International Journal of River Basin Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://iahr.tandfonline.com/loi/trbm20

System dynamics for water resource sustainability

issues: assessing the impact of river restoration
plans in the Upper-Middle Ciliwung river basin,
Indonesia

Imas Komariah & Toru Matsumoto

To cite this article: Imas Komariah & Toru Matsumoto (2021) System dynamics for water resource
sustainability issues: assessing the impact of river restoration plans in the Upper-Middle Ciliwung
river basin, Indonesia, International Journal of River Basin Management, 19:4, 565-574, DOI:
10.1080/15715124.2020.1803336

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2020.1803336

Published online: 27 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 55

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://iahr.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trbm20
INTL. J. RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
2021, VOL. 19, NO. 4, 565–574
https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2020.1803336

System dynamics for water resource sustainability issues: assessing the impact of
river restoration plans in the Upper-Middle Ciliwung river basin, Indonesia
Imas Komariah and Toru Matsumoto
Department of Life and Environment Engineering, the University of Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu, Japan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A system dynamics (SD) model was developed for assessing the impact of river restoration plans on Received 25 March 2019
the sustainability of water resources based on a case study of the Upper-Middle Ciliwung river basin in Accepted 19 July 2020
Indonesia. The river restoration scenarios were used to compare the impact of proposed river
KEYWORDS
restoration activities, specifically, the use of processed wastewater (reclaimed water), increased Sustainable; water resources;
agricultural water demand efficiency, agricultural land reduction, and inter-basin water transfer. river restoration; system
Based on the evaluation without river restoration plans, the relative water stress indicator (RWSI) dynamics model; relative
shows a value > 0.4, which means that a basin is in a highly stressed and critical condition. By water stress indicator
combining various restoration plans, the RWSI value was < 0.4, which means the river restoration
plans restored the sustainability of the water resources in the basin. The SD model was developed
to understand and seek solutions for decision-makers in sustainable water resource management.

Introduction
The current and future challenges of water resources manage-
ment widely vary because of population growth, land use
change, intensive socio-economic development, and global
warming (Alcamo et al., 2003). Sustainable water resource
management has become a very important issue because of
the lack of good quality water resources as a result of environ-
mental damage caused by human activities. River water may
be subject to pollution because of an increase in population
and urbanization, industrial development, deforestation,
and intensified agriculture (Komariah & Matsumoto, 2017).
The water resources management paradigm in the world is
changing from a paradigm of searching for new water sources
to an emphasis on integrating ecological values into water
policy and meeting water services to meet basic human
needs, as well as an approach for all users of river water
from a river basin. This new paradigm improves efficiency
and reduces the gap between water users (Gleick, 2009).
River restoration aims to (1) restore natural river con-
ditions; (2) restore river functions to support biodiversity,
recreation, flood management, and landscape development;
(3) improve river system resilience; and (4) create a frame-
work for river utilization in a sustainable, multifunctional
manner (The River Restoration Centre [RRC], 2011). Some
restoration projects have failed because of the gap between
the restoration plans and the expected results of a restoration
project. Water resource decision makers need to assess the
efficiency and effectiveness of restoration plans over a long
period of time.
System dynamics (SD) is an approach to understand the
behaviour of complex systems over time. Developed by Pro-
fessor Jay Forrester during the 1960s (Xixi and Poh KL, 2013),
it uses feedback as an elementary unit to describe a system, a
causal relationship to show the connections among system
elements, flow graphs to represent the structure and nature
of system elements, and difference equations to quantitatively
describe the system. The SD model was built based on a
continuous sustainability process that considers the function-
ality of dynamic feedback relationships among hydrology,
social and economic demands, and environmental conditions
(Ouyang et al., 2016). SD modelling is a methodology for
studying and managing complex feedback systems when for-
mal analytical models do not exist; however, system simu-
lation can be developed by linking a number of feedback
mechanisms (Jun et al., 2011).
SD is a decision support tool for sustainable water
resources management used to (1) compare the potential
effects of water infrastructure, cropland expansion, and dry
conditions on communities (Kotir et al., 2016); (2) investigate
minimizing water losses from evaporation and groundwater
depletion through aquifer storage and recovery (Niazi et al.,
2014); (3) improve our understanding of flooding and irriga-
tion effects (Trowsdale et al., 2009); (4) assess agricultural
efficiency (Nasery et al., 2017); (5) assess the effectiveness of
water resource management practices relative to economic
and environmental development (Xiang et al., 2014); and
(6) assess restoration plans for drying lakes (Zarghami &
Rahmani, 2017).
The Upper-Middle Ciliwung (UMC) river basin is charac-
terized by high population growth, declining water avail-
ability, and limited biodegradation and self-purification
capabilities (Komariah & Matsumoto, 2017). Several issues
in this basin are the gap between water need and water supply
from the regional drinking water company (PDAM) of
Jakarta, raw water crisis, river water quality pollution (Cili-
wung Cisadane River Basin Agency, 2014), land use changes
for housing from 1990 until 1996 increasing 67.88% (Putra,
2015), and degraded forest in the upstream (Ciliwung Cisa-
dane River Basin Agency, 2014). The UMC river basin SD
model aims to maintain the sustainability of water resources
in a river area.
Water resources sustainability is valued using an index: the
relative water stress indicator (RWSI), the water resource sus-
tainability index (SI), and the supply and demand balance

