governance goals
and priorities, in order to enable effective and efficient groundwater resources management.
j. Linking groundwater management to land use and land use practices, having into account that
this is one of the most relevant and essential key to groundwater pollution control.
k. All public finances as they relate to groundwater use need to be re-assessed and brought in
line with the priorities for sustainable groundwater management within overall national policy
frameworks.
l. More and regular financing for the basic functions of groundwater governance should be
secured, including for monitoring, regulation, innovation and capacity building. An assessment
in each country of the institutions in place, the services they need to provide and the resources
allocated to them can provide the basis for a structured increase in budgets.
m. Imagination is required to develop new financial systems to encourage private investment in
sustainable groundwater management, such as payment for recharge services or for real
water savings.
n. Planning implementation over a specified period, with systematic monitoring, review of
effectiveness, and adjustment of the next cycle

328
Regarding the actors in the groundwater governance structure, five key indicators of the success of
public participation (de Chaisemartin et al. 2017) were analysed for present status for the regions of
Algarve and Alentejo.

In terms of “involvement and roles of the different actors”, it is concluded that although government
agencies develop legal framework, and prepare management plans based on the WFD, and implement
them after they have been approved by decision-maker, a poor enhancement for the involvement of
groundwater users is observed.

About the” sense of urgency for groundwater governance and management”, groundwater is often
overlooked by planners by a lack of understanding that many times leads to low prioritization and low
budgets and financing (very low or non-existence implementation of RBMPs measures, cuts in
financing to monitoring).

On the “mandate, capacity and motivation of the government agencies in charge” criteria, it is
concluded that the present centralization of main tasks in APA in a way, and the understaffing and
insufficient budgets in the regional water agencies (ARHs) undermine a proactive groundwater
management.

Concerning the criteria of “capability and motivation of relevant stakeholders to participate effectively
in the process”, it is observed that groundwater users, many times, are not capable of participating,
for lack of understanding of what is at stake, inability to get their voice heard, and flexibility to adapt.

And in terms of “cooperation, partnerships and conflicts between actors”, the conclusion is that
incompatible goals and diverging interests have been identified, namely the economic interests when
it comes to negotiate terms for groundwater protection.

As for the assessment on data, information and knowledge, the perception of the provision in data
and information varies between the analysed regions. In Alentejo the main challenge in this field is
the improvement of the quantitative monitoring network, and the method to update the inventory of
abstractions. To implement consolidated management, a reinforced and autonomous quantitative
network, prospected to large time horizons is a key-factor. Constrains to the execution and increase
of the number of monitoring sites are mainly of financial reasons, which can take significant
proportions, given the area that is allocated to the administration of ARH do Alentejo. Nevertheless,
the allocation of both financial and human resources to the existing monitoring networks, has led to
a very good sustainability situation with regard to network maintenance and management.

The main challenges in the Algarve region, in this field, are also related to the short financial and
human resources allocated to the monitoring activities. The situation seems to be quite critical and

329
complex, particularly in terms of human resources shortage to face the volume of work is required to
guarantee the necessary monitoring.

These financial and human resources shortages have also great impact in the supervision of
abstractions and activities related to water resources, which, in fact, it seems to be extremely difficult
in both regions. There is no defined instrument or apparent strategy to control effectively what a
licenced waterwell is actually abstracting. This problem can be considered a barrier to the proper
calculation of the water budgets and the management groundwater availability. The quantity
assessment is apparently made mainly through the control of the groundwater levels, through the
piezometry analysis of data available in SNIRH. Adding to this, the analysis of licensing requests to
groundwater abstractions are also limited to the existing information, with great degree of
uncertainty.

Despite the fact that many academic work has been done for the great majority of the aquifers of
these two regions, and groundwater models developed, these or any applied models are not being
used in the regional water agencies. The potentialities of groundwater models vary from providing a
scientific and predictive tool for determining appropriate solutions to water allocation, surface–
groundwater interaction, environmental management or impact of new development scenarios.
Therefore, this option should be studied and implemented in the ARHs, in order to enhance the
groundwater management, with the available data and local knowledge of the natural and
exploitation conditions.

In order to make an evaluation of the groundwater component of the web-based data sharing water
information system in Portugal, SNIRH, and its present status, two independent but related tasks were
developed. The first task was the characterization of the groundwater component of SNIRH as a web-
based data sharing water information system and its role in the Portuguese reality. The second task
was a comparison of SNIRH’s characteristics to other relevant national water information systems and
assess its contribution to the groundwater governance. The criteria used for this comparison is divided
in three categories: 1) Monitoring networks and data sources; 2) Processes, data and integration; 3)
Reporting and sharing. From this analysis, it is concluded that SNIRH has contributed to the
identification and evaluation of potential solutions to water resource problems during the past two
decades. Transparency and thrust were also improved with the development of SNIRH, fostering a
wider public awareness, participation and discussion. This leads to a better knowledge of the local
specificities, issues and necessities in order to improve water policies and management. There is an
apparent general problem with the sustainability-efficiency of the monitoring networks, main data
providers for the system. It is considered that better and modern technology has to be applied on the

330
operation of SNIRH networks, as well as automation processes to reduce the expenses with data
collecting and processing. Investment in monitoring networks is paramount, which will undergo an
optimization and enhancement of quality and quantity network stations, for the assessment of, for
example, the status of the water bodies, the achievement of environmental goals, improved inventory
of pressures and optimization of emission control. The comparison made with other national systems
shows that SNIRH is following the same line of other European countries, slightly different from other
references as it is the case of Australia, in matters of water management. Regarding SNIRH, it is
considered that there is much room for improvement, namely on the data integration, modelling and
forecasting, which is the last level of sophistication in a system of this type.

From the SNIRH analysis, the following strengths were identified:

 Data harmonization processes;

 Data sharing between institutions and stakeholders;
 Adaptation to national and international directives;
 Detection of overlapping processes.

The identified weaknesses are:

 Sustainability and cost-effectiveness;

 Network Maintenance;
 Outdated web-portal;
 Insufficient monitoring network representativeness.

The future developments are:

 Improvement of cost-effectiveness;
 Renovation of monitoring networks;
 Update of data acquisition, harmonization and sharing processes and technologies;
 Better adaptation to national and international directives.

