Water, Climate Change,

and Sustainability
Water, Climate Change,
and Sustainability
Edited by

Vishnu Prasad Pandey

Sangam Shrestha
David Wiberg
This edition first published 2021
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain
permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg to be identified as the authors of the editorial material
in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

Editorial Office
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at
www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard
print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties
with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including
without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or
extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization,
website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the
publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations
it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services.
The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where
appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when
this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other
commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Pandey, Vishnu Prasad, editor. | Shrestha, Sangam, editor. | Wiberg,
David, editor.
Title: Water, climate change, and sustainability / edited by Vishnu Prasad
Pandey, Sangam Shrestha, David Wiberg.
Description: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2021. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020034270 (print) | LCCN 2020034271 (ebook) | ISBN
9781119564447 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119564508 (adobe pdf) | ISBN
9781119564539 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Sustainable Development Goals. |
Water-supply–Management–Case studies. | Water-supply–Effect of global
warming on. | Water-supply–Climatic factors. | Sustainable development.
Classification: LCC TD353 .W33779 2021 (print) | LCC TD353 (ebook) | DDC
628.1–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020034270
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020034271

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: Wiley

Set in 10/12pt TimesNewRomanMTStd by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS

Contributors..........................................................................................................................................................vii

Preface...................................................................................................................................................................ix

Section I: Sustainability Concepts

1. Localizing and Mainstreaming Global Initiatives on Water, Climate Change and
Sustainable Development...............................................................................................................................3
Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Binaya Raj Shivakoti, Sangam Shrestha, and David Wiberg

2. A River Basin Approach for the Coordinated Implementation of Water Related Targets
in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)...................................................................................................21
Binaya Raj Shivakoti

3. Water‐Energy Nexus in Bio‐Based Systems...................................................................................................33

Seyed Hashem Mousavi-Avval, Asmita Khanal, Juliana Vasco-Correa, Luis Huezo, and Ajay Shah

4. Safe‐Sanitation Adaptive‐Integrated Management Systems (SAIMS): A Conceptual Process Tool

for Incorporating Resilience.........................................................................................................................47
Peter Emmanuel Cookey and Mayowa Abiodun Peter-Cookey

Section II: Sustainability Approaches, Tools, and Techniques

5. Approaches and Tools to Assess Water‐Climate‐Sustainability Nexus:
A Systematic Review....................................................................................................................................73
Olusola O. Ololade, Enoch Bessah, and Marinda Avenant

6. Rejuvenation of Springs in the Himalayan Region........................................................................................97

Himanshu Kulkarni, Jayesh Desai, and Mohammad Imran Siddique

7. Enhancing Water Productivity Through On‐Farm Water Management .......................................................109

Mohammad Faiz Alam, Vidya Mandave, Alok Sikka, and Navneet Sharma

8. Climate Actions and Challenges for Sustainable Ecosystem Services: Approaches and
Application in California Case Studies........................................................................................................125
Qinqin Liu

9. Monitoring and Accountability Frameworks for SDG 6: The Role of Civil Society Organisations ..............141
Catarina Fonseca and Laura van de Lande

10. Research to Policy and Practice: Challenges and Opportunities.................................................................151

Ashim Das Gupta

Section III: Sustainability in Practice

11. Resilient Water Infrastructure for Poverty Reduction: Cases from Asia and Middle East.............................171
Victor R. Shinde and Lovlesh Sharma

12. High Efficiency Irrigation Technology As a Single Solution for Multi‑Challenge:

A Case of Pakistan......................................................................................................................................185
Hafiz Qaisar Yasin, Malik Muhammad Akram, and Muhammad Naveed Tahir
v
vi contents

13. Irrigation Scheduling and Management for Improved Water Productivity..................................................197

Birendra KC, Henry Wai Chau, Magdy Mohssen, Keith Cameron, Ian McIndoe, Helen Rutter, Channa
Rajanayaka, Patricia Anthony, Bart Schultz, and Krishna Prasad

14. Urban Water Security for Sustainable Cities in the Context of Climate Change ........................................213
Soni M. Pradhanang and Khurshid Jahan

15. Approach Towards Building Climate‐Resilient Irrigation Systems for Food Security in Nepal.....................225
Ram Chandra Khanal and Prachanda Pradhan

16. A Stakeholder‐Centric Tool for Implementing Water Management Strategies and Enhancing Water
Cooperation (SDG 6.5) in the Lower Mekong Region.................................................................................239
Manish Shrestha, Karthikeyan Matheswaran, Orn-Uma Polapanich, Thanapon Piman, and Chayanis
Krittasudthacheewa

Index...................................................................................................................................................................257
CONTRIBUTORS

Malik Muhammad Akram Luis Huezo

Directorate General Agriculture (Water Management), Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological
Agriculture Department, Lahore, Pakistan Engineering, The Ohio State University, Wooster,
OH, USA
Mohammad Faiz Alam
India Office, International Water Management Institute, Khurshid Jahan
New Delhi, India Department of Geosciences, University of Rhode
Island, USA
Patricia Anthony
Department of Informatics and Enabling Technologies, Birendra KC
Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand Aqualinc Research Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand

Marinda Avenant Asmita Khanal

Centre for Environmental Management, University of
the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
Enoch Bessah
Pan African University, Institute of Life and Earth
Sciences (Including Health and Agriculture), University
of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, The Ohio State University, Wooster,
OH, USA
Ram Chandra Khanal
Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust,
Lalitpur, Nepal

Keith Cameron
Department of Soil and Physical Sciences, Lincoln
University, Christchurch, New Zealand
Henry Wai Chau
Department of Soil and Physical Sciences, Lincoln
University, Christchurch, New Zealand
Peter Emmanuel Cookey
Environmental Engineering and Water Technology
Department, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education,
Delft, The Netherlands
Chayanis Krittasudthacheewa
Asia Regional Office, Stockholm Environment Institute,
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, Thailand
Himanshu Kulkarni
Advanced Center for Water Resources Development
and Management (ACWADAM), Karve Nagar, Pune,
India
Qinqin Liu
Department of Water Resources, Natural Resources
Agency, Sacramento, California, USA

Jayesh Desai Vidya Mandave

Advanced Center for Water Resources Development
and Management (ACWADAM), Karve Nagar, Pune,
India
Catarina Fonseca
IRC, The Hague, The Netherlands
Ashim Das Gupta
Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand
India Office, International Water Management Institute,
New Delhi, India
Karthikeyan Matheswaran
Asia Regional Office, Stockholm Environment Institute,
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, Thailand
Ian McIndoe
Aqualinc Research Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand

vii
viii CONTRIBUTORS

Magdy Mohssen Lovlesh Sharma

Otago Regional Council, Dunedin, New Zealand
Seyed Hashem Mousavi‐Avval
Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, The Ohio State University, Wooster,
OH, USA
Sector Coordinator for Infrastructure, National Institute
of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, India.
Navneet Sharma
India Office, International Water Management Institute,
New Delhi, India

Olusola O. Ololade Victor R. Shinde

Centre for Environmental Management, University of Sector Coordinator for Water and Environment,
the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, India

Vishnu Prasad Pandey Binaya Raj Shivakoti

Nepal Office, International Water Management
Institute, Lalitpur, Nepal
Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus,
Institute of Engineering, Tribhunva University, Nepal
Mayowa Abiodun Peter‐Cookey
Research and Development Department, EarthWatch
Research Institute, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Unit,
Institute for Global Environmental Strategy, Hayama,
Japan
Manish Shrestha
Asia Regional Office, Stockholm Environment Institute,
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, Thailand

Thanapon Piman Sangam Shrestha

Asia Regional Office, Stockholm Environment Institute, Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani,
Bangkok, Thailand Thailand

Orn‐Uma Polapanich Mohammad Imran Siddique

Asia Regional Office, Stockholm Environment Institute, Advanced Center for Water Resources Development
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, and Management (ACWADAM), Karve Nagar, Pune,
Bangkok, Thailand India

Prachanda Pradhan Alok Sikka

Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust, India Office, International Water Management Institute,
Lalitpur, Nepal New Delhi, India

Soni M. Pradhanang Muhammad Naveed Tahir

Department of Geosciences, University of Rhode Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok,
Island, USA Thailand

Krishna Prasad Laura van de Lande

Irrigation and Water Resources Management IRC, The Hague, The Netherlands
Consultant, Janakpur, Nepal
Juliana Vasco‐Correa
Channa Rajanayaka Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Engineering, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH,
Christchurch, New Zealand USA