CONTACT Imas Komariah imaskomariah95@gmail.com

© 2020 International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research
566 I. KOMARIAH AND T. MATSUMOTO
index (SDBI). Several studies using the RWSI have computed
the ratio of total water demand (from the agricultural, indus-
trial, and domestic sectors) to river discharge (representing
renewable water supply). Water stress refers to economic,
social, and environmental problems caused by unmet water
needs. An example of an RWSI, as prepared by a water system
analysis group at the University of New Hampshire, is the
proposed water stress computed as ratio of the product of
the domestic water demand (km3/yr), industrial water
demand (km3/yr), and agricultural water demand (km3/yr)
to the water supply (km3/yr) (Ahluwalia, 2019).
The SI to evaluate the sustainability of water supply (WS)
regarding the water demand (WD) defined as: (Madani &
Marino, 2009). The SDBI to evaluate the balance between
supply and demand defined as: (Huang & Yin, 2017).
The water supply component derived from the UMC river
basin has an area of 264.35 km2 (Figure 1. Location of The
Ciliwung River Basin (Kumar et al., 2017)). The main river
is the Ciliwung River, with a length of 119 km (Ciliwung
Cisadane River Basin Agency, 2014). Annual precipitation
ranges between 1586 and 2486 mm/year, a maximum temp-
erature of 30°C, and a local humidity of from 65 to 70%
(Komariah & Matsumoto, 2017). The utilization of Ciliwung
River water as a source of raw water is 0.94 m3/s while the dis-
charge potential varies between 0.54 and 7.80 m3/s (Ciliwung
Cisadane River Basin Agency, 2013). The water demand com-
ponent originates from the water needs of the population in
the river basin, which is the population of a portion of the
cities of Bogor and Depok and Bogor Regency, which have
a total permanent population of ∼ 3.79 million people
(2014 census).
Figure 1. Location of the Ciliwung River Basin (Kumar et al., 2017).
In this study, SD models were designed to understand
dynamic interactions occurring within the hydrologic system
to establish water resources sustainability and assess the
impact of river restoration actions. A model was composed
of the hydrological cycle and human elements. By using var-
ious scenarios of river restoration actions, it can be found
whether the river can supply water for economic, social,
and environmental needs within a certain period.
Method and concept
Methodology
The system dynamic modelling process consists of five steps:
problem definition, system conceptualization, model formu-
lation, simulation, and policy analysis (Sherman, 2000). Mod-
elling is an iterative process of trial and error. The steps of
modelling: acquainted, be specific, construct, draw, estimate,
run, sensitivity, and test (Ford, 2010).
The structure of the method is shown in Figure 2. The
methodology used in this study is comprised of the following:
1) Establishment of models with an analysis of system
include problem definition, conceptualization, and
model formulation
2) System simulation process include calibration and selec-
tion of the models
3) Method selection by comparing the method deviation
values
4) Policy analysis
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 567

System analysis

Problem definition

Conceptualization

Model formulation

System SD model for water resources

simulation sustainability
process

Population Water storage Demand analysis

Calibration

Scenarios design
Policy
analysis

Increasing agricultural Reducing Reclaimed Inter-basin

water demand (AWD) agricultural water water transfer
efficiency land

Water Index
Feedback
Recommendation

Figure 2. Structure of the method.