A methodology to assess the effectiveness and performance of SNIRH in the context of groundwater
governance was presented, based on the refinement of the updated DeLone and McLean IS Success
model (2003) and in previous studies. The results indicated that Information Quality, System Quality,
System Use (Utility and Suitability), User Satisfaction and Perceived Net Benefits were valid
dimensions to measure WIS performance, along the 16 items presented. The proposed model proved
to produce good reliability estimates thus demonstrated that the measurement model exhibited a

331
good fit with the data collected. The empirical data showed that Information Quality had a significant
influence on both System Use and Global Satisfaction. Adding to this, System Quality had a significant
impact on both Global Satisfaction and System Use. Furthermore, Information Quality exhibited a
stronger effect than System Quality in influencing System Use and Global Satisfaction. In addition,
System Use had a significant influence on both Global Satisfaction and on Perceived Net Benefit. And
finally, Global Satisfaction appeared to be a significant dimension for Perceived Net Benefit.

From these results it was observed that users tend to agree on the Perceived Net Benefits of SNIRH,
mainly regarding efficiency (SNIRH provides improvement and execution of work) and effectiveness
(contributes to reducing risk in the decision making process). There is a general manifestation of
satisfaction with SNIRH but one the most influencing dimensions, Information Quality, shows that
some areas present serious challenges, namely in the areas of completeness and timeliness. This could
be explained by the timing of the survey, when the monitoring activities were suspended, and long
data series were discontinued and/or long lags of observation were practiced. At the meanwhile, in
Portugal, the revision of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) was in progress and the
degradation of data certainly did not give as much input as it would be desirable, mainly for the re-
evaluation of the quality and quantity status of groundwater bodies since the first publication of the
RBMP, in 2009. Nevertheless, it is observed that despite the given events users tend to respond
positively on SNIRH reliability and transparency. In fact, perhaps due the timing and aftermath of the
financial crisis, the survey is considered to be quite successful for gathering over 120 answers in
Portugal, for a specific technical field as Groundwater. This could be interpreted as the sense of
responsibility of the users in contributing to this study and assessment. Regarding the activity sector
it is observed that the education/research sector is the most participative in contrast with the private
sector. This could be explained by the dissemination means or by a reason that was not identified.
This point requires further research that could study more effectively how, when and what for the
private sector uses data from SNIRH. As it is known the private sector, mostly the times, generate data
at works of smaller scale that requires local data. If possible, could be very useful to integrate data
from the private sector in SNIRH, as a complement to the existing data at a larger scale.

This assessment is considered to be a first step to improve and achieve a model for measuring the
performance of a web-based WIS, in the context of groundwater governance. For this reason cannot
be assumed as definitive model as it is only based in a single study. Requires to be revisited, improved
and extended to future events, and validation of measurement is necessary for different properties
and over a variety of contexts and situations.

332
With the objective to provide an information and data base for the development of a decision support
system for a) a better groundwater management and b) for the definition of more integrated
information systems applied to groundwater management, the following tasks were developed:

d) Identify aspects from the SNIRH monitoring networks that need improvement,
e) Develop a low-cost method for a more effective groundwater monitoring,
f) Contribute for the improvement of information and characterization related to groundwater
management in contaminated aquifers, for the formulation of vulnerability and risk maps to
groundwater-dependent ecosystems and populations.

For this purpose, and in the context of the Soil Take Care project, the case study of the Aveiro
Quaternary Aquifer System was analysed, more specifically in the northern part, nearby the town of
Estarreja, where the interaction of ecosystems, population and industry is very substantial, and
various types of pressures to the aquifer are identified.

The industrial zone of Estarreja is one of the most contaminated areas in the country, and has been
classified by the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA) as a priority intervention area under the
Thematic Operational Program for the Enhancement of the Territory Axis III - Recovery of
Environmental Liabilities (“Programa Operacional Temático de Valorização do Território Eixo III –
Recuperação do Passivo Ambiental”). The technologies used in the production of compounds and the
practices of waste disposal and industrial effluents, adopted in the past, were responsible for high
contamination rates that still occur in the area today, affecting soils, sediments, surface waters and
groundwater in that region.

For the analysis, a comprehensive data collection (existing and new) was made for an area of 83 km2,
in order to extend the area till the natural limits of the Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon. A refinement of
the previous lithostratigraphic model was made and the conceptual model for the region updated.
Data available from SNIRH and ARH do Centro was used and analysed to characterize the data
applicability and gaps for the construction of groundwater and solute transport models as decision
support systems. It was observed that the existent monitoring networks (quantitative and qualitative)
are not representative as for the number of observation points, and for the discontinued data series,
specially for a region that is classified as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone, with a classification of poor
chemical status in the RBMPs.

For the conceptualization and development of a Decision Support System, a methodology was
adopted that covers four implementation tasks: 1) database compilation of bibliography data and
information, monitoring and field work data, 2) groundwater flow and transport modelling, 3)

333
integration of results into a geographic information system, and 4) production of vulnerability maps
and identification of aspects to improve capacity and provision for better management and
governance.

For the first tasks, a low-cost method was used to make an inventory of large diameter wells,
envisaging monitoring planning, considering an optimization of efforts and time, and also taking into
account a representative campaign for the entire studied area. In this way, field work was made in
order to fulfil the information gaps, and to improve the knowledge of the region, including mapping
drain structures, groundwater level measurements, and calculation of spatial parameters (recharge,
groundwater depths, and identification of hot-spots for contamination).

A groundwater flow model was built and acceptable results achieved. Despite the reasonable results
obtained with the steady state conditions, the use of this model as a management tool must be done
taking into account the potential limitations inherent to such models. Intrinsic to the model is the
error and uncertainty associated with the approximations, assumptions, and simplifications that must
be made. The regional scale of this model does not have the same resolution as that of local models,
therefore, detail can be difficult to achieve, specially when the groundwater levels in the upper aquifer
are so close to surface.

There is a significant lack of data in the south and west parts of the study area. This might compromise
both the quality of the stratigraphic model and the assertiveness of the expected/simulated
groundwater levels and its behaviour. The number and distribution of piezometers monitoring the
Quaternary Aquifer base is partial only, basically limited to SNIRH and ERASE data, located mainly
around ECC. A better representative network would be particularly important for the quality
assessment and contamination issues, and to validate the transport model results. Some other input
data also lacked, namely the real abstracted volumes in the upper and deeper aquifers, and
conductance in water streams, drains and lakes, that was calibrated upon expected values.
Nevertheless, the groundwater model allowed to understand and quantify surface-groundwater
processes, namely the interaction between the groundwater and the drains, discharge zones and
wetlands. Features related to recharge were also observed, namely the significant contribution of the
rivers in the region to the upper aquifer. This is also a paradigm shift, as before precipitation was
considered to be the main source of groundwater recharge in the region.