Helen Rutter David Wiberg

Aqualinc Research Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand Hydro‐informatics Group, International Water
Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Bart Schultz
Land and Water Development IHE Delft, Delft, The Hafiz Qaisar Yasin
Netherlands Directorate General Agriculture (Water Management),
Agriculture Department, Lahore, Pakistan
Ajay Shah
Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, The Ohio State University, Wooster,
OH, USA
PREFACE
Water is vital for sustainable development. Water is a
finite and vulnerable resource and basic need of humanity.
However, the availability and supply of water is threat-
ened by recent global change such as rapid population
growth, land use/cover changes, pollution, damming of
rivers including climate variability and change. Climate
variability and change exacerbate the existing pressures
in water resources management affecting the secure
supply to all production processes and human health.
Securing the reliable water supply needs an under-
standing of the linkage among water, climate and var-
ious dimensions of sustainability. Therefore, the purpose
of this book is to provide the reader in‐depth under-
standing on the concept of sustainability as it relates
to water resources management in the face of climate
change risks. The book consists of sixteen chapters con-
tributed by the global authors and presented in three
sections namely: Sustainability Concepts; Sustainability
ix
Approaches, Tools, and Techniques; and Sustainability
in Practice. Chapters in “Sustainability Concepts” pro-
vide the readers linage between water and sustainable
development. Chapters in “Sustainability Approaches,
Tools, and Techniques” highlights the importance of
development and use of new approaches, tools and tech-
niques for measuring and reporting its effectiveness.
Similarly, the chapters in “Sustainability in Practice”
display the case studies to implement sustainability
concepts in various beneficial water use sectors and
­
scale. The book is intended to advance the understanding
and knowledge of water managers, scientists and policy
makers for the sustainable development and management
of water resources in the context of climate change.
Vishnu Prasad Pandey
Sangam Shrestha
David Wiberg
 Section I
Sustainability Concepts
 1
Localizing and Mainstreaming Global Initiatives on Water, Climate
Change and Sustainable Development
Vishnu Prasad Pandey1,5, Binaya Raj Shivakoti2, Sangam Shrestha3, and David Wiberg4

ABSTRACT

Various drivers such as population growth, land use/cover change, unsustainable consumption pattern, and cli-
mate change are putting pressure on limited resources available within our planetary boundaries, thus, raising
concerns on their sustainability. Coordinated actions at levels ranging from global to local are required to ensure
sustainability goals are achieved. A large number of global initiatives exists at global level to address sustain-
ability challenges. They have direct or indirect links with water and climate. Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) and Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) are the two recent initiatives agreed around five years ago by the
global community. Since then, various efforts have been taken to transfer these global aspirations into practice.
Localizing and mainstreaming these global goals have become indispensable to ensure effective implementation
in the remaining 10 years, though countries are facing challenges with it. This chapter sheds light on sustain-
ability challenges and global initiatives in general, and water and climate change in particular; discusses how
water and climate change have evolved as global agendas; and then sheds light on formulation and governance
of the SDGs, including the link of SDG6 (i.e. clean water and sanitation) with other 16 SDGs. Finally, consid-
erations for achieving the SDGs and challenges and opportunities associated with localizing the global initia-
tives such as SDGs and PCA are discussed. The considerations include advancing science, technology, and
innovations; making coherent policies and programs across the sectors; investment in technology and data to
drive improvements; promoting science‐policy interface; and building/strengthening both institutional and
human capacities.

1.1. SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES
AND GLOBAL INITIATIVES
Population growth, land use/cover change, unsustain-
able consumption patterns, desertification, urbanization,
1
Nepal Office, International Water Management Institute,
Lalitpur, Nepal
2
Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Unit, Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan
3
Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Asian
Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand
4
Hydro‐informatics Group, International Water Management
Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka
5
Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus,
Institute of Engineering, Tribhunva University, Nepal
biodiversity loss and climate change are among the key
global challenges that are impacting humans and the eco-
system in various ways. They are putting stress on our
planet’s resources and threatening the very sustainability
of livelihood support systems. With increased population,
urbanization, and change in lifestyles and dietary sys-
tems, we are increasing resource footprints, which are
expressed in terms such as water footprint (Chapagain
and Hoekstra 2004), ecological footprint (Walther et al.
2005), and energy footprint and/or carbon footprint
(Sovacool and Brown 2010; Pradhan et al. 2013; Pradhan
and Kropp 2020). Our actions are exerting more stress on
the Earth’s natural resources and the Earth has its own
planetary boundaries (Steffen et al. 2015). Therefore, for
addressing the sustainable development challenges, we
need coordinated actions at global, regional, and local

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

3
4 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
levels under various sectors, in particular, water and cli-
mate change.
Understanding the aforementioned needs and efforts
to that end itself is not new. The Stockholm Convention
in 1972 is the first international conference on environ-
mental issues which became a turning point for interna-
tional environmental politics (Table 1.1). The United
Nations Conference on Water held in Mar del Plata,
Argentina in 1977 is of significance in the water and envi-
ronment sector as it approved the Mar del Plata Action
Plan, which was the first internationally coordinated
approach to the integrated water resources management
(IWRM) (Biswas 2004). Since then, a number of notable
global commitments and initiatives were agreed and
implemented as the global goals. They include but not
limited to Agenda 21 and Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) which was agreed on the 1st Earth
Summit held in Rio de Janerio in 1992; establishment of
intergovernmental institutions such as Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established jointly by
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in
1988; Kyoto Protocol on curbing greenhouse gas emis-
sions agreed in 1997 and came into effect from 2005;
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) agreed in the
UN Millennium Summit in 2000; establishment of
Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2012;
Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA, 2005) for building
resilience of nations and communities, Sendai Framework
on Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR 2015); 2030
Sustainable Development Agenda and Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) agreed in 2015 by the UN
General Assembly; and Paris Agreement adopted by the
parties of United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) in COP21, held in 2015 in
Paris (Table 1.1), as the post‐Kyoto Protocol measures for
dealing with greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation,
adaptation, and finance; among others.
Of the most recent set of global commitments, Paris
Climate Agreement (PCA) and SDGs are highly
interconnected to each other and comprehensively cover
major domains of sustainability, particularly water
sharing, in both breadth and depth (Dzebo et al. 2019).
For example, impacts of climate change to various sec-
tors are primarily manifested thorough water and achiev-
ing SDGs are hinged at securing water and achieving
water‐related targets. Water is not explicitly mentioned in
the PCA, however, a closer analysis revels its dependence
on adequate water resources to a deeper extent.
Adaptation initiatives related to conserving freshwater,
coastal water and groundwater are included as the first
priority in many nationally determined contributions
(NDCs) (UN‐Water, 2019a). As outlined in Table 1.2,
water security underpins sustainable development as it
shares a close interdependency with multiple sustain-
ability challenges (UN‐Water 2019b). SDGs are the inter-
connecting system rather than just collection of goals,
indicators and targets (Pradhan 2019). Sustainable water
management will be crucial in determining whether the
world achieves the SDGs and aspirations for reducing
poverty and enhancing shared prosperity (World Bank
2016). Therefore, we need solutions that ensures water
does not become a constraint on prosperity.
Achievement of SDGs depends on the wise use of the
water resources and appropriate climate actions, among
others. However, sustainable use, management, and gov-
ernance of water resources considering multiple sectors
(e.g., energy, water, environment, etc.) and dimensions
(e.g. social, economic and environment) in the context of
climate change is a challenging as well as rewarding
endeavor. It is therefore imperative to make the best use
of hydro‐ and climate‐sciences and associated tools/tech-
niques for localizing and mainstreaming global commit-
ments such as the 2030‐Agenda (or SDGs), without
which realizing the global commitments is less likely. The
term “localizing” here refers to customizing the global
commitments to local contexts (national and sub‐national
levels) in terms of targets and internalizing through ade-
quate provisioning of resources, both financial and
human. In this context, this chapter sheds light on the
evolution of water and climate as global agenda; formu-
lation and governance of SDGs; linkages between water,
climate change, and SDGs; and challenges and opportu-
nities associated with localizing the global commitments.
This chapter highlights how the organization of the con-
tents and chapters covered in this book addresses the
close connectivity among the three issues, namely, water,
climate change, and sustainable development.
1.2. EVOLUTION OF WATER AND CLIMATE
CHANGE AS GLOBAL AGENDAS
The water and climate change are high profile political
agenda, they have implications at different scales, and
solutions are usually context‐specific. Range of actions at
different spatial and temporal scales are required to
address challenges of water management and climate
change at the global level. This section highlights how
water and climate change evolved over the time to become
global agenda.
1.2.1. Evolution of Water as a Global Agenda
History of water use, evolution of water management
paradigm, and associated aspects are well documented in
Hassan (2011), and context of increasing realization of
water’s role in the overall development process in
Table 1.1 Selected global initiatives in the areas of environment, water and climate.
S.N Year Name of the Initiative Description
1. 2016 The New Urban Agenda It was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) in
Quito, Ecuador, on 20 October 2016. It was endorsed by the UN General Assembly at its 68th plenary meeting of the
71st session on 23 December 2016. It represents a shared vision for a better and more sustainable future.
2. 2015 Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) A global agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) dealing with
greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting from 2020. It was adopted by consensus by 195
state parties on 12 December 2015 at the 21st Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris. This agreement went
into effect from 4 November 2016. It is the post‐Kyoto Protocol measures for curbing greenhouse gas emission.
3. 2015 Sustainable Development The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all UN Member States through UN Sustainable
Goals (SDGs) Development Summit held in September 2015, provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and
planet, now and into the future. There are 17 SDGs, which are an urgent call for action by all countries in a global
partnership.
4. 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015‐2030 was adopted at the Third UN World
Risk Reduction (SFDRR) Conference on Disaster Reduction in Sendai Japan in 2015. It includes seven targets and four priorities for action to
reduce the occurrence and impact of disasters resulting from natural hazards. Among those priorities, the Sendai
Framework calls for the strengthening and implementation of global mechanisms on hydro‐meteorological issues.
5. 2005 Hyogo Framework for Action The World Conference on Disaster Reduction in 2005, 168 states adopted the first global framework for DRR. The core
(HFA) of the Hyogo Framework Action 2005‐2015 consists of three strategic goals, a number of guiding principles, five
priorities for action, and considerations for implementation and follow up.
6. 2000 Millennium Development The MDGs are eight goals with measureable targets and clear deadlines for improving the lives of the world’s poorest
Goals (MDGs) people, agreed by leaders of 189 countries in the form of millennium declaration at the UN Millennium Summit in
2000.
7. 1997 Kyoto Protocol Signed in 1997 and came into effect from 2005 commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on the
premise that global warming exists, and that human‐made CO2 has caused it. This is a first of its kind agreement
which has currently 192 parties to it, which divides the countries in Annexed and non‐Annexed countries thus
distinguishing between the developing and developed world in combating climate change
8. 1996 United Nations Convention to Signed in 1996 and came into effect in 1996, it is a convention to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of
Combat Desertification drought through national action programs that incorporate long term strategies supported by international
(UNCCD) cooperation and partnership agreements.
9. 1993 Convention on Biological It is a multilateral treaty with three main goals – conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components,
Diversity fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. Its objective is to develop national strategies for
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. It is a key document regarding sustainable development. It
was drafted on 22 May 1992, signed during 5 June 1992 to 4 June 1993, and became effective from 29 December,
1993. It has been ratified by 30 States.
10. 1992 United Nations Framework The first UN Conference on Environment and Development (or Rio Conference or Earth Summit) was held in Rio de
Convention on Climate Janeiro in Brazil, which succeeded in raising public awareness of the need to integrate environment and
Change (UNFCCC) development. UNFCCC was an outcome of the conference, which is a climate change agreement that led to the
Kyoto Protocol, Agenda 21, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UN Convention to
Combat Desertification.