5) Comparison between water supply and demand for sev- The SI formula is as follows:
eral scenarios with the Water Index

6) Making recommendations regarding the water supply and (WS − WD)
SI = x100% (2)
demand in the catchment area. WS

where WS is water supply (in m3) and WD is water demand

The SD model was performed in Powersim Studio 10. The
SD model simulates a 50-y period, equal to a time period of
2008–2058. A time step of 0.25 y was selected. The Euler
method was selected for numerical integration purposes.
Calibration of key model parameters was conducted from
2008 to 2012 for available surface water and from 2008 to
2014 for population.
An SD-UMC model was used to assess the effect of each
restoration plan using the Water Index value.
The RWSI formula is as follows:
DIA
RWSI =
Q
where DIA is the total water demand (in m3) in a basin and Q
is the total available surface and ground water (in m3). An
RWSI > 0.4 for a basin indicates a highly stressed and critical
condition (Zarghami & Rahmani, 2017).
(in m3). If WS > WD, then SI = (WS-WD). If WS ≤ WD, then
SI = 0. An index greater than 20% belongs to water basins
with little or no water stress. In such basins water demand
(WD) is less than 80% of water supply (WS). A watershed
with a sustainability index (SI) of less than 20% is at signifi-
cant risk of water stress, depending on local storage and dis-
tribution capabilities.
The SDBI formula is as follows:
TWS
SDBI = (3)
TWD
(1) where TSW is the total water supply and TWD is the total
water demand. If SDBI>1, it means that the total supply of
water is more than the total demand and therefore the region
has no shortage of water.
If 0.9 < SDBI < 1, it means that the total water supply is
smaller than the total demand and therefore the region has
568 I. KOMARIAH AND T. MATSUMOTO
a slight shortage of water; this may affect production, which
needs a large amount of water.
If 0.6 < SDBI < 0.9 it means that the total water supply is
smaller than the total demand and therefore the region has
a moderate shortage of water; in this case, production and
domestic life may be affected much more.
If SDBI < 0.5 it means that the total water supply is only
half of the total demand and therefore the region has an
acute shortage of water; in this case, production has to be
stopped at some times because of lack of water and thus
the water shortage affects the development of the economy
and domestic life in the region.
System conceptualization and model formulation
The model is composed of the hydrological cycle and
human elements. The hydrological elements include direct
runoff, base flow, and stream flow and the human elements
include municipal and agricultural withdrawals. This
model consists of sub models of population, agricultural
land, and water storage. To demonstrate the importance
of feedback relationships in determining the behaviour
of the complex UMC river basin SD model, our model
provides a feedback representation, as shown in Figure 3,
of the three crucial sub models of population, agricultural
land, and surface water storage. As shown in Figure 3, the
positive or negative polarity associated with each arrow
Figure 3. The Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) UMC SD model.
indicates the direction of change of one model component
imposed on the next. Positive relationships represent a
change in the same direction, in which an increase/
decrease in one sector causes an increase/decrease in the
next sector, while negative relationships mean that change
occurs in the opposite direction, such that an increase/
decrease in one sector causes a decrease/increase in the
next sector. The figure also shows how one model com-
ponent influences the next. This study focused on the
importance of feedback between the aforementioned
three sub models; the linkage among them is the foun-
dation for modelling. For example, feedback loops
among each element are as follows:
L1: Population growth → + domestic water demand→ +
total water demand→ - surface water storage
L2: Agricultural land growth → + agricultural water
demand → + total water demand → - surface water storage
L3: Precipitation→ + Surface water storage growth → +
water supply → + evapotranspiration actual
The variables and key factors model shows in Table 1.
As shown in Figure 4, the SD-UMC models use symbols
from the Simulation tool Powersim. The Powersim diagram
is a flow diagram that shows the model divided into states
and flows. In addition there are also constants and auxiliaries.
The diagram is automatically translated into equations to give
a textual representation of the model. (Karlsson & Persson,
1998).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 569