A coupled groundwater flow and transport model was made to understand and confirm the possible
origins of contamination from the ECC and the extent of this contamination throughout the area,
taking into account the interaction of groundwater with surface water, namely the relation with the
water streams, drains, lakes and the Ria de Aveiro. The distribution of the contamination plume in the

334
study area and its interaction with the groundwater use, in different depths, for various timeframes
was also observed. Other contaminated areas, not modelled or identified in literature before, were
spotted, and confirmed by field work. An attenuation effect of Veiros lagoon in the pollutant
concentrations is quite visible in these results, and further research needs to be done in order to
confirm whether this effect is given by natural attenuation, groundwater divide, or by any other
reason.

Based on the results, can be said that a great majority of the large diameter wells are affected by the
contamination plume. This is confirmed by the field measurements of Neves (2015) for the
surrounding area of ECC, and by Ayodeji (2019) for a wider area. The evolving of the plume, from a
punctual stress period, throughout the area till reaching Ria de Aveiro will pollute, at a certain point,
several wells being used for irrigation, livestock, industry and domestic use. As far as it can be observed
from the maps, abstraction wells exploring the Quaternary base, between ECC and Veiros lagoon, and
northern part can also be affected by the plume. These wells abstract a significantly large volume of
water from the aquifer and it is presumed that its quality is highly compromised, specially, and more
importantly, for direct or indirect domestic use.

Regarding the integration of model results for an improved management and governance, can be
concluded that groundwater modelling approaches have advanced significantly in the Quaternary
Aquifer, but their incorporation in decision support processes remains limited. The participation of
stakeholders is largely absent, and the generated knowledge is apparently only used by academics or
to support general characterization of other technical works at the operational level. A reason for that
is the lack of financial and human resources allied to the technical complexity of handling a
groundwater model to apply forecasts, analysis of operational options and impacts of given
conditions, as well as analysis of strategies, or even for licencing purposes.

To respond to these challenges, for this specific case study, the integration of the model results have
to be made, for example, in a Geographic Information System (GIS). Given the amount of data that
supports the models and the results, that can be difficult to handle, specially in the case of several
scenarios and forecasting (or hindcasting). To the best handle and comparison, the information has to
be organized and properly catalogued. This approach also facilitates, not only the interpretation of
the results and options, but also the process of passing the information and system to someone else.

It is also fundamental to the development and application of the DSS approach that the ARHs take
over on the process. If the link between management and governance is desirable and necessary, the
regional administration, as the entity that manages the groundwater at the local and regional level,
has to be the link to the national entity, in this case, the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA). This

335
does not exclude though, the possibility to collaborate with third-party experts, in the development
of the necessary tasks.

In order to improve the knowledge generated and to advance with the groundwater and transport
modelling the approach to support a decision-making process, using low-cost methods with great
benefit, includes the improvement of the quality and quantitative monitoring network by automated
and continued measurements.

Information as the Susceptibility Index map of the aquifer to the contamination, combined with the
contamination plume maps, resulting from the transport model, and the distribution and use of
groundwater from wells for human activities, given the problem complexity and impacts on the
environment and public health, leads to propose the creation and definition of a Critical Zone for
control and protection of groundwater, further than what is established in the Vulnerable Areas Action
Program (Ordinance 259/2012). Trade-offs and sensibility actions would need to be taken hardly to
minimize the impacts of the various types of contamination in this part of the aquifer, specially in
zones where contamination is known to be significant and harmful to health, where groundwater wells
do exist and are being used, most likely for the unawareness of the population.

Contamination resulting from agriculture and industry activities should be closely monitored and
conditioned. Other remediation solutions or actions, like ERASE programme, to prevent the
continuous aggravation of the groundwater and environmental problems were presented earlier, but
due to technical limitations, management decisions, unfavourable cost-benefit analysis, insufficient
trade-offs between local governments and the industrial sector, scarce monitoring from the local
water agencies, or even for a poor capacity and provision to groundwater governance, the problems
related to the aquifer contamination are still quite present up to date. In this way, a DSS can make the
difference. Therefore, it urges to further develop a groundwater decision support system ought to be
capable of providing alternative means for approaching water resource management operations
through adaptive management for water resources, and to be used by entities who actually have the
power to implement the necessary and programed measures and policies, at the aquifer level.

336
10 References

Abdollahi, K., Bashir, I., Batelaan, O., 2012. Wetspass - Graphical User Interface.

Abdullaev, I., Rakhmatullaev, S., Platonov, A., Sorokin, D., 2012. Improving water governance in
Central Asia through application of data management tools. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 69, 151–168.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2011.641243

Ackoff, R.L., 1989. From data to wisdom. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 16, 3–9.

Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2012. Plano de Gestão das Bacias Hidrográficas dos rios Vouga,
Mondego e Lis Integradas na Região Hidrográfica 4.

Aires, M., 2001. O papel preponderante da monitorização, in: Monitorização de Recursos Hídricos.
Expresso, Lisbon.

Akhmouch, A., Correia, F.N., 2016. The 12 OECD principles on water governance – When science meets
policy. Util. Policy 43, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.06.004

Allan, C., Xia, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2013. Climate change and water security: challenges for adaptive water
management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 625–632.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.004

Almeida, C., Mendonça, J.J.L., Jesus, M.R., Gomes, A.J., 2000. Sistemas Aquíferos de Portugal
Continental.

Anderson, M.P., Woessner, W.W., Hunt, R.J., 2015. Applied Groundwater Modeling: Simulation of
Flow and Advective Transport. Academic Press Piblications, Elsevier, London, UK.

APA, 2019. Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente [WWW Document]. URL https://apambiente.pt

APA, 2018. Planos De Gestão De Região Hidrográfica – 3.o Ciclo 2022 – 2027. 1.a Fase: Calendário e
Programa de Trabalhos. Lisboa, Portugal.

APA, 2016. Planos de Gestão de Região Hidrográfica 2016-2021. Lisboa.

Aquaveo LCC, 2019. Groundwater Modeling System: GMS 10.3.4 (64-bit).

Araral, E., Wang, Y., 2013. Water Governance 2.0: A Review and Second Generation Research Agenda.
Water Resour. Manag. 27, 3945–3957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0389-x

Ayodeji, O., 2019. Integrated socio-hydrogeological approach to mitigate the effects of long-term

337
 groundwater contamination and improve the population resilience. Instituto Superior Técnico,
University of Lisbon.

Aziz, J.J., Ling, M., Rifai, H.S., Newell, C.J., Gonzales, J.R., 2003. MAROS: a decision support system for
optimizing monitoring plans. Ground Water 41, 355–367.