(Continued)
Table 1.1 (Continued)
S.N Year Name of the Initiative Description
11. 1992 Agenda 21 with a focus on Among the major international water management events, 1992 UN conference on environment and development
Integrated Water Resources (UNCED) held at Rio de Janeiro stands out as an event of outstanding importance. UNCED covered a very broad
Management (IWRM) range of development issues and from a water resources perspective was informed by the International Conference
on Water and Environment with its highly influential “Dublin Principles. UNCED produced “Agenda 21”, which in
section 2 of Chapter 18 mentioned about integrated water resources management (IWRM).
12. 1988 Intergovernmental Panel on Is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of United Nations dedicated to the task of providing the
Climate Change (IPCC) world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts. It provides
scientific, technical and socio‐economic information relevant to understanding of risk of human induced climate
change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
13. 1987 Montreal Protocol Montreal Protocol on substance that deplete the Ozone layer in an international treaty designed to protect the ozone
layer by phasing out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion for example
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that are present in our air‐conditioners and refrigerators. It was agreed on 16 September
1987 and entered into force on 1 January, 1989.
14 1977 Mar del Plata Action Plan The UN Conference on Water was held in Mar del Plata, Argentina in 1977. The conference approved the Mar del
Plata Action Plan, which was the first internationally coordinated approach to IWRM. It discussed assessment of
water use and efficiency; natural hazards, environment, health and pollution control; policy, planning and
management; public information, education, training and research; and regional and international cooperation
(Biswas, 2004). The conference considered water management on a holistic and comprehensive basis, an approach
recognized as one of the key IWRM issues in the 1960s. The conference was a major milestone in the history of
water resources development for the twentieth century.
15 1972 United Nations Conference on Also known as the Stockholm Conference, it was the UN’s first major conference on international environmental
the Human Environment and issues. Along with the declaring 26 principles concerning the environment and development (Stockholm
Stockholm Declaration Declaration), it marks a turning point in the development of international environmental politics, including
establishment of UN Environmental Programs (UNEP, currently renamed as UN‐Environment).

Table 1.2 Sustainability challenges across multiple sectors or
issues interlinked with water security. Source: Modified
from UN‐Water (2019b).
Facts underlying challenges to sustainable
Interlinkages development
Climate More than 2 billion people live in countries
change experiencing high water stress. By 2030,
water scarcity in some arid and semi‐arid
places will displace between 24 million
and 700 million people due to climate
change.
Disaster About 90% of all natural disasters are
water‐related. Over the period 1995–2015,
floods affected 2.3 billion people, killing
157,000 and causing US$662 billion in
damage
Ecosystem Ecosystems across the world, particularly
wetlands, are in decline in terms of the
services they provide
Energy Roughly 75% of all industrial water
withdrawals are used for energy production,
while 90% of global power generation is
water‐intensive.
Food Agriculture (including irrigation, livestock and
aquaculture) is by far the largest water
consumer, accounting for 69% of annual
water withdrawals globally.
Education Lack of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)
at home and school directly impact
education due to multitude of factors such
as inability to attend school due to time lost
for fetching water or sickness from water
borne disease and school dropout of girls
Gender Women and girls are responsible for water
collection in 8 out of 10 households with
water off premises.
Health Some 297 000 children under five who die
annually from diarrheal diseases due to
poor WASH. About 44 million pregnant
women have sanitation‐related hookworm
infections. Loss of productivity to water‐ and
sanitation‐related diseases costs many
countries up to 5% of gross domestic
product (GDP).
Human right Lack of access to safe, sufficient and
affordable WASH facilities has a devastating
effect on the health, dignity, prosperity, and
for the realization of other human rights of
billions of people.
Urbanization In 2017, more than half of the global
population live in towns and cities. By
2050, that proportion is expected to rise to
two‐thirds. Filling a resource and
infrastructure gap for supplying water, sewer
and wastewater management facilities is
challenging for creating sustainable cities.
LOCALIZING AND MAINSTREAMING GLOBAL INITIATIVES 7
Biswas (1983). Here we synthesize the evolution from the
lens of water as a political and governance issue.
Water management on both local and regional levels
has undergone a series of historical transformation in the
form of invention and widespread use of irrigation and
drainage methods, water‐lifting devices, long‐distance
water transport technologies, and storage facilities
(Hassan 2011). From the start of early artificial irrigation
in Egypt some 7000 years ago, water use and management
has stepped‐up through different ages such as “water‐
lifting technology (400 to 2200 years ago)”, “water
industry”, “water science and modernity”, and “water
management (from the middle of the 20th century
onwards)” (Hassan 2011). After the start of modern
industrialization in the 1800s, world population increased
rapidly, urbanization started to take momentum, and a
new set of services to cater for the changing world created
a new demand for water in addition to allocation for agri-
culture. With the increasing use of water for various uses,
the international scientific community together with gov-
ernments realized water resources as one of the primary
limiting factors for harmonious socio–economic develop-
ments in many regions of the world (Makarigakis and
Jimenez‐Cisneros 2019). Realizing the need of interna-
tionally coordinated cooperation mechanisms to solve
the water problems, 1965‐1974 was declared as the
International Hydrological Decade (IHD), which gave
birth of UNESCO’s International Hydrological Program
(IHP) in 1971 to focus on research and capacity building
in hydrological sciences in true sense.
The role of water in the overall development process
became increasingly evident from the 1970s after the
occurrence of several droughts and floods in many parts
of the world during the early 1970s contributed to a
major food crisis. As a result, at the World Food
Conference held in Rome in 1974, water resources
management emerged as a key for furthering horizontal
expansion of agriculture as well as increasing produc-
tivity from existing cultivated lands (Biswas 1983). In
subsequent years, in addition to agriculture, water also
started to contribute as a source of energy with the
development of hydropower being increasingly consid-
ered as a viable source of additional energy in the context
of steady increase fossil fuels price. Water also got
attention in industrial sector after the Lima Declaration
of the United Nations Industrial Development
Organization in 1977 recommended to have 25% of
global industrial production in developing countries by
the year 2000, which implied the need for more water for
further industrial development. Works of the United
National Environmental Programme (UNEP) and others
around the same time further highlighted pollution of
water bodies (i.e. inland, coastal, and the oceans), which
helped to attract international concerns on the need to
8 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
focus on water management in a holistic way. In these
contexts, UN Water Conference held Mar del Plata,
Argentina in 1977 approved the Mar del Plata Action
Plan, which was the first internationally coordinated
approach to IWRM. It outlined various aspects related
to assessment, use, and the management of water
resources (Table 1.1). The conference considered water
management on a holistic and comprehensive basis, an
approach recognized as one of the key IWRM issues in
the 1960s. The conference was a major milestone in the
history of water resources development for the 20th
century. In 1980, the UN General Assembly declared
1981‐1990 as the International Drinking Water and
Sanitation Decade to enhance access to those who are
unreached.
After a decade, in 1992, UN International Conference
on Water and the Environment was organized in Dublin
and the Conference on Environment and Development
(i.e. “The Earth Summit”) in Rio de Janerio, Brazil. The
Earth Summit in the presence of around 100 heads of
state addressed the urgent problems of water, the envi-
ronment, and socio‐economic development by signing
the Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and endorsing the Rio Declaration
by adopting “Agenda 21”, a plan for achieving sustain-
able development in the 20th century. The Section‐2 on
the Chapter 18 of the “Agenda 21” mentions about
IWRM. Furthermore, in response to increasing concern
from the global community about world water issues, the
World Water Council (WWC) was established in 1996 by
renowned water specialists and international
organizations.
The “age of water management” is in a sense about the
management of differences in scale (community, region,
nation, transboundary, and global), differences among
uses (domestic, agriculture, industry, and ecosystems),
and differences that have risen because of lack of harmo-
nization among experts drawn from different disciplines
to resolve water issues (Hassan 2011). Various contrast-
ing paradigms have emerged over that time in the use and
management of water, as depicted in Figure 1.1, each
having their own methodology, technology, and
reasoning. Further to Hassan (2011)’s illustration of par-
adigms, sustainability paradigm is in place since 2015 and
global financial system has been further expanded to
“globalized system” with aid of further dimensions.
Furthermore, water has raised its profile as a key political
and governance agenda over the years. Though hydro‐
politics was in place since quite some time, primarily
among the riparian countries of the shared aquifers and
watershed, with increasing import/export of water with
trade in the form of “virtual water” (Alan, 1998) by keep-
ing the footprint of commodity somewhere else
(Chapagain and Hoekstra 2004; Hoekstra and Chapagain
2007), it has become more clearly visible in recent time
expanding its scope from riparian countries to across the
globe. Major changes in water governance is underway
since the 1990s. Water has been a key component of UN
as well, and UN‐Water publishes a global report titled
“The United Nations World Water Development Report
(WWDR)” every year, through coordinated efforts of
26 UN agencies, providing an authoritative, comprehen-
sive assessment of the world’s freshwater resources.
From accumulated knowledge and information so far,
it is convincing that water resources are under pressure
from competing uses and climate change and governance
is a key challenge in achieving the long‐term sustain-
ability of this valuable natural resources (Özerol et al.
2018). Climate change, which manifests through water,
exacerbates the pressure on water thereby further compli-
cating resource governance (IPCC 2014). Water, in direct
or implied way, has been increasing evident as a core in
global commitments such as MDGs, SDGs, climate
agreements, and international trades. Water challenges
become the center of discussion in most international
forums/platforms. Some of the global water challenges of
this time, which are expected to continue in future, are
growing water demand and water scarcity; water
pollution; insufficient access to safe and affordable water,
sanitation and hygiene (WASH); increasing risk to
freshwater ecosystems; climate change impacts on water;
water governance; and water cooperation and conflicts in
the shared aquifers and river basins. Water solutions in
the form of understanding water availability, enhancing
access with reliability, reducing losses, improving WASH,
and managing the water resources are advancing over the
years along with advancement in science and technology.
The solutions, however, are context‐specific and there are
no silver bullet solutions. As water is the multi‐facet issue,
stakeholders from multiple disciplines need to work
together to harness benefit from the water in the most
optimal way but at the same time without compromising
sustainability of resources.
1.2.2. Evolution of Climate Change as a Global Agenda
Various literatures report on emergence and spread of
climate change as the global problem albeit with different
orientation (e.g. BBC News 2020; History.com Editors
2020; Wear, 2008). This section presents a highly synthe-
sized summary of climate change in the sustainability
context. Early ideas that human can alter global climate
can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, where people
believed that humans could change temperatures and
influence rainfall by chopping down trees, plowing fields
or irrigating a desert. However, the theory of the
greenhouse effect and the potential of industrial activities
to intensify the effect were first identified by Fourier,
 LOCALIZING AND MAINSTREAMING GLOBAL INITIATIVES 9