Table 1. Key Model Factors and Variables of UMC-SD Model. Population

Factors Key Variables Stocks
Water Supply Surface Water Supply Surface Water Storage
The population sub-model represents the population of the
Precipitation UMC river basin.
Evaporation Actual Reclaimed Water The UMC river basin is located between 106°50′ 20′′ to
Water Transfer
Efficiency Agriculture Water
106°50′ 50′′ East Longitude and 6°22′ 30′′ to 06°28′ 35′′ South
Demand Latitude, comprising a total area of 264.35 km2. Two main
Reduce Agriculture Land urban centres (the cities of Bogor and Depok) and Bogor
Water Demand Domestic Water Demand Agricultural Land
Industrial Water Demand
regency are adjacent to the Republic of Indonesia’s Capital
Agricultural water Demand City, Jakarta. Jakarta, as a big city, attracts residents to
Population Births Population migrate in search of work. Based on population data at the
Deaths
Migration
study location, migration flows out of the study site averaged
6251 people per year. The net emigration is an important
variable that significantly affects the future population level.
It is a simplified model consisting of one level ‘population’
The symbols shown in Figure 4 are as follows: (P), which is increased by births (br), decreased by deaths
(dr), and net emigration (m). The number of deaths was cal-
. Stock/level is a state variable. For example, the amount of culated based on 68 years of life expectancy.
water (m3), energy (J), or population (number of The population at time t is mathematically represented as
individuals) follows:
. Auxiliary is an evaluate mathematical expressions t
. Constant is a constant that affects the system P(t) = P(0) + P [br − dr − m] dt (4)
. Link is an information. Describes which variables influ-
t0
ence each other
. Flow/rate is a transport between levels. For example, water Where P = population, br = births, dr = deaths, m = net emi-
flow (m3/s), births (individuals/s) gration, and t = time (year).
. Source/sink is an origin or destination of flow. The real
source/sink is outside the system and is therefore not
described in the model Water demand
In this model, water demand includes domestic, industrial,
The formula for calculating each sub models is as follows: and agricultural water demand. These can be calculated as

Figure 4. The UMC-SD model.

570 I. KOMARIAH AND T. MATSUMOTO

follows: Table 2. Details of some important parameter values used in the UMC river
basin SD model.
W = D+I +A (5) Initial values used
Variable (unit) Source of Data
where W = total water demand (in m3/year), D = domestic Stock
water demand (in m3/year), I = industrial water demand (in Total population 3211450 (people) Central Bureau of Statistic
m3/year), and A = agricultural water demand (in m3/year). Initial agricultural land 1190 (ha) Ciliwung Cisadane River
Initial water storage 547632882 (m3) Agency
The domestic water demand is the quantity of water used Auxiliary Secondary data
in people’s daily life. It can be estimated by the size of the Rainfall 773027651 (m3/year)
population and the water demand per capita per day. The Evapotranspiration 225394770 (m3/year) Secondary data
actual 6251 (people/year) Secondary data
domestic water demand was formulated as follows: Net migration Secondary data
Constant 3.34 % (year)
D = P(t) × D pwd × 365/1000 (6) Birth rate 68 (year) Secondary data
Life expectancy Central Bureau of Statistic
where P(t) = Population and Dpwd = Population water Land use change rate 0.2 %/year Assumption
demand per capita (0.160 m3/people/day). Land rate 3.34 %/year Assumption
The industrial water demand was assumed to be approxi-
mately 10% that of domestic water demand. Calibration model
The agricultural water demand is the water used for irriga-
tion. It can be calculated by the agricultural area and the irri- The model calibration and direct structural tests were per-
gation water demand per hectare as follows: formed to increase confidence in the UMC-SD model. Direct
structural tests assess the validity of the model structure, by
A = Aawd xL × 86400 × 365/1000 (7) directly comparing the simulated reference mode with knowl-
edge about the real system. Model calibration is the process of
where Aawd = Irrigation water demand per hectare in m3/s
estimating the model parameters to obtain a match between
(0.0012 m3/ha/s) and L = Agricultural land area (ha).
observed and simulated behaviour (Xixi and Poh KL, 2013).
Behavioural replication was used as a verification method
Water storage to test whether the model can reproduce, both qualitatively
and quantitatively, the behaviour of key parameters (Alifu-
The relationship between water storage and discharge can be jang et al., 2017).
seen in the following formula: (Stella, 2019) Model accuracy was evaluated by calibration and vali-
DS = P − ET − Q (8) dation using the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE),
whose formula is shown in equation 10. Calibration refers
where DS = water storage in function of time (mm), P = Pre- to the adjustment of model parameters to reproduce obser-
cipitation in function of time (mm), ET = Evapotranspiration vations within acceptable agreement levels. A validation test
in function of time (mm), and Q = Discharge in function of was conducted by applying the calibrated model to a second
time (mm). period of data not used in the calibration (Alifujang et al.,
The model is composed of the hydrological cycle and human 2017) as follows:
elements. The hydrological elements are such as direct runoff,
base flow, and stream flow. The stream flow = the discharge = 1  |Xm − Xd |
MAPE = × 100% (10)
the sum of direct runoff and base flow. The water storage in n Xd
the SD model can be calculated as follows: where Xm = simulated data, Xd = observed data, and n = total
t step calibration. A MAPE < 5% indicates that the model is
S(t) = S(0) + [(P(t) − Ea(t) − Q(t) − W(t)] dt (9) arranged according to the actual conditions, a value of 5%
< MAPE < 10% indicates that the model is arranged near
t0
the actual conditions, and a MAPE > 10% indicates that
where S(t) = volume of water storage at time t (in m3), S(0) = the model is arranged differently than the actual conditions.
volume of water storage at time 0, P(t) = precipitation at time
t (in m3), Ea(t) = actual evaporation at time t (in m3), Q(t) = dis-
charge at time t (in m3), and W(t) = water demand at time t (in Restoration plans
m3). Based on the aforementioned equations a model structure The scenario used in this study assessed the impact of river
was formed, as shown in Figure 4. restoration actions. River restoration plans are implemented
to increase the availability and quality of river water.
Examples of river restoration plans include increasing irriga-
Model input data
tion efficiency, reducing irrigated land, refined domestic and
The input data were obtained from multiple governmental industrial wastewater reuse, inter-basin water transfers, and
agencies, including the Ciliwung Cisadane River Basin cloud seeding (Zarghami & Rahmani, 2017).
Agency and Central Bureau of Statistics, and based on sec- Plan 1 - Increasing agricultural water demand (AWD)
ondary data from research results. The input data stock efficiency
were surface water storage, population, and agricultural Some studies related to the efficient use of water for irriga-
land. The input data auxiliary were rainfall, and evapotran- tion include using sluice gates and sprinklers.
spiration actual. The input data constant were birth rate, Plan 2 - Reducing agricultural land
land use, change rate, and land rate. Some key parameters Many experts argue that water for agriculture poses a pro-
used in the model and their corresponding values are blem in terms of water availability because the water need of
described in Table 2. agriculture is quite large (Zarghami & Rahmani, 2017).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 571