Barradas, J.M., 1992. Geoquímica de elementos maiores e vestigiais em amostras de solos, sedimentos
de valas e águas subterrâneas. Universidade de Aveiro.

Batelaan, O., Smedt, F. De, 2007. GIS-based recharge estimation by coupling surface – subsurface
water balances 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.001

Bear, J., Cheng, A.H.D., 2010. Modeling groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Springer New
York, New York, NY.

Bevir, M., 2011. Public administration as storytelling. Public Adm. 89, 183–195.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01908.x

BGS, 2019. British Geological Survey portal. Groundwater Data and Information [WWW Document].
URL https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/groundwater/datainfo/dataInformation.html (accessed
7.3.19).

Biswas, A.K., Tortajada, C., 2010. Future Water Governance: Problems and Perspectives. Int. J. Water
Resour. Dev. 26, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2010.488853

Burchi, S., 2017. Legal principles and legal frameworks related to groundwater, in: Villholth, K., López-
Gunn, E., Conti, K.I., Garrido, A., Gun, J. van der (Eds.), Advances in Groundwater Governance.
CRC Press, London, UK, pp. 119–136.

Bureau of Meteorology, 2019. Groundwater information portal, Australian Government [WWW

Document]. URL http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater (accessed 7.3.19).

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2014. Water and the Future of Humanity - Revisiting Water Security.
Springer, Lisboa,Portugal. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01457-9

Camara, A.S., Cardoso da Silva, M., 1990. Decision support system for estuarine water-quality
management. J Water Resour Plan Manag 116, 417–432.

Cambridge University Press, 2019. Cambridge online dictionary [WWW Document]. Cambridge Dict.
online. URL https://dictionary.cambridge.org

Carrera-Hernandez, J.J., Gaskin, S.J., 2006. The groundwater modeling tool for GRASS (GMTG): open

338
 source groundwater flow modeling. Comput Geosci 32, 339–351.

Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R., Turton, I., 2000. Accessing Geographical Information Systems over
the World Wide Web : Improving public participation in environmental decision-making. Inf.
Infrastruct. Policy 6, 157–170.

Castaño-Castaño, S., Martínez-Santos, P., Martínez-Alfaro, P.E., 2008. Evaluating infiltration losses in
a Mediterranean wetland: Las Tablas de Daimiel National Park, Spain. Hydrol. Process. 22, 5048–
5053. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7124

Cerqueira Rodrigues, L.M., 2012. População, prospectiva e gestão dos recursos hídricos: uma
metodologia de informação geográfica para o apoio à decisão. Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e
Humanas, Univsersidade Nova de Lisboa.

Clapp, J., 2014. Global Environmental Governance for Corporate Responsibility and Accountability.
Glob. Environ. Polit. 5, 23–34.

Clark, D., 2019. Understanding and Performance [WWW Document]. URL

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/performance/understanding.html (accessed 9.20.07).

Commission on Global Governance, 1995. Our global neighbourhood: the report. Oxford, UK.

Condesso de Melo, M.T., 2002. Flow and hydrogeochemical mass transport model of the Aveiro
Cretaceous multilayer aquifer (Portugal ). Universidade de Aveiro.

Condesso de Melo, M.T., Marques da Silva, M.A., 2008. The Aveiro Quaternary and Cretaceous
aquifers, Portugal, in: Edmunds, W.M., Shand, P. (Eds.), Natural Groundwater Quality. Wiley‐
Blackwell, Oxford, UK, p. 488. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444300345.ch11

Condesso de Melo, M.T., Ordens, C.M., 2006. Definition of background and threshold values in the
Aveiro Quaternary and Cretaceous groundwater bodies. Deliverable D22.

Correll, R.L., Dillon, P.J., 1993. Risk assessment as a framework for management of aquifers – a
literature review. J Aust Geol Geophys 14, 155–159.

Costa, C., Jesus-Rydin, C., 2001. Site investigation on heavy metals contaminated ground in Estarreja
— Portugal. Eng. Geol. 60, 39–47. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-
7952(00)00087-9

Cruz, J.V., Soares, N., 2018. Groundwater Governance in the Azores Archipelago (Portugal): Valuing
and Protecting a Strategic Resource in Small Islands. Water 10.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040408

339
Cunha, L.., Campar, A.., Marques, J.., Peixinho de Cristo, F., 1992. Plano regional de ordenamento do
território (PROT) do Centro Litoral. Recursos Naturais. Sistemas aquíferos.

Custodio, E., Llamas, M.R., 1983. Hidrologia Subterranea: Tomo I & II, 2th editio. ed. Ediciones Omega,
Barcelona.

de Chaisemartin, M., Varady, R.G., Megdal, S.B., Conti, K.I., van der Gun, J., Merla, A., Nijsten, G.-J.,
Scheibler, F., 2017. Addressing the Groundwater Governance Challenge, in: Karar, E. (Ed.),
Freshwater Governance for the 21st Century. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 205–
227. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43350-9_11

DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 1992. Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent
Variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3, 60–95. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.1.60

Diogo, P.A., 2018. Monitorização de recursos hídricos e sistemas de informação, in: VI Jornadas Dos
Recursos Hídricos APRH. APRH, Barreiro.

Dixit, A., 2009. Governance Institutions and Economic Activity. Am. Econ. Rev. 99, 5–24.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.1.5

Doll, W.J., Torkzadeh, G., 1988. The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction. MIS Q. 12,
259–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/248851

Dryzek, J., Stevenson, H., 2011. Global Democracy and Earth System Governance. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1865–
1874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.021

Earth System Governance, 2013. Earth System Governance, in: World Social Science Report 2013:
Changing Global Environments. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203419-101-en.

EC, 2007. European Commission, common implementation strategy for the water framework
directive, guidance document No. 15. Guidance on groundwater monitoring.

EC, 2006. European Commission, Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of December 12 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and
deterioration. https://doi.org/10.2779/84304

EC, 2000. European Comission, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of October 23 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy.

ERASE, 2000. Estratégia de redução dos impactes ambientais associados aos resíduos indústrias
depositados no Complexo Químico de Estarreja. Estudo de impacto ambiental, memória geral.

340
 Aveiro, Portugal.

ESRI, 2019. ArcGIS 10.3.

Falkenmark, M., Folke, C., Foster, S.S.D., Chilton, P.J., 2003. Groundwater: the processes and global
significance of aquifer degradation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 358, 1957–1972.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1380

Famiglietti, J.S., 2014. The global groundwater crisis. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 945.