Spiritual- Aesthetic- Legal- Hydraulic Scientific Economic Ecological Managerial

religious recreational ethical engineering paradigm financial paradigm paradigm
paradigm paradigm paradigm paradigm paradigm

Hunting-
gathering
Early
agriculture
Early state
societies
Commercial
proto-
industrial
societies
Early
industrial
scientific
societies
Advanced
industrial
states
Global
financial
systems

Figure 1.1 A diagrammatic illustration of the historical development of water management paradigms. Shading
intensity indicates the degree of dominance of a paradigm relative to others. (Source: Hassan F. (2011). Water
history of our times: IHP Essay on water history (Volume 2). Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing. © 2011, UNESCO).

Tyndale, and Arrhenius in 1827, 1859, and 1896, respec-
tively. Tyndall’s laboratory tests in the late 1860s con-
firmed that coal gas (containing CO2, methane and
volatile hydrocarbons) is effective at absorbing solar radi-
ation. By the 1890s, the concept of warming the planet
was welcomed considering that it may benefit colder
regions of the earth. By the 1930s, scientists started to
argue on the potential consequences of “global warming”,
which continued until the 1960s (Weart 2008). The most
famous among those research projects was establishing a
CO2 monitoring station in 1958 at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa
Observatory. The plot based on data from the observa-
tory, popularly known as “Keeling Curve”, revealed a
steady rise in CO2 levels. The observation at the station,
which constitutes the master time series documenting the
changing composition of the atmosphere (Keeling 1998),
has an iconic status in climate science as evidence of
anthropogenic effect on the atmosphere’s chemical com-
position. Later observations of parallel trends in the
atmospheric abundance of the CO2 isotope and molec-
ular oxygen (O2) uniquely identified this rise in CO2 with
fossil fuel burning (Le Treut et al., 2007). Though the idea
of the greenhouse effect and global warming was emerged
in the 1800s, it took nearly a century of research and
data, until the late 1950s, to convince the vast majority of
the scientific community that human activity could alter
our planet’s climate. Table 1.3 depicts a chronology of
evolution of international climate negotiations over the
years in light of increasing concentration of atmospheric
CO2.
The dawn of advance computer modeling in the 1960s
began to predict possible outcomes of the rise in CO2
levels. The models consistently showed that doubling of
CO2 could produce a warming of 2°C or higher within the
next century (Voosen 2019). Though a different kind of
climate worry took hold in the early 1970s, somewhat
cooling of earth between 1940 – 1970 due to the post‐war
boom of aerosol pollutants which reflected sunlight away
from the planet, WMO started to express concern on
human‐induced CO2 emission, global warming, and
potential consequences around the same time (i.e. early
1970s). During the 1980s scientific concerns about global
warming grew, global temperature increased sharply, and
it started to get political attention. As a result, the WMO
and UNEP established IPCC under the UN in 1988 to
investigate and report on scientific evidence on climate
change, potential economic and political impacts, and
suggest possible international responses to climate change.
Since then, IPCC has been central to the subsequent
debates and processes around the development of climate
change policies. Since the 1990s, scientific research on cli-
mate change has included multiple disciplines and has
expanded further. Research since the 1990s are­
summarized in the form of Assessment Reports published
10 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Table 1.3 Selected international negotiations on climate change in light of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Source: Updated from Shivakoti BR, and Shrestha S (2014).
Year CO2 (ppm)* Major development and outcomes
2015 400.83 Paris Climate Agreement (PCA)
2013 396.66 On May 10, 2013, NOAA and Scripps Institute of Oceanography (SIO) for the first time
detected daily CO2 average concertation temporarily reaching 400 ppm
First volume of IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) released
2012 393.87 COP18 sets out a timeline to adopt a universal climate agreement by 2015, to come into effect
in 2020
2011 391.74 The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action at COP17: governments clearly recognized the
need to draw up the blueprint for a fresh universal, legal agreements to deal with climate
change beyond 2020
2010 389.84 Cancun Agreements, drafted and largely accepted by the COP (COP16) – comprehensive
measures for mitigation, adaptation, financing, technology transfer and capacity building
2009 387.35 Attended by close to 115 world leaders at the high‐level segment, Copenhagen Accord drafted
at COP15 recognizes scientific view on limiting warming below 2°C; countries later
submitted emission reduction pledges or mitigation action pledges, all non‐binding
developed countries agreed to support a goal of mobilizing US$100 billion a year by 2020
to address the needs of developing countries
2007 383.93 IPCC fourth assessment report (AR4) released; IPCC awarded 2007 Nobel Peace Prize at the
end of the year. At COP13, Parties agreed on the Bail Road Map, which charted the way
towards a post‐Kyoto Protocol (KP) outcome.
2006 381.88 Stern Review on the Economics of climate change published – emphasis on early action in
mitigation and adaptation; benefits of action outweigh cost of inaction
2005 379.95 Entry into force of the KP
2001 371.30 IPCC Third Assessment Report (AR3) released, Marrakesh Accords adopted at COP7 detailing
rules for implementation of the KP
1997 363.73 KP adopted at Conference of Parties 3 (COP3) meeting held in Kyoto – a binding agreement
among nations to curb GHG emission through a number of market and non‐market‐based
mechanisms
1995 360.80 IPCC Second Assessment Report (SER) released; The first Conference of the Parties (COP1) in
Berlin held
1994 358.69 UNFCCC enters into force
1992 356.73 UNFCCC treaty agreed at Rio Earth Summit
1990 354.39 IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR) released. IPCC and 2nd World Climate Conference (WCC)
call for a global climate change treaty
1988 351.51 IPCC established
1979 336.91 The first WCC held; World Climate Research Program launched
1967 323.04 International Global Atmospheric Research Program established
1958 315.71# High accuracy measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration initiated by Charles David
Keeling at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii
1800‐1870 290 (around) # Beginning of Industrial Revolution
*
Average annual atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppm) observed at Mauna Loa Observatory, Accessed on 24th April, 2020
from: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/data/index.php?parameter_name=Carbon%2BDioxide&site=MLO
#
Values are taken from Shivakoti and Shrestha (2014).