Plan 3 - Reclaimed water Calibration model and behaviour of selected

The use of wastewater for agricultural water has been parameters
widely used in several countries.
The results of the model testing are shown in Figure 5 and
Plan 4 – Inter-basin water transfer
Figure 6. The test behaviour for population growth from
Another means of adding water to a basin is via inter-basin
2008 to 2014 is shown in Figure 5. Based on the MAPE test
water transfer projects (Zarghami & Rahmani, 2017).
score obtained (4.34%), the model closely reproduces the
The value of the percentage of restoration plans is to
actual conditions. The test behaviour for the stream flow
obtain by trial and error chosen an RWSI value <0.4.
from 2008 to 2012 is shown in Figure 6. Based on the
For example, the scenario P.1 Increasing agricultural water
MAPE test score obtained (15%).
demand efficiency of 20% means that scenario P.1 of 20% will
Figure 7 shows the reference mode of the population
increase water storage caused by an additional 20% efficiency
results for the period from 2008 to 2058. On the demand
of water requirements for agriculture; likewise for P.1 of 50%
side, as the population grows rapidly, the domestic, industrial
and P.1 of 100% will increase water storage caused by the
and agricultural water demand increase significantly
addition of 50% and 100% efficiency of water requirements for
agriculture.
The scenario P.2 Reducing agricultural land by 20%, this
Population
means that scenario P.2 of 20% will increase water storage
caused by a reduction in agricultural land by 20%; likewise 4,500,000
for scenario P.2 by 50% and P.2 by 100% will increase
3,500,000

People
water storage caused by the reduction of agricultural land
by 50% and 100%. 2,500,000
The scenario P.3 Reclaimed water 20%, this means that
scenario P.3 of 20% will increase water storage caused by 1,500,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
reuse of used water from domestic and industry; the same Year
goes for P.3 of 50% and P.3 of 100%.
Scenario P.4 Inter-basin water transfers of 750 MCM, this
Observed (people) Simulation (people)
means that the addition of water from other river basins will
add 750 MCM of water storage. Figure 5. The comparison between observed and simulated results for
For example, the combination of restoration example population.
plans P.1 of 50% and P.4 of 1,200 MCM means increasing
agricultural water demand efficiency of 50% and inter-basin
water transfers of 1,200 MCM. Stream Flow
The individual scenarios are explained as follows and also 700,000,000
650,000,000
summarized in Table 3 and the combination scenarios in 600,000,000
550,000,000
Table 7.
m3/year

500,000,000
450,000,000
400,000,000
350,000,000
300,000,000
250,000,000
Results and discussion 200,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Results of the simulation model for the period from 2008 to Year
2058 were obtained.
Simulation was used to assess the adequacy of the water sto-
rage or water supply in the river basin for users. The simulation Figure 6. The comparison between observed and simulated results for stream
results were used to assess the effect efficiency of the restor- flow.
ation plan on river water supply–demand. The effects of
each restoration plan and the combination of the restoration
plans were analysed and compared using the Water Index.