FAO, 2016a. GEF-FAO Groundwater Governance Project Shared Global Vision for Groundwater
Governance 2030 and A Call for Action. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy.

FAO, 2016b. GEF-FAO Groundwater Governance Project - Global Framework for Action: to achieve the
vision on groundwater governance. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy.

FAO, 2016c. GEF-FAO Groundwater Governance Project - Global Diagnostic on Groundwater

Governance. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO, 2013a. GEF-FAO Groundwater Governance Project A Global Framework for Country Action
Thematic Paper 5: Groundwater Policy and Governance. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO, 2013b. GEF-FAO Groundwater Governance Project A Global Framework for Country Action
Digest of Thematic Paper 5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
Italy.

Faurès, J.M., 1998. Users’ needs in terms of land and water information systems and decision-support
systems, in: FAO Land and Water Bulletin 7: Land and Water Resources Information Systems. pp.
59–78.

Ferreira da Silva, E., 1989. Impacte ambiental de elementos maiores e vestigiais no aquífero superficial
de Estarreja: caracterização da zona envolvente ao complexo químico. Universidade de Aveiro.

Ferreira, M.M., 1993. Mercúrio em solos da área do Complexo Químico de Estarreja. Universidade de
Aveiro.

Ferreira, P., 1995. Hidrogeologia do Quaternário da região norte da Ria de Aveiro. Universidade de
Aveiro.

341
Foster, S., Chilton, J., 2017. Groundwater management: policy principles & planning practices, in:
Villholth, K., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K.I., Garrido, A., Gun, J. van der (Eds.), Advances in
Groundwater Governance. CRC Press, London, UK, pp. 73–95.

Foster, S., Garduño, H., Tuinhof, A., Tovey, C., 2010. Groundwater Governance. Conceptual framework
for assessment of provisions and needs. Strategic Overview Series Number 1. World Bank,
Washington, D.C.

Freeze, R.A., A.Cherry, J., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Galletta, D.F., Lederer, A.L., 1989. Some Cautions on the Measurement of User Information
Satisfaction*. Decis. Sci. 20, 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1989.tb01558.x

Garduño, H., Foster, S., Raj, P., Steenbergen, F. van, 2009. Addressing Groundwater Depletion Through
Community-based Management Actions in the Weathered Granitic Basement Aquifer of
Drought-prone Andhra Pradesh – Indi, Sustainable Groundwater Management: Lessons from
Practice. Case Profile Collection Number 19. Washington, D.C.

Godden, L., Ison, R.L., Wallis, P.J., 2011. Water Governance in a Climate Change World: Appraising
Systemic and Adaptive Effectiveness. Water Resour. Manag. 25, 3971–3976.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9902-2

Gourbesville, P., 2008. Challenges for integrated water resources management. Phys. Chem. Earth,
Parts A/B/C 33, 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.02.002

Graham, J., Amos, B., Plumptre, T., 2003. Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century. Ottawa,
Canada.

Grath, J., Scheidleder, A., Uhlig, S., Weber, K., Kralik, M., Keimel, T., Gruber, D., 2001. The EU Water
Framework Directive: Statistical aspects of the identification of groundwater pollution trends,
and aggregation of monitoring results. Technical report no 1.

Greenwood, R., Willis, R., Hoenig, M., Pegram, G., Baleta, H., Morrison, J., Schulte, P., Farrington, R.,
2012. The CEO Water Mandate Guide to Water-Related Collective Action. CEO Water Mandate.

Gun, Jac van der, 2017. Data, information, knowledge and diagnostics on groundwater, in: Villholth,
K., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K.I., Garrido, A., Gun, J. van der (Eds.), Advances in Groundwater
Governance. CRC Press, London, UK, pp. 193–214.

Gupta, J., Akhmouch, A., Cosgrove, W., Hurwitz, Z., Maestu, J., Ünver, O., 2013. Policymakers’
Reflections on Water Governance Issues. Ecol. Soc. 18, 35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05086-

342
 180135

GWB, 2019. Central Groundwater Board Portal, India. Groundwater Data Access [WWW Document].
URL http://cgwb.gov.in/GW-data-access.html (accessed 7.3.19).

Hadded, R., Nouiri, I., Alshihabi, O., Maßmann, J., Huber, M., Laghouane, A., Yahiaoui, H., Tarhouni, J.,
2013. A Decision Support System to Manage the Groundwater of the Zeuss Koutine Aquifer Using
the WEAP-MODFLOW Framework. Water Resour. Manag. 27, 1981–2000.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0266-7

Hansen, M., Thomsen, C.T., 2017. An integrated public information system for geology, groundwater
and drinking water in Denmark. Geol. Surv. Denmark Greenl. Bull. 38, 69–72.

Hazell, P., Wood, S., 2007. Drivers of change in global agriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2166

Healy, R.W., Winter, T.C., LaBaugh, J.W., Franke, O.L., 2007. Water Budgets : Foundations for Effective
Water-Resources and Environmental Management: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1308.

Henriksen, H.Jø., Stisen, S., He, X., Wiese, M.B., 2015. A hydrological early warning system for denmark
based on the national model. Geol. Surv. Denmark Greenl. Bull. 33, 29–32.

Hey, J., 2004. The Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom Chain: The Metaphorical link.

Hirsch, P., 2006. Water Governance Reform and Catchment Management in the Mekong Region. J.
Environ. Dev. 15, 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496506288221

Hirst, P., 2000. Democracy and Governance, in: Pierre, J. (Ed.), Debating Governance: Authority,
Steering, and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Hockey, A., 2007. Towards a framework for supporting GIS competencies in local government. Built
Environ. Educ. Conf. 1–15.

Horne, J., 2015. Water Information as a Tool to Enhance Sustainable Water Management—The
Australian Experience. Water 7, 2161–2183. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7052161

Hugman, R., 2016. Numerical Approaches to Simulate Groundwater Flow and Transport in Coastal
Aquifers - From Regional Scale Management to Submarine Groundwater Discharge.
Universidade Do Algarve.

Huisman, P., Cramer, W., Ee, G. van, Hooghart, ].C., Salz, H.., Zuidema, F.C., 1998. Water in the
Netherlands, NHV-specia. ed. Netherlands Hydrological Society, Delft, the Netherlands.

343
IDAD, 2007a. Projecto de ampliação da DOW Portugal. Estudo de impacte ambiental. Aveiro, Portugal.

IDAD, 2007b. Ampliação do centro de produção de Estarreja da Sociedade Portuguesa do Ar Líquido,

Lda. Estudo de impacte ambiental. Aveiro, Portugal.