in regular interval by IPCC. After the first assessment
report (FAR) published in 1990, IPCC has already
released five such assessment reports and the sixth
assessment report (AR6) is underway. The IPCC FAR in
1990 fed into the drafting of the UNFCCC in 1991, which
was later signed by 166 nations at the Earth Summit in
Rio de Janerio in 1992 and came into force in 1994.
The government leaders continued discussion on
potential ways to curb the GHG emissions to prevent dire
consequences of climate change and finally reached the
first global agreement to reduce GHG emissions in 1997,
which is popularly known as the “Kyoto Protocol”.
Unfortunately, USA withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol
in 2001 citing the concerns that the deal would hurt the
US economy. IPCC published its third assessment report
(TAR) in the same year saying that global warming is
“very likely” with highly damaging future impacts. Al
Gore, the former vice president of USA, put political
 LOCALIZING AND MAINSTREAMING GLOBAL INITIATIVES
weight on the climate change through a film titled “An
Inconvenient Truth”, and Mr. Gore won the 2007 Nobel
Peace Prize, jointly shared with IPCC, for his work on
climate change. By 2007, 2008, and 2009 the existence
and dangers of climate change were increasingly recog-
nized with growing scientific evidence and understanding
of climate change and its impacts, and increasing repre-
sentation of this in the press; public awareness and con-
cern about unusual weather patterns; and political change
(notably in the US Administration, and in Australia).
Further to that the Stern Review (Stern 2006) translated
climate change into gross domestic product (GDP) terms
indicating up to 20% of damage in GDP if climate change
is left unchecked but curbing it would cost about 1% of
global GDP. More recently, UNEP has been publishing
its emission gap report and adaptation gap report to
highlight the seriousness of the problem. Despite that,
some skeptics continue to argue that the predictions pre-
sented by the IPCC and publicized in the media were
overblown, while the whole the climate negotiations and
deliberation by the governments, private sectors, busi-
nesses, as well as individual level responses are far from
adequate.
In 2015, SDGs included “Climate Action” as the 13th
goal out of the 17 SDGs to streamline climate actions in
coordinated and collaborated ways at different levels. In
the same year, PCA was signed as another milestone
treaty on climate change, in which 195 countries pledged
to set targets for their own GHG cuts to keep the warming
level to 2°C and to report their progress. Like the case of
the Kyoto Protocol, USA again back‐tracked from the
agreement in 2016 by the newly elected president. In
2018, IPCC published a report that concluded “rapid,
far‐reaching” actions are needed to cap global warming
at 1.5 °C and avert the irreversible consequences for the
planet (IPCC 2018). In the same year the “School Climate
Strike” initiative led by Greta Thunberg, a Swedish young
climate activist, caught global attention and raised aware-
ness on the need for climate action. The initiative was fol-
lowed by over 17 000 students in 24 countries within 3‐4
months. It led to her nomination for the Nobel Peace
Prize in March 2019. The UN Climate Summit held in
August 2019 reinforced that “1.5°C is the socially, eco-
nomically, politically, and scientifically safe limit to
global warming by the end of this century” and set the
deadline for achieving net zero emissions to 2050.
With the evolution of IPCC’s assessment reports, the
field of climate research is also growing at a faster pace to
enable us to better understand the future climate. The
World Climate Research Program (WCRP) was
established in 1980 under the joint sponsorship of the
International Science Council (ISC) and the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO). The WCRP has
made significant contribution to advancing climate
11
s­cience since then. It started Coupled Model Inter‐
Comparison Project (CMIP) (Phase‐I) in 1995/96 as a
collaborative framework to improve knowledge on cli-
mate change. The Phases 1 and 2 were initiated in 1995
and 1996. The CMIP3 (or the Phase III) (2005–2006), in
which a collection of climate model outputs was coordi-
nated and stored at one location and results were used in
preparing the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
The CMIP5 (2010–2014) included more metadata
describing model simulations than previous phases. The
IPCC AR5 summarized information of CMIP5 experi-
ments. The planning of the CMIP6 began in 2013 and
results are expected to be summarized in AR6.
With more warming in recent years, growing body of
scientific literatures, and wider coverage in media, climate
change is getting more and more attention than ever
before. Global communities through national govern-
ments, are putting coordinated efforts to reduce GHG
emissions, limit warming of the planet. Different stake-
holders have their roles to play to make the climate action
(SDG13) a reality for saving our planet.
1.3. FORMULATION AND GOVERNANCE
OF SDGS
Formulation of SDGs was identified as the post‐MDG
agenda in the UN Summit on Sustainable Development,
also known as Rio+20, held in June 2012 in Brazil with
the theme of “The Future We Want”. With the objectives
to produce a set of universal goals that meet the urgent
environmental, social and economic challenges facing the
world, the Rio+20 summit also outlined four principles
for developing the goals. After subsequent endorsement
by heads of the governments and high‐level representa-
tives from al the UN members, the process of formulating
SDGs was initiated by forming a 30‐member Open
Working Group (OWG) through the UN General
Assembly. It took nearly three years for drafting, negoti-
ation, and formalization of SDGs through the UN
Sustainable Development Summit held in September
2015 in New York. The 17 SDGs (Figure 1.2), the global
goals for 2015–2030, provide a shared blueprint for peace
and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into
the future (UN 2020).
The adoption 17 SDGs and 169 targets present a novel
approach of goal setting at the global scale characterized
by inclusive, non‐binding, weak institutional arrange-
ments, and the extensive leeway for individual countries
(Biermann et al. 2017). The high flexibility exercised
through a bottom‐up process in formulating SDGs and
its adoption also raises a big question mark on the effec-
tive implementation of a long list of SDG targets and
indicators. The extent to which the SDGs will be truly
transformational, however, depends on how they are
12 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

16 PEACE, JUSTICE
AND STRONG
7 AFFORDABLE AND
CLEAN ENERGY
INSTITUTIONS

2 ZERO
HUNGER 3 GOOD HEALTH
AD WELL-BEING

12 RESPONSIBLE
CONSUMPTION
AND PRODUCTION 4 QUALITY
EDUCATION

1 NO
POVERTY 11 SUSTAINABLE CITIES
AND COMMUNITIES

6 CLEAN WATER
AND SANITATION

15 LIFE
13 CLIMATE

10 REDUCED ON LAND ACTION

INEQUALITIES

5 GENDER
EQUALITY

14 8
LIFE DECENT WORK AND
BELOW WATER ECONOMIC GROWTH

9 INDUSTRY, INNOVATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
17 PARTNERSHIPS
FOR THE GOALS

Figure 1.2 The water centric 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Source: Makarigakis A.K and Jimenez‐
Cisneros BE (2019).