Table 3. Name of individual restoration plans and their characteristics.

Plans Aim Scenario
P.1 Increasing agricultural water demand 20%, 50%, and 100%
efficiency
P.2 Reducing agricultural land 20%, 50%, and 100%
P.3 Reclaimed water 20%, 50%, and 100%
P.4 Inter-basin water transfers 750; 1000; 1300 millions qubic
metre
Figure 7. The reference mode of population behaviour simulation results.

Table 4. Surface Water Storage Business as Usual (BAU) Condition.

Year
Volume (m3) 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058
Available Surface Water 547,632,881 547,632,881 547,632,881 547,632,881 547,632,881 547,632,881
Total Water Demand 251,336,956 305,259,628 372,745,529 457,493,238 564,294,031 699,377,430
Storage 547,632,881 248,322,786 182,344,107 99,517,771 0 0
572 I. KOMARIAH AND T. MATSUMOTO

throughout the century, as shown in Figure 8. Water supply Surface Water Storage with and without Restoration Plans
from stream flow (discharge of the river) stable as shown in 1,800,000
Figure 8. In the 2049 show the value of water demand > 1,600,000
water supply as shown Figure 9.

Volume (x 1000 m3)

1,400,000
A comparison between water availability and water 1,200,000
1,000,000
requirements per 10 y for 50 y of planning is shown in
800,000
Table 4. Water storage is in a business as usual condition. 600,000
As shown in these tables, storage tends to decrease and 400,000
even become negative. A river restoration plan is needed to 200,000
increase water supply. -
2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058
Year

Effect of restoration plans Without Restoration P1 P2 P3 P4

Individual effect of restoration plans Figure 10. The Water supply with and without individual restorations plans.
Figure 10 shows a chart of water supply with the restoration
plans. Table 5 shows the Water Index values for each individ-
ual restoration plan. Table 6 shows the storage simulation Table 5. Water Index value for each individual restoration plans.
results for each individual restoration plan. Based on the Restoration Plans Value RWSI SDBI SI (%)
simulation results for each restoration plan, an RWSI > 0.4 P1 20% (13.07) (0.08) < 20
indicates a highly stressed and critical condition in the 50% 9.80 0.10 < 20
basin for the P1, P2, and P3 restoration plans. The P4 restor- 100% 2.50 0.40 < 20
P2 20% (13) (0) < 20
ation plan has an RWSI< 0.4 indicating that the restoration 50% 9.80 0.10 < 20
plan can meet water needs while maintaining water resources 100% 2.50 0.40 < 20
sustainability in the basin. P3 20% 12.32 0.08 < 20
50% 2.02 0.50 < 20
Based on the simulation results for each restoration plan, 100% 0.84 1.19 < 20
SDBI>1 for P3 (100%) and P4, it means that the total supply P4 (MCM) 750 0.51 1.95 49
of water is more than the total demand and therefore the 1000 0.38 2.66 62
1300 0.28 3.52 72
region has no shortage of water.
Based on the simulation results for each restoration plan,
SI < 20% for P1, P2, and P3 it means with a sustainability
index (SI) of less than 20% is at significant risk of water stress, Effect of a combination of restoration plans
depending on local storage and distribution capabilities. Table 6 shows the RWSI values for combination of restor-
ation plan. Table 7 shows the supply simulation results for
combination of restoration plan. Based on the simulation
results listed in Table 7, there are several alternatives to the
most efficient restoration plan that can restore river water
such that it can meet the increasing water needs (an RWSI
< 0.4). The selection of the most effective alternative restor-
ation plan was conducted using a cost–benefit method. Figure
11 showed the charts of water supply for each combination of
restoration plans, respectively.