IDAD, 2007c. Projecto de ampliação da CUF‐QI. Estudo de impacte ambiental. Aveiro, Portugal.

IDAD, 2000. Projecto de desenvolvimento agrícola do Vouga – bloco do Baixo Vouga Lagunar. Estudo
de impacte ambiental. Aveiro, Portugal.

Igbaria, M., Nachman, S.A., 1990. Correlates of user satisfaction with end user computing: An
exploratory study. Inf. Manag. 19, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(90)90017-C

Ilyin, M., 2013. Governance: What is Behind the Word? IPSA, Particip. 37, 4.

INAG, 2005. Relatório síntese sobre a caracterização das regiões hidrográficas prevista na directiva-
quadro da água. Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento
Regional, Instituto da Água (INAG).

Instituto da Água (INAG), 1996. Restruturação da Rede de Monitorizaçao de Recursos Hídricos -

Aspectos Metodológicos (versão trabalho) 1–58.

Iwanaga, T., El Sawah, S., Jakeman, A., 2013. Design and implementation of a web-based groundwater
data management system. Math. Comput. Simul. 93, 164–174.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2012.11.009

Jakeman, A.J., Letcher, R.A., 2003. Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and
examples for catchment management. Environ. Model. Softw. 16, 491–501.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00024-0

Jørgensen, L.F., Stockmarr, J., 2009. Groundwater monitoring in Denmark: characteristics,

perspectives and comparison with other countries. Hydrogeol. J. 17, 827–842.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-008-0398-7

Kashyap, A., 2004. Water governance: learning by developing adaptive capacity to incorporate climate
variability and change. Water Sci. Technol. 49, 141–146.

Konikow, L.F., 2011. The secret to successful solute-transport modeling. Groundwater 49, 144–159.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00764.x

Kresic, N., Mikszewski, A., 2013. Hydrogeological conceptual site models: data analysis and
visualization. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

344
Leitão, T., 1996. Metodologias para a reabilitação de aquíferos poluídos. Universidade de Lisboa,
Lisboa, Portugal.

Letcher, R.A., 2005. Implementation of a water allocation decision support system in the Namoi and
Gwydir valleys, in: MODSIM 2005 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Canberra,
pp. 1546–1552.

Liew, A., 2007. Understanding Data, Information, Knowledge And Their Inter-Relationships. J. Knowl.
Manag. Pract. 28.

Linton, J., Brooks, D.B., 2011. Governance of transboundary aquifers: new challenges and new
opportunities. Water Int. 36, 606–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2011.599312

Lopes, A.R., 2019. Programa de medidas do 2o ciclo planeamento e monitorização, in: Thematic
Session: “Águas Subterrâneas: Estratégia Para a Sua Gestão”, May 19th, APA. APA, Lisboa,
Portugal.

Lovejoy, S.B., Lee, J.G., Randhir, T.O., Engel, B.A., 1997. Research needs for water quality management
in the 21st century: a spatial decision support system. J Soil Water Conserv 52, 18–22.

Maidment, D., 1998. Opportunities for the development of a global water information system, in: FAO
Land and Water Bulletin 7: Land and Water Resources Information Systems. pp. 115–120.

Marques da Silva, M.A., 1990. Hidrogeología del sistema multiacuífero Cretácico del Bajo Vouga –
Aveiro (Portugal). Universidade de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Marques, M., Quadrado, F., Rodrigues, R., 1999. Historial do Site SNIRH. Iv Silusba 10.

Matos Fernandes, J.P., 2016. Discurso do Ministro do Ambiente na sessão de abertura do 13.o
Congresso Nacional da Água.

Meadowcroft, J., 2002. Politics and scale: Some implications for environmental governance. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 61, 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00111-1

Mechlem, K., 2016. Groundwater governance: The role of legal frameworks at the local and national
level-established practice and emerging trends. Water (Switzerland) 8.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w8080347

Mechlem, K., 2012. Groundwater policy and governance, in: GEF-FAO Groundwater Governance
Project—A Global Framework for Country Action. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Megdal, S.B., Gerlak, A.K., Varady, R.G., Huang, L.-Y., 2015. Groundwater Governance in the United

345
 States: Common Priorities and Challenges. Groundwater 53, 677–684.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12294

Moitinho d’ Almeida, F., Zbyszewski, G., 1949. Contribuição para o conhecimento dos terrenos
quaternários da região de Estarreja, in: Comum. Serv. Geol. De Portugal, Tomo XXIX. 120.

Moitinho d’ Almeida, F., Zbyszewski, G., 1947. Contribuição para o conhecimento dos terrenos
quaternários da região de Estarreja, in: Comum. Serv. Geol. De Portugal, Tomo XXVIII.

Mollinga, P.P., 2008. Water, politics and development: Framing a political sociology of water resources
management. Water Altern. 1, 7‐23.

Montcoudiol, N., Molson, J., Lemieux, J.-M., Cloutier, V., 2015. A conceptual model for groundwater
flow and geochemical evolution in the southern Outaouais Region, Québec, Canada. Appl.
Geochemistry 58, 62–77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.03.007

Monteiro, J.P., Martins, R., Nunes, L., 2011. Estado actual do conhecimento sobre as “Massas de Água
Subterrânea”. Uma proposta de criação de campos de informação no WISE para a sua
permanente actualização, in: 11o Congresso Da Água. Associação Portuguesa dos Recursos
Hídricos (APRH), Porto, p. 20.

Moody, R., van Ast, J.A., 2012. Implementation of GIS-Based Applications in Water Governance. Water
Resour. Manag. 26, 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9929-4

Moss, B., 2008. The Water Framework Directive: Total environment or political compromise? Sci. Total
Environ. 400, 32–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.04.029

Mysiak, J., Giupponi, C., Rosato, P., 2005. Towards the development of a decision support system for
water resource management. Env. Model Softw. 20, 203–214.

Nalbantis, I., Rozos, E., Tentes, G.A.E., Koutsoyiannis, D., 2002. Integrating groundwater models within
a decision support system. Natl. Tech. Univ. Athens.

Nascimento, J., Condesso de Melo, T., Barreiras, N., Miguéns, F., Buxo, A., Ribeiro, L., 2013. Avaliação
da representatividade das redes de monitorização das águas subterrâneas de acordo com a
Directiva-Quadro da água, in: VIII Congresso Ibérico Sobre Planeamento e Gestão Da Água.
Lisbon, pp. 830–838.

Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River Flow Forecasting through Conceptual Model. Part 1—A Discussion
of Principles. J. Hydrol. 10, 282–290. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-
1694(70)90255-6

346
Naveh, N., Shamir, U., 2000. Decision support system for managing the Hula project (only summary
available). Isr. Inst. Technol. Haifa 19.

Neves, C.M.C., 2015. Estudo da contaminação das águas subterrâneas e respectivos processos de
atenuação natural na zona industrial de Estarreja. Instituto Superior Técnico.

Nowlan, L., Bakker, K., 2007. Delegating water governance: Issues and challenges in the BC context.
British Columbia, Canada.

OECD, 2016. Water Governance in Cities, OECD Studies on Water. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.

OECD, 2015. OECD Principles on Water Governance. OECD Princ. Water Gov. 24.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

OECD, 2013. Country Profile: Portugal, in: Water and Climate Change Adaptation: Policies to Navigate
Uncharted Waters. OECD Publishing, pp. 195–196. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264200449-en

OECD, 2012a. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.

OECD, 2012b. Water Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Multi-level Approach, OECD
Studi. ed. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264174542-en

OECD, 2011a. Water Governance in OECD Countries: A Multi-level Approach. OECD Publishing, PAris.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264119284-en

OECD, 2011b. Water Governance in OECD Countries: A Multi-level Approach (Executive Summary) 17–
23.

Oliveira, B., 2016. Simulação numérica da contaminação da água subterrânea na envolvente do

Complexo Químico de Estarreja. Instituto Superior Técnico.

Oliveira, M.M., 2005. Recarga de águas subterrâneas: métodos de avaliação. Universidade de Lisboa,
Lisboa (Portugal).

Ordens, C., 2007. Estudo da contaminação do aquífero superior na região de Estarreja. Faculdade de
Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade de Coimbra.

Ordens, C.M., Bertin, S., Brouwer, R., Condesso de Melo, M.T., 2006. The socioeconomic costs and
benefits of groundwater protection in the Aveiro Quaternary Aquifer System in Portugal. BRIDGE
Deliverable D28.

Ordens, C.M., Brouwer, R., Condesso de Melo, M.T. Bertin, S., 2007. Percepção pública e valorização

347
 dos benefícios de protecção da água subterrânea. Tecnol. da Água I, 79–86.

Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning
processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 354–365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Paisley, R.K., Henshaw, T.W., 2013. Transboundary governance of the Nile River Basin: Past, present
and future. Environ. Dev. 7, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2013.05.003

Pato, J., 2008. O valor da água como bem público. Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de
Lisboa.

Patterson, R.N., Watts, K.C., Gill, T.A., 2003. Micro-particles in recirculating aquacultural systems:
determination of particle density by density gradient centrifugation. Aquac. Eng. 27, 105–115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8609(02)00042-0

Peixinho de Cristo, F., 1985. Estudo hidrogeológico do sistema aquífero do Baixo Vouga. Direcção Geral
dos Recursos e Aproveitamentos Hidráulicos, Divisão de Geohidrologia, Coimbra.

Pereira, M.E., Duarte, A.C., 1997. Contaminação da Ria de Aveiro com mercúrio. Indústria da Água 24,
47–57.

Pfeffer, K., Martinez, J., Baud, I., Sridharan, N., 2011. Knowledge production in local governance
systems through qualitative Geographical Information System (GIS). Environ. Urban. Asia 2, 235–
250.

Pierce, S.A., Sharp, J.M., Guillaume, J.H.A., Mace, R.E., Eaton, D.J., 2013. Aquifer-yield continuum as a
guide and typology for science-based groundwater management 331–340.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-012-0910-y

Pierre, J., Peters, G.., 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

PNA, 2002. Plano nacional da água, elaborado nos termos do Decreto Lei no 45/94 de 22 de Fevereiro
e aprovado pelo Decreto-Lei n.o 112/2002. Lisboa.

PORDATA, 2019. Unemployed population by municipality [WWW Document]. URL

https://www.pordata.pt

Quadrado, F., 2019. Águas subterrâneas, um recurso estratégico, in: Thematic Session: “Águas
Subterrâneas: Estratégia Para a Sua Gestão”, May 19th, APA. Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente,
Lisboa, Portugal.

348
Quintana, S.C., Pereira, A.G., Funtowicz, S., 2005. GOUVERNe: new trends in decision support for
groundwater governance issues. Env. Model Softw. 20, 111–118.

Ramos, N., 2019. Águas subterrâneas: licenciamento e fiscalização, in: Thematic Session: “Águas
Subterrâneas: Estratégia Para a Sua Gestão”, May 19th, APA. APA, Lisboa, Portugal.

Reis, E., 2017. Proteção de recursos hídricos subterrâneos: proteção de captações de água
subterrânea, in: Construção, Exploração e Selagem de Captações de Águas Subterrâneas. APA,
Lisboa, Portugal.

Remson, I., Hornberger, G.M., Molz, F.., 1971. Numerical Methods in Subsurface Hydrology. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Ribeiro, L., 2004. Recursos hídricos subterrâneos de Portugal Continental. Instituto da Água, Lisboa,
Portugal.

Ribeiro, L., 2000. IS: um novo índice de susceptibilidade de aquíferos à contaminação agrícola [SI: a
new index of aquifer susceptibility to agricultural pollution]. Lisbon.

Rodrigues, R., Quadrado, F., Lopes, A.R., Brandão, C., 2001. O plano de restruturação da monitorização
dos recursos hídricos, in: Monitorização Dos Recursos Hídricos. Expresso, Lisbon.

Rogers, P., Hall, A., 2003. Effective Water Governance Action through Partnership in Central and
Eastern Europe. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden.

Romano, O., Akhmouch, A., 2019. Water Governance in Cities: Current Trends and Challenges, Future.
Water 11, 500. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030500

Saleth, R.M., Dinar, A., 2004. The institutional economics of water: a cross-country analysis of
institutions and performance. The World Bank.

Scheidleder, A., 2004. Representative Groundwater Quality Monitoring network in Austria - Austrian
experience in implementation of Directive 2000/60/EC requirements. Umweltbundesamt,
Austria.

Schmidt, L., Ferreira, J.G., 2014. Avanços E Desafios Da Governança Da Água Na Europa No Contexto
Da Aplicação Da Directiva Quadro Da Água. 12. Congr. da agua /16 ENASB/ XVI Silubesa. 2014 1–
15.

Schmidt, L., Ferreira, J.G., Prista, P., 2015. Water Governance in Europe and Portugal: Assessment and
outlook, in: Governança Da Água No Contexto Iberoamericano - Inovação Em Processo (Water
Governance in Iberoamerican Context - Innovation Process). AnnaBlume Editora, São Paulo, pp.