implemented. Similarly, there is a confusion among gov-
ernments in finding an entry point for implementing
SDGs (Elder and King 2018).
The SDGs offer accountability the present genera-
tion has towards the next generation that is to allow the
next generation to meet their needs, however, the limita-
tion is that it focuses exclusively on resources and eco-
nomics. The multi‐dimensionality of SDGs indicates
the growing complexity in the path of achieving sus-
tainable development. A complex web of interlinkages
is one of the trademarks of SDGs and many of its tar-
gets are vague and difficult to quantify (Biermann et al.
2017; Shivakoti 2019). SDGs are ambiguous on, and lack
guidelines for, the entry points for their implementation,
means and ends are mixed, and how to evaluate cause‐
effect relationships between goals or targets is not clear
(Shivakoti 2019). There are also numerous “blind spots”,
i.e. targets that countries have limited knowledge on in
their national contexts (UNESCAP/ADB/UNDP 2018).
SDGs, as a compilation of sustainability issues and chal-
lenges, could serve as a reference to determine whether
important interactions have been overlooked while
implementing a target or a goal. Still SDGs provide few
clues on how essential interactions could be determined
ex‐ante and subsequently dealt with.
1.4. INTERDEPENDENCY OF SDGS
WITH WATER
Inclusion of SDG6 within the framework of SDGs
underscores the important role of water for sustainable
development. SDG6 relates to water and includes targets
for improving access to sanitation, reducing water
pollution, improving water use efficiency, and making
water use more sustainable. Water is at the core of SDGs
not only because of a standalone water goal but also due
 LOCALIZING AND MAINSTREAMING GLOBAL INITIATIVES
Water for environment
Water for economy
Water for society
6 CLEAN WATER
AND SANITATION
Figure 1.3 Water and SDGs interlinkages across social,
economic and environmental dimensions. Source: Based on
Shivakoti, B.R., and M. Bengtsson (2015).
to its intrinsic interdependency with the other goals.
Water underpins all SDGs in social, economic and envi-
ronmental dimensions (Figure 1.3). Water acts as catalyst
or enabler for achieving multiple SDGs (UNU/UNOSD
2013). Water with its cascading impacts across the
economy, will influence the achievement of other SDGs
too; such as those relating to food security (SDG2),
cleaner energy (SDG7), health (SDG3), sustainable cities,
climate action (SDG 13), and the protection of ecosys-
tems (SDGs 14 and 15). The main rationale for an
integrated approach is that water is a shared commodity
serving multiple (often competing) purposes such as
direct public use and health (such as WASH), food pro-
duction, energy production, trade of commodities
requiring large water footprints, ecosystem sustenance,
and water navigation, among others. Many of the water‐
related challenges are directly associated with sustain-
ability of multiple sectors (Table 1.2).
SDG6 is comprehensive in its framing as it touches nearly
all dimensions of water security challenges being faced in
many localities (Table 1.4). It covers WASH (Target 6.1,
6.2), water quality and wastewater (Target 6.3), water use
13
and scarcity (Target 6.4), integrated water resources
management (IWRM) and transboundary river basin
management (Target 6.5), water‐related ecosystems (Target
6.6), and international cooperation and participation
(Target 6.a, 6.b). Meanwhile, the water related disasters,
which is missing from SDG6, is addressed under SDG11
(Target 11.5). Because of its wider scope, water‐related tar-
gets in SDGs are closely interdependent. For instance,
materializing Targets 6.1 and 6.2 on universal access to safe
drinking water and sanitation need to be accompanied by
parallel improvements in ambient water quality (Target 6.3)
and water availability (Target 6.4). Conversely, an increase
in wastewater treatment (Target 6.3), together with
increased access to sanitation (Target 6.2), will support
good ambient water quality (SDG6.3), healthy water‐
related ecosystems (SDG6.6) and availability of safe
drinking water (Target 6.1) (UNESCAP 2017).
Water is arguably among the few sectors where inter-
linkages are spread across SDGs (Figure 1‐3). In fact, the
whole gamut of SDGs is intrinsically interlinked and
interact with one another in a complex fashion. They are
integrated and indivisible, and balance the economic,
social and environmental dimensions of sustainable
development. The 2030 Agenda stresses the importance
of “leaving no one behind”, which can only be achieved
by understanding interlinkages between the Goals,
including SDG6, and taking actions to bring them
together (UN‐Water 2016).
Ever since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the inter-
linkage among SDGs has been in the spotlight due to its
strong implications on the prioritization of actions and
their effective implementation (Weitz et al. 2018). Yet,
understanding the linkages in a given context is challeng-
ing due to the absence of well‐defined indicators or metrics
with reliable and trackable data for the structural analysis
of the SDG network (Zhou and Moinuddin 2017). Several
models have been suggested to advance the conceptual
understanding of the linkages among the SDGs, while
some of them have also attempted to analyze them (Zhou
and Moinuddin 2017; Pradhan et al. 2017; Elder and King
2018; Nilsson et al. 2018; Shivakoti, 2019). For instance,
Nilsson et al. (2018) have proposed an analytical frame-
work consisting of seven interactions to assess the positive
(co‐benefits), neutral, and negative (trade‐off) outcomes
that could emerge between SDGs. Three of the interac-
tions (indivisible, reinforcing, enabling) are positive, one
neutral (consistent), and three others (constraining, coun-
teracting and cancelling) are negative.
In the SDGs framework, water could be an entry point
for unlocking many of the interlinkages and managing
interactions by capitalizing on positive ones and nulli-
fying the negatives. Abundant water supplies are vital for
attaining SDG2 on food security; clean and safe drinking
water and sanitation systems are necessary for SDG3
14 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Table 1.4 Targets and indicators of SDG6. Source: Modified from UN (2020).
Goal 6: Ensure Availability and Sustainable Management of Water and Sanitation for All
Targets
6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe
and affordable drinking water for all
6.2: By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable
sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation,
paying special attention to the needs of women and girls
and those in vulnerable situations
6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution,
eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous
chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of
untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling
and safe reuse globally
6.4: By 2030, substantially increase water‐use efficiency across
all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of
freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce
the number of people suffering from water scarcity
6.5: By 2030, implement integrated water resources
management at all levels, including through transboundary
cooperation as appropriate
6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water‐related ecosystems,
including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers, and
lakes
6.a: By 2030, expand international cooperation and
capacity‐building support to developing countries in
water‐ and sanitation‐related activities and programs,
including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency,
wastewater treatment, recycling, and reuse technologies
6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local
communities in improving water and sanitation
management
(health) and SDG5 (gender); and water is needed for
powering industries and creating the new jobs identified
in SDGs 7 and 8. Furthermore, none of them are achiev-
able without adequate and safe water to nourish the plan-
et’s life‐sustaining ecosystem services identified in SDGs
13, 14 and 15. A qualitative comparison between water
goal and rest of the 16 SDGs can show obvious connec-
tions (Table 1.5). The vision articulated in the SDGs is
high on ambition and will call for a fundamental shift in
the way water is managed, far beyond business‐as‐usual
remedies. It will require better coordination between sec-
tors that are impacted by a nexus that emerges through
the use of water as the common factor of production.
1.5. CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACHIEVING
THE SDGS
Realizing the SDGs helps to achieve many other global
goals aimed at protecting human and ecosystems, such as
PCA and others. It however depends upon how the
Indicators
6.1.1: Proportion of population using safely managed
drinking water services
6.2.1 Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation
services, including a hand‐washing facility with soap and
water
6.3.1 Proportion of wastewater safely treated
6.3.2 Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water
quality
6.4.1 Change in water‐use efficiency over time
6.4.2 Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a
proportion of available freshwater resources
6.5.1 Degree of integrated water resources management
implementation (0‐100)
6.5.2 Proportion of transboundary basin area with an
operational arrangement for water cooperation
6.6.1 Change in the extent of water‐related ecosystems over
time
6.a.1 Amount of water‐ and sanitation‐related official
development assistance that is part of a government‐
coordinated spending plan
6.b.1 Proportion of local administrative units with established
and operational policies and procedures for participation of
local communities in water and sanitation management
countries can re‐orient and streamline their policies and
actions as per the aspirations of these global goals. It
means moving effectively in multiple fronts such as
advancing science, technology, and innovations; making
coherence policies and programs across the sectors; invest
on technology and data to drive improvements; promoting
science‐policy interface; and building/strengthening both
institutional and human capacities (Jayesimi 2016;
Makarigakis and Jimenez‐Cisneros, 2019). Innovations on
technical, behavioral and governance fronts should go
hand‐in‐hand to synergize the outcomes by complement-
ing to each other. The behavioral changes depend upon the
individual themselves and their attitude towards it and the
governance aspects hinges on how the governments man-
ages it at various circumstances at both horizontal and
vertical levels (Urama et al. 2014). Developing and
applying monitoring and accountability frameworks for
various SDGs are also equally important to minimize
errors in data collection and management due to under-
standing of indicators and/or selection of data collection
 LOCALIZING AND MAINSTREAMING GLOBAL INITIATIVES
Table 1.5 Interlinkages between SDG6 and rest of 16 SDGs (Source: Authors compilation).
SDGs Impacts or contributions to SDG6
Poverty reduction is inclusive of improved
1 NO
POVERTY access to water/sanitation (6.1, 6.2) services
however unsustainable use of water for
poverty reduction could counteract targets
on water quality and pollution (6.3),
reducing water scarcity (6.4), and protecting
water related ecosystems (6.5)
Sustainable food production and resilient
2 ZERO
HUNGER agricultural (2.3) practices helps to
decrease water scarcity (6.4) and pollution
(6.3), while increased food production,
food loss and wastages constrain
achievement of 6.3 and 6.4
Directly complements achievement of 6.1,
3 GOOD HEALTH
AD WELL-BEING 6.2, 6,3, and 6.6
Positively contributes access to WASH (6.1,
4 QUALITY
EDUCATION
6.2) in schools and workplaces.
Gender equality and empowerment strongly
5 GENDER
EQUALITY supports SDG6 such as improvement in
WASH (6.1, 6.2), pollution control (6.3),
efficient use of water (6.4), capacity
building (6.a), community
participation (6.b)
Energy (7.1) is essential for access to water
7 AFFORDABLE AND
CLEAN ENERGY (6.1), water uses (6.4), and wastewater
treatment (6.3). Water demand for energy
production (7.1) could constrain 6.4
Disregard of sustainability issued while
8 DECENT WORK AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH
pursuing economic growth (8.1) or job
creating (8.3) could severely counteract
with water goal (esp., 6.3, 6.4, & 6.5)
Adoption of environmentally sound
9 INDUSTRY, INNOVATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
technology (9.4) complements pollution
control (6.3) and water related ecosystem
(6.5) targets
Empowering and promoting the social,
10 REDUCED
INEQUALITIES
economic and political inclusion of all,
age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin,
religion or economic status (10.3) supports
inclusive access to water resources
15
Impacts or contributions of SDG6
Positively contributes universal access to basic
services [1.4] such as drinking water and sanitation
(6.1, 6.2), food (2.1), energy (7.1) and resilience
building (1.5) etc.
Improved water use efficiency and addressing water
scarcity (6.4) positively contributes food
productivity and resilient agriculture (2.3),
access to food (2.1), ending hunger (2,1) and
malnutrition (2.2)
WASH (6.1. 6.2) and wastewater and pollution
control (6.3) are pre‐requisite for reducing the risk
of under 5 child deaths (3.2), water‐borne diseases
(3.3, 3.9) and improved healthcare (3.8)
WASH (6.1, 6.2) supports education for all,
especially, girls and women (4.1‐4.3; 4.5‐4.6) and
participation in jobs (4.4)
WASH (6.1, 6.2) is critical for ending discrimination
against all women and girls (5.1), especially, at
homes, schools and workplaces and ensuring
women’s participation in economic and public
life (5.5)
An adequate and reliable water resource (6.4) is a
prerequisite for the production of energy (7.1)
Water is enabler for the implementation of targets on
economic growth (8.1), productivity (8.2), job
creation (8.3) and decent work (8.5). Water targets
(6.4 or 6.5) overlaps with resource efficiency or
decoupling economic growth from environmental
degradation (8.4). Further protection of water‐related
ecosystem (6.6) supports sustainable tourism (8.7)
Overlaps with sustainable and resilient (water)
infrastructure (9.1, 9.a) and increased resource‐use
efficiency (9.4)
Access to water is critical for orderly, safe, regular
and responsible migration and mobility of people
(10.7), while water scarcity (6.4) and drought can
be the principle driver for migration.
(Continued)
16 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Table 1.5 (Continued)
SDGs Impacts or contributions to SDG6
Inclusive and sustainable urbanization (11.3)
11 SUSTAINABLE CITIES
AND COMMUNITIES
can significantly contribute WASH (6.1,
6.2), pollution control and wastewater
management (6.3), efficient water uses
(6.4), implementation of IWRM (6.5),
and conservation of water related
ecosystems (6.6)
Implementation of Goal 12 is synergistic
12 RESPONSIBLE
CONSUMPTION
AND PRODUCTION with pollution control, wastewater
treatment, and reuse and recycling (6.3),
efficient water uses (6.4), and conservation
of water related ecosystems (6.6)
Climate action, in particular related to
13 CLIMATE
ACTION
adaptation and disaster resilience,
reinforces IWRM (6.5)
Protecting coastal ecosystems to avoid
14 LIFE
BELOW WATER significant adverse impacts, including by
strengthening their resilience, can
complement conservation of water related
ecosystem (6.5) and reducing water
induced disasters in coastal areas (11.5)
Sustainable land management, including
15 LIFE
ON LAND
halting deforestation (15.2), combating
desertification (15.3), conserving mountain
ecosystem (15.4), and degradation of
natural habitat (15.5), is inextricably linked
to pollution control (6.3), reducing water
scarcity (6.4) and conservation of water
related ecosystems (6.5)
Implementation of 16.3, 16.6 and 16.7
16 PEACE, JUSTICE
AND STRONG
INSTITUTIONS reinforces target on IWRM (6.6)
Investments, finances, policy coherence, and
17 PARTNERSHIPS
FOR THE GOALS
multi‐stakeholder participation are vital for
water services and infrastructures (6.1, 6.2,
6.3, 6.4), IWRM and transboundary
cooperation (6.6)
Impacts or contributions of SDG6
Water is inclusive while ensuring access for all to
adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic
services and upgrade slums (11.1), while IWRM
is essential for reducing water‐induced
disasters (11.5)
Water shares close interdependency with
sustainable consumption and production (12.1),
efficient use of natural resources (12.2), reducing
food loss and wastages (12.3), environmentally
sound management of wastes and chemicals
(12.4), prevention, reduction, reuse and
recycling of wastes (12.5), sustainable lifestyles
in harmony with nature (12.8), and sustainable
tourism (12.b)
Adaptive water management supports climate actions
on strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity
against disaster (13.1), integrate climate change
measures into national policies, strategies and
planning (13.2) and enhance human and
institutional capacity on climate change mitigation,
adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
(13.3)
Pollution control measures can help to significantly
reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular
from land‐based activities, including marine debris
and nutrient pollution (6.1)
Conservation, restoration and sustainable use of
freshwater ecosystem (including wetlands) (15.1)
overlaps with 6.5, while sustainable management
of freshwater ecosystems is essential to reduce the
degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of
biodiversity, and species extinction (15.5)
Better water governance helps promote the rule of
law (16.3), develop effective, accountable and
transparent institutions (16.6) and ensure
responsive, inclusive, participatory and
representative decision‐making (16.7)
Investments in water could accelerate effectiveness of
developmental assistance (17.2) and mobilization
of additional financial resources (17.3). Water
sector can transfer environmentally friendly
technologies (17.7). IWRM can help on towards
policy coherence (17.14) and multi‐stakeholder
partnership (17.16).
 LOCALIZING AND MAINSTREAMING GLOBAL INITIATIVES
methods; to ensure timely reporting of progress on SDG
targets, and to ensure (re)allocation of adequate resources
in the areas of greater need by periodic review. Furthermore,
there needs a coherence among policies and programs
aimed at implementing SDGs and NDCs, the implementa-
tion instrument of the PCA (Dzebo et al. 2019).
Since sustainability challenge is really large in breadth
and depth, localizing and streamlining the global com-
mitments such as SDGs or PCA through understanding
and internalizing by each countries and their local gov-
ernments are crucial. Integrated use and management of
resources are being increasingly considered as a means of
achieving sustainability, however, it is yet to be reflected
that down to the local level in the instruments (i.e. pol-
icies, programs, institutions, etc.) to put that in practice.
Therefore, interventions on the governance front by har-
monizing policies, programs, and actions – focusing at
system scale, and coordinated across sectors and
scales – are crucial in this endeavor. Localizing global
commitments means more than just “landing” interna-
tionally‐agreed goals at the local level, but making the
aspirations of the global goals such as SDGs become real
and meaningful to the communities, households, and
individuals, particularly to those who are at risk of falling
behind (UNDP, 2020). Five drivers of transformational
change stand‐out for localizing the global goals: (i) sensi-
tization and engagement of local actors, (ii) account-
ability mechanisms, (iii) participatory planning and
service delivery, (iv) local economic development, and
(v) partnership (UNDP 2020). Developing toolboxes to
(e.g. Local 2030) to support local stakeholders and their
network, under the leadership of the governments (i.e.
local, regional, and national governments), and education
for sustainable development (ESD) framework (Kioupi
and Voulvoulis, 2019) could be some of practical ways of
localizing the global agenda. A learning platform (www.
localizingthesdgs.org) further highlights the tools and
guidance on localizing the global goals with specific focus
on SDGs. The most important, however is working with
local government and local actors are the key for success-
ful localization of the global commitments such as SDGs.
Though it is a challenging endeavor and requires invest-
ments in terms of awareness raising, capacity strength-
ening, and motivating people to work together, but will
be rewarding in a long‐run in terms of sustainably using
the resources and synergizing broader outcomes. For
many countries, being a part of global commitments and
partnering to localize them, are also an opportunity to
access more resources, strengthen human capacity,
enhance competency, synchronize local initiatives to con-
tribute in solving global problems, and opportunities for
cross‐learning across the sectors and regions with diverse
and rich set of experiences and local knowledge.
Furthermore, this also offers an opportunity to develop
17
database infrastructure which in a long‐run helps the
countries for informed‐planning, decision‐making,
policy‐making, and also provide policy feedback for
future global initiatives.
The intent of all the chapters in this book, in one way
or other, reinforce the need to streamline global goals to
the needs at various local levels, where actions will actu-
ally be taken. Various concepts, approaches, tools, and
techniques are being applied and/or to be used with ade-
quate investment of resources for achieving the SDGs
and PCA. This book provides key concepts on the hydro‐
and climate‐sciences and their prospective applications;
introduce/elaborate selected tools/techniques; demon-
strate their applications in water‐sector with selected
examples; and provide future directions on research and
application. The 16 chapters in the book basically unfolds
five key issues: (i) addressing nexused relationship of
water with others to address SDGs, which are interrelated
to each other, (ii) securing resources by managing
demands and ensuring supplies/availability, (iii) custom-
izing various approaches, tools and techniques at differ-
ent contexts, (iv) operationalizing climate‐resilient
solutions and climate actions, and (v) localizing and
streamlining SDGs. The linkages of the aforementioned
issues and the chapters are depicted in Figure 1.4.
The first three chapters after this introductory chapter
elaborate the concepts like river basin (Chapter 2), water‐
energy nexus (Chapter 3), and safe‐sanitation adaptive
integrated management system (Chapter 4) for coordi-
nated implementation of interventions aimed at achiev-
ing the SDGs targets. The second section of the book
consists of six chapters, which starts with a systematic
review of approaches and tools to assess water‐climate‐
sustainability nexus (Chapter 5) and then presents
­various approaches and tools that help translate global
goals and policies in the areas of water, climate and
sustainability to local contents. They include a
­
combination of technical, governance, research, and
education approaches such as rejuvenation of springs
(Chapter 6), enhancing water productivity (Chapter 7),
operationalizing climate actions (Chapter 8), monitoring
and accountability frameworks for SDGs (Chapter 9),
and translating research into practice (Chapter 10).
Finally, the third part of the book consists of six chap-
ters and sheds light on selected case studies related to the
application of the concepts, approaches, and tools such
as ­climate‐resilient infrastructure in Asia and Middle
East (Chapter 11), high efficiency irrigation in Pakistan
(Chapter 12), irrigation scheduling and management in
New Zealand (Chapter 13), securing urban water in
Bangladesh (Chapter 14), climate‐resilient irrigation sys-
tems in Nepal (Chapter 15), and prioritizing IWRM
strategies for transboundary cooperation in the Lower
Mekong region (Chapter 16).
18 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