Conclusions
An SD model was developed for understanding and analyzing
the complex dynamics to assess the impact of river restor-
Figure 8. The reference mode of The UMC-SD model. ation plans in the UMC river basin in Indonesia. The simu-
lation results show that with the individual effects of
restoration plans, namely increased agricultural water
Surface Water Storage demand efficiency, agricultural land reduction, and reclaimed
800,000,000 water use, an RWSI > 0.4 indicates a highly stressed and criti-
700,000,000 cal condition in the basin. The effect of the inter-basin water
600,000,000 transfer plan results in an RWSI < 0.4 meaning that the res-
Volume (m3)

500,000,000 toration plans can meet water needs while maintaining water
400,000,000 resources sustainability. However, based on the combination
300,000,000 of restoration plans, there are several alternatives to the most
200,000,000 efficient restoration plan that can restore river water such that
100,000,000
it can meet the increasing water needs with an RWSI < 0.4.
-
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056
2058
The SDBI >1 means that the total supply of water is more
Year than the total demand and therefore the region has no short-
Available Surface Water Total water Demand Surface Water Storage
age of water. And the SI < 20% it means with a sustainability
index (SI) of less than 20% is at significant risk of water stress,
Figure 9. The charth of the surface water storage. depending on local storage and distribution capabilities.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 573

Table 6. Simulation result of surface water storage for each individual restoration plans (103 m3).
Scenario Year
2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058
P1 (%) 20 547,633 260,219 198,550 121,595 25,252 (95,777)
50 547,633 278,063 222,860 154,712 70,366 (34,318)
100 547,633 307,804 263,375 209,906 145,557 68,114
P2 (%) 20 547,633 260,219 198,550 121,595 25,252 (95,777)
50 547,633 278,063 222,860 154,712 70,366 (34,318)
100 547,633 307,804 263,375 209,906 145,557 68,114
P3 (%) 20 547,633 296,289 239,196 167,063 75,591 (40,845)
50 547,633 368,237 324,473 268,381 196,214 103,010
100 547,633 488,152 466,602 437,245 397,252 342,770
P4 750,000 547,633 998,323 932,344 849,518 745,176 613,251
1,000,000 547,633 1,248,323 1,182,344 1,099,518 995,176 863,251
1,300,000 547,633 1,548,323 1,482,344 1,399,518 1,295,176 1,163,251

Table 7. The Water Index value for combination of restoration plans. Alcamo, J., Doll, P., Henrichs, T., Kaspar, F., Lehner, B., Rosch, T., &
Scenario Restoration Plans RWSI SDBI SI (%) Siebert, S. (2003). Global estimates of water withdrawals and avail-
PC1 P1=50%; P4 = 1,200 MCM 0.28 3.53 72 ability under current and future “business-as-usual” conditions.
PC2 P1= 100%; P4 = 1,100 MCM 0.28 3.55 72 Hydrological Sciences Journal, 48(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.
PC3 P2 = 50%; P4 = 1,200 MCM 0.28 3.53 72 1623/hysj.48.3.339.45278
PC4 P2 = 100%; P4 = 1,100 MCM 0.28 3.55 72 Alifujang, Y., Abuduwaili, J., Ma, L., Samat, A., & Groll, M. (2017).
PC5 P3 - 20%; P4 = 1,200 MCM 0.28 3.51 72 System dynamics modeling of water level variations of Lake Issyk-
PC6 P3 - 50%; P4 = 1,100 MCM 0.27 3.64 73 Kul, Kyrgyzstan. Water, 9, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9120989
PC7 P1 - 20%; P3 - 20%; P4 = 1,200 MCM 0.28 3.63 72 Ciliwung-Cisadane River Basin Agency. (2013). Water Alocation.
PC8 P1 = 50%; P3 = 50%; P4 = 1,000 MCM 0.31 3.26 69 Ciliwung-Cisadane River Basin Agency Indonesia. [in Indonesian].
PC9 P2 = 20%; P3 20%; P4 = 1,200 MCM 0.28 3.63 72
Ciliwung-Cisadane River Basin Agency. (2014). Pattern of water
PC10 P2 = 50%; P3 = 50%; P4 = 1,100 MCM 0.25 3.94 75
resources management. Ciliwung- Cisadane River Basin Agency
Indonesia. [in Indonesian].
Ford, A. (2010). Modeling the Environment (second edition). Island
Water Supply Press.
2,900,000 Gleick, P. H. (2009). The changing water paradigm a look at twenty-first
2,700,000
century water resources development. Water International, 25(1),
127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060008686804
Volume ( 103 m3)