349
 125–150.

SNIRH, 2019a. The groundwater bodies distribution in the Portuguese river basins [WWW Document].
URL https://snirh.apambiente.pt/index.php?idMain=4&idItem=2&idISubtem=4 (accessed
7.20.19).

SNIRH, 2019b. Sistema Nacional de Informação de Recursos Hídricos [WWW Document]. URL
www.snirh.pt

Solanes, M., Jouravlev, A., 2006. Water Governance for Development and Sustainability. United
Nations, Santiago, Chile.

Spitz, K., Moreno, J., 1996. A Practical Guide to Groundwater and Solute Transport Modeling. Wiley,
New York, USA.

Stachowicz, S., 2004. Geographical Data Sharing – Advantages of Web Based Technology To Local
Government. 10th EC GI GIS Work. ESDI State Art, Warsaw, Pol. 23–25.

Stefano, L. De, Empinotti, V., Schmidt, L., Jacobi, P.R., 2016. Measuring Information Transparency in
the Water Sector : What Story Do Indicators Tell? 1, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.7564/15-IJWG97

Stigter, T.Y., Ribeiro, L., Dill, A.M.M.C., 2006. Evaluation of an intrinsic and a specific vulnerability
assessment method in comparison with groundwater salinisation and nitrate contamination
levels in two agricultural regions in the south of Portugal. Hydrogeol. J. 14, 79–99.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0396-3

Talaia, M., 2017. A evaporação e o vapor de água na atmosfera: um estudo de caso na região de Aveiro,
in: J.F. Silva Gomes et al. (Ed.), 8o Congresso Luso-Moçambicano de Engenharia / V Congresso de
Engenharia de Moçambique. NEGI/FEUP, Maputo, Mozambique, pp. 4–8.

Taunt, N., 2001. A time‐lapse electromagnetic survey of a contaminated aquifer at Estarreja. Northern
Portugal. Universidade de Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Theesfeld, I., 2010. Institutional Challenges for National Groundwater Governance: Policies and Issues.
Groundwater 48, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00624.x

TNO, 2019. DINOLoket. Data and Information on the Dutch Subsurface [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.dinoloket.nl/en (accessed 7.3.19).

Triana, E., Gates, T., Labadie, J., 2010. River GeoDSS for agroenvironmental enhancement of
Colorado’s Lower Arkansas River Basin. II: evaluation of strategies. J Water Resour Plann Manag.
190–200. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000021

350
Tropp, H., 2007. Water governance : trends and needs for new capacity development. Water Policy 9,
19–30. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2007.137

Troutman, B.M., 1985. Errors and parameter estimation in precipitation-runoff modeling. Water
Resour. Res. 21, 1214–1222.

UNDESA, 2019. Revision of World Population Prospects. [WWW Document]. URL

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2015-report.html (accessed
5.25.19).

UNDP, 2013. User’s guide on assessing water governance. Olso, Norway.

UNDP, 2004. Water Governance for Poverty Reduction: Key Issues and the UNDP Response to
Millenium Development Goals 93.

UNISDR, 2012. Annual Report 2012. Geneva, Switzerland.

United Nations, 2015. The United Nations World Water Development Report: Water a Sustainable
World - Facts and Figures.

USGS, 2019a. Groundwater Atlas of the United States [WWW Document]. URL
https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ (accessed 7.3.19).

USGS, 2019b. USGS Groundwater Information Pages [WWW Document]. URL

https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/publications (accessed 7.3.19).

van Cauwenbergh, N., Pinte, D., Tilmant, A., Frances, I., Pulido-Bosch, A., Vanclooster, M., 2008.
Multiobjective, multiple participant decision support for water management in the Andarax
catchment, Almeria. Env. Geol 54, 479–489.

van der Gun, J., Aureli, A., Merla, A., 2016. Enhancing groundwater governance by making the linkage
with multiple uses of the subsurface space and other subsurface resources. Water (Switzerland)
8. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8060222

van Geer, F., 2008. Groundwater monitoring in The Netherlands, in: Kamphorst, E., Jørgensen, L.F.,
van Griensven, A., Vanrolleghem, P.P. (Eds.), State of the Art on Existing Monitoring Programmes
around Europe. Harmoni-CA WP2 & WP4. Workshop Report, Joint Use of Monitoring and
Modelling. Ghent, Belgium.

Vancauwenberghe, Glen, Vandenbroucke, D., Crompvoets, J., Pignatelli, F., Boguslawski, R., 2014.
Assessment of the integration of geographic information in e-government policy in Europe, in:
Connecting a Digital Europe through Location and Place. AGILE.

351
Vancauwenberghe, Glenn, Vandenbroucke, D., Pignatelli, F., Boguslawski, R., 2014. Assessment of the
integration of geographic information in e - government policy in Europe 3–6.

Varis, O., Enckell, K., Keskinen, M., 2014. Integrated water resources management: horizontal and
vertical explorations and the ‘water in all policies’ approach. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 30, 433–
444. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2014.912130

Villholth, K., Conti, K.I., 2017. Groundwater governance: rationale, definition, current state and
heuristic framework, in: Villholth, K., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K.I., Garrido, A., Gun, J. van der (Eds.),
Advances in Groundwater Governance. CRC Press, London, UK, pp. 3–31.

Wang, H.F., Anderson, M.P., 1982. Introduction to Groundwater Modeling: Finite Difference and Finite
Element Methods. Academic Press, San Diego.

Wiek, A., Larson, K.L., 2012. Water, People, and Sustainability---A Systems Framework for Analyzing
and Assessing Water Governance Regimes. Water Resour. Manag. 26, 3153–3171.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0065-6

Wilson, J.P., Mitasova, H., Wright, D.J., 2000. Water resources applications of Geographic Information
Systems. URISA J. 12, 61–79.

World Bank, 1991. Managing development - The governance dimension. The World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA.

World Bank, 1989. From crisis to sustainable growth - sub Saharan Africa: a long-term perspective
study. Washington, DC, USA.

Xiang, W.N., 1993. A GIS method for Riparian water quality buffer generation. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 7,
57–70.

Young, R., 2002. The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay and scale. MIT
press, Cambridge, MA.

Zheng, C., Wang, P.P., 1999. MT3DMS: A Modular Three-Dimensional Multispecies Transport Model
for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion, and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in
Groundwater Systems; Documentation and User’s Guide by. Washington, D.C.

352