ISSUES Linkage of issues with chapters

Ch01: Localizing and streamlining SDGs – sustainability challenges; evolution of
Addressing nexused water and climate as global agenda; considerations of achieving SDGs
relationship of water
with others to Ch02: River basin approach for coordinated implementation of SDGs
address SDGs, Ch03: Metrics and decision-making tools for assessing sustainability of water
which are interrelated and energy in bio-based systems with examples
to each other
Ch04: Safe-sanitation adaptive-integrated management system (SAIMS) as a
process of incorporating resilience into safe sanitation systems
Securing resources
by managing Ch05: Review of approaches/tools to assess water-climate-sustainability nexus
demands and Ch06: Mainstreaming springshed management for springs revival as an multi-
ensuring supplies/ disciplinary approach that combines science, partnerships and participation.
availability
Ch07: Enhancing water productivity through on-farm water management

Customizing various
approaches, tools
and techniques at
different contexts
Ch08: Operationalizing climate actions and challenges; California case study
Ch09: Monitoring/accountability framework/mechanisms for achieving the SDG6
with results from 25 countries
Ch10: Translating research into practice; education for localizing SDGs

Operationalizing Ch11: Climate-resilient infrastructure for poverty reduction and achieving SDGs
climate-resilient Ch12: High efficiency irrigation technology (case of Pakistan)
solutions and
climate actions Ch13: Irrigation scheduling and management for improved water productivity
Ch14: Urban water security for sustainable cities in the context of climate change
Localizing and
Ch15: Review of climate-resilient irrigation systems with cases from Nepal
streamlining SDGs
Ch16: A stakeholder-centric tool for improving water management strategies and
enhancing water cooperation (SDG 6.5) in the Lower Mekong Region

Figure 1.4 Linkage of five key issues and 16 chapters in this book.