2,500,000
Huang, L., & Yin, L. (2018). Supply and demand analysis of water
2,300,000
resources based on system dynamics models. Journal of Engineering
2,100,000
and Technological Sciences, 49(6), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.5614/
1,900,000
j.eng.technol.sci.2017.49.6.1
1,700,000 Jun, W. X., Yun, Z. J., Elmahdi, A., Min, H. R., Ru, Z. L., & Feng, C.
1,500,000 (2011). Water demand forecasting under changing environment: a
2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058
System Dynamics approach. Risk in Water Resources Management,
Year
Proceedings of Symposium H03 held during IUGG2011, 2011
PC1 and PC3 PC2 and PC4 PC5 Melbourne. Australia: IAHS Publ., 347.
PC6 PC7 and PC9 PC8 Karlsson, A., & Persson, T. (1998). Powersim a short introduction.
PC10 Uppsala University.
Komariah, I., & Matsumoto, T. (2017). Application of analytic hierarchy
Figure 11. Water supply with combination of restoration plans. process for selecting river restoration policy. Pollution Research, 36,
504–512.
Kotir, J. H., Smith, C., Brown, G., Marshall, N., & Johnstone, R. (2016). A
The preferred restoration plan based on water supply is the system dynamics simulation model for sustainable water resources
maximum amount of water storage in the river. Table 7 management and agricultural development in the Volta river basin,
Ghana. Science of The Total Environment, 573, 444–457. https://doi.
shows the water storage data for each scenario. PC 10 scen- org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.081
arios are the best because they provide the highest value of Kumar, P., Masago, Y., Mishra, B. K., Jalilov, S., Emam, A. R., Kefi, M., &
water availability storage, 2,755,131,000 cubic meters. The Fukushi, K. (2017). Current assessment and future outlook for water
PC 10 combination from P2 (50%); P3 (50%); P4 (1,100 resources considering climate change and a population burst: A case
MCM). The selection of the most effective alternative restor- study of Ciliwung river, Jakarta city, Indonesia. Water, 9(6), 410–424.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060410
ation plan was conducted using a cost benefit method. Madani, K., & Marino, M. A. (2009). System dynamics analysis for
This study only provides an efficiency impact for river res- managing Iran’s Zayandeh-Rud river basin. Water Resources
toration plans; how to select effective scenarios should be a Management, 23(11), 2163–2187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-
topic of further research. 008-9376-z
Nasery, H. R., Adinehvand, R., Salavitabar, A., & Barati, R. (2017). Water
management using system dynamics modeling in semiarid regions.
Civil Engineering Journal, 3(9), 766–778. https://doi.org/10.21859/
Disclosure statement cej-030913
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Niazi, A., Prasher, S. O., Adamowski, J., & Gleeson, T. (2014). A system
dynamics model to conserve arid region water resources through
aquifer storage and recovery in conjunction with a dam. Water, 6
References (8), 2300–2321. https://doi.org/10.3390/w6082300
Ouyang, Y., Xu, D., Leininger, T. D., & Zand, N. (2016). A system
Ahluwalia, P. (2019). Comprehensive water stress indicator [online]. Tata dynamic model to estimate hydrological process and water use in a
consulting Engineers Limited. Retrieved July 17, 2019, from: https:// eucalypt plantation. Ecological Engineering, 86, 290–299. https://doi.
swat.tamu.edu/media/57070/J4-4-Ahluwalia.pdf. org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.11.008
574 I. KOMARIAH AND T. MATSUMOTO
Putra, L. A. (2015). Analysis of the Effectiveness of Ciawi
Reservoir using SWAT Model as an Effort of Flood Control of
Ciliwung Watershed. Thesis (Master). IPB University. [in
Indonesian].
The River Restoration Centre (RRC). (2011). Practical river restoration
appraisal guidance for Monistoring Options (PRAGMO). Granfield
Campus.
Sherman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics systems thinking and modeling
for a complex world. McGraw Hill.
Stella, J. M. (2019). Mathematical methodology to calculate the rate of
water storage. International Journal of Hydrology, 3(1), 11–16.
https://doi.org/10.15406/ijh.2019.03.00156
Trowsdale, S., Brierley, G., & Winz, I. (2019). The use of system dynamics
simulation in water resources management. Water Resource
Management, 23, 1301–1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9328-7
Xiang, N., Sha, J., Yan, J., & Xu, F. (2014). Dynamic modeling and simu-
lation of water environment management with a focus on water recy-
cling. Water, 6(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/w6010017
Xixi, and Poh K.L. (2013). Using system dynamics for sustainable water
resources management in Singapore. Procedia Computer Science, 16,
157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.017
Zarghami, M., & Rahmani, M. A. (2017). A system dynamics approach to
simulate the restoration plans for Urmia Lake, Iran, Optimization and
dynamics with their applications. Springer.