REFERENCES for Action 2005–2015. Building the resilience, no Nations and

BBC News (2020). A brief history of climate change. https://
www.bbc.com/news/science‐environment‐15874560 (accessed
on 13 April 2020).
Biermann, Frank, Norichika Kanie, and Rakhyun E Kim.
(2017). “Global Governance by Goal‐Setting: The Novel
Approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.”
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27 (June):
26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010
Biswas, A.K. (1983). Major water problems facing the world.
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 1(1):
1–14. DOI: 10.1080/07900628308722271
Biswas, A.K. (2004). Integrated water resources management:
An assessment. Water International, 29 (2): 248–256.
Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2004). Water footprints
of nations, Volume 2: Appendix. Value of Water Research
Report Series No. 16. Delft, the Netherlands: UNESCO‐IHE
Institute for Water Education.
Dzebo, A., Janetschek, H., Brandi, C., and Lacobuta, G.
(2019). Connections between the Paris Agreement and the
2030 Agenda: The case of policy coherence. SEI Working
Paper, September 2019. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockhold
Environment Institute (SEI).
Elder, M., and King, P. (eds.) (2018). Realising the Transformative
Potential of the SDGs. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES).
Hassan F. (2011). Water history of our times: IHP Essay on water
history (Volume 2). Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing.
HFA (Hyogo Framework for Action) (2005). Hyogo Framework
Communities to Disasters. https://www.unisdr.org/files/1037_
hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf (accessed on 10 April
2020)
History.com Editors (2020). Climate change history. https://
www.history.com/topics/natural‐disasters‐and‐environment/
history‐of‐climate‐change (accessed on 13th April, 2020)
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Chapagain, A.K. (2007). Water footprints
of nations: Water use by people as a function of their con-
sumption pattern. Water Resources Management 21(1): 35–48.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014).
Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing
Team, R. K. Pachauri, and L. A. Meyer, editors. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland. [online] URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
IPCC. (2018) Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming
of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global
warming of 1.5°C above pre‐industrial levels and related global
greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strength-
ening the global response to the threat of climate change,
sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V.
Masson‐Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner et al. (eds.)]. World
Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp
Keeling, C.D. (1998). Rewards and penalties of monitoring the
Earth. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 23, 25–82.
Kioupi V, and Voulvoulis N (2019). Education for sustain-
able development: A systematic framework for connecting
the SDGs to education outcomes. Sustainability, 11, 6104.
doi:10.3390/su11216104
 LOCALIZING AND MAINSTREAMING GLOBAL INITIATIVES
Le Treut, H., Somerville, R., Cubasch, U. et al. (2007) Historical
Overview of Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning
et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Makarigakis, A.K. and Jimenez‐Cisneros, B.E. (2019).
UNESCO’s contriution to face global water challenges.
Water, 11: 338. Doi: 10.3390/w11020388.
Nilsson, M., Chisholm, E., Griggs, D. et al. 2018. “Mapping
Interactions between the Sustainable Development Goals:
Lessons Learned and Ways Forward.” Sustainability Science
13 (6): 1489–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625‐018‐0604‐z
Özerol, G., Vinke‐de Kruijf, J. Brisbois, M.C. et al. (2018).
Comparative studies of water governance: a systematic
review. Ecology and Society 23(4):43.https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES‐10548‐230443
Pradhan, P., Reusser, D.E., and Kropp, J.P. (2013). Embodied
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Diets. PLoS ONE 8(5): e62228.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062228.
Pradhan, P. (2019). Antagonists to meeting the 2030 Agenda.
Nature Sustainability, 2(3), 171–172. doi:10.1038/s41893‐
019‐0248‐8
Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D. et al. (2017). A systematic
study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions.
Earth’s Future, 5 (11): 1169–1179.
Pradhan, P. and Kropp, J.P. (2020). Interplay between diets,
health, and climate change. Sustainability 12, 3878.
SFDRR (Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction). (2015).
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframework
fordrren.pdf (accessed on 12 April, 2020)
Shivakoti, B.R. and Shrestha, S. (2014). International nego-
tiations on climate change and water. In: S. Shrestha, M.S.
Babel, and V.P. Pandey (Eds.) Climate Change and Water
Resources. CRC Press. Chapter 11, pp. 331–357.
Shivakoti, B.R. (2019). “Using the Sustainable Development
Goals to Address Unsustainable Land Transformations in
the Asia‐Pacific Region.” In: H. Scheyvens, and B. Shivakoti
(Eds.) Asia‐Pacific Landscape Transformations − Solutions
for Sustainability, pp205–22. Hayama, Japan: Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
Shivakoti, B.R., and M. Bengtsson. (2015). Placing water at the
core of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): why an
integrated perspective is needed. IGES Policy Brief No.31,
Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES)
Sovacool, B.K. and Brown, M.A. (2010) Twelve metropol-
itan carbon footprints: a preliminary comparative global
assessment. Energy Policy 38(9):4856–4869
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J. et al. (2015). Planetary
boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.
Science 347 (6223): 1259855. DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855
Stern, S.N. (2006). The economics of climate change: The Stern
Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Unviersity Press.
UN (2020). Sustainable Development Goals. Available at: https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 (accessed on
15 April, 2020).
19
UNDP (2020). Localizing the implementation of the SDGs.
https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/news‐centre/
speeches/2017/localizing‐the‐implementation‐of‐the‐
sustainable‐development‐goa.html (accessed on 14 April,
2020)
UNESCAP. (2017). Integrated Approaches for Sustainable
Development Goals Planning: The Case of Goal 6 on Water and
Sanitation. UNESCAP. Bangkok, Thailand. (https://www.
unescap.org/sites/default/files/publications/Integrated%20
Approaches%20for%20SDG%20Planning3.pdf
UNESCAP/ADB/UNDP (2018). Transformation Towards
Sustainable and Resilient Societies in Asia and the Pacific.
Manila, Philippines: The United Nations (ESCAP), the
Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). https://doi.org/10.22617/
TCS189274‐2.
UNU/UNOSD. (2013). Water for Sustainability: Framing
Water within the Post‐2015 Development Agenda. Hamilton:
United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment
and Health (UNU), UN Office of Sustainable Development
(UNOSD), Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)
UN‐Water (2019a). Climate change and water: UN‐Water
policy brief. September 2019 version. UN‐(https://www.
unescap.org/sites/default/files/publications/Integrated%20
Approaches%20for%20SDG%20Planning3.pdfWater
Technical Advisory Unit, Geneva, Switzerland.
UN‐Water (2019b). Water Facts. Accessed September 2019.
https://www.unwater.org/water‐facts/.
UN‐Water. 2016. “Water and Sanitation Interlinkages across the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Geneva
Urama, K., Ozor, N., and Acheampong, E. (2014). Achieving
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through transfor-
mative governance practices and vertical alignment at the
national and subnational levels in Africa. Regional Practice
Paper. SDplaNet – African Secretariat, African Technology
Policy Studies Networks (ATPS).
Voosen, P. (2019). New climate models predict a warming surge.
Science Magazine, 16 April, 2019. Available online at: https://
www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new‐climate‐models‐
predict‐warming‐surge (Accessed on 30 May, 2020).
Walther, G.‐R., Berger, S., and Sykes, M.T. (2005) An eco-
logical ‘footprint’ of climate change. Proc Biol Sci
272(1571):1427–1432
Weart, S.R. (2008). The discovery of global warming. Revised
and expanded edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN
9780674031890
Weitz, N., Carlsen, H., Nilsson, M. and Skånberg, K.. (2018).
“Towards Systemic and Contextual Priority Setting for
Implementing the 2030 Agenda.” Sustainability Science 13
(2): 531–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625‐017‐0470‐0
World Bank (2016). High and Dry: Climate Change, Water,
and the Economy. Washington, DC: International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water/
publication/high‐and‐dry‐climate‐change‐water‐and‐the‐
economy (accessed on April 20, 2020).
Zhou, X. and Moinuddin, M. (2017). Sustainable Development
Goals Interlinkages and Network Analysis: A Practical Tool
for SDG Integration and Policy Coherence. Hayama, Japan.
 2
A River Basin Approach for the Coordinated Implementation
of Water Related Targets in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Binaya Raj Shivakoti1,*

ABSTRACT

Adoption of sustainable development goals (SDGs) offers a targeted and time‐bound approach for sustainable
development. Water, along with its dedicated goal (SDG6), is at the core of SDGs due to its interdependency
and synergistic relationship with all SDGs. Implementation of SDG6, as well as other SDGs, remains a challenge
for many countries due to the enormity of the scope, complexities of interlinkages among the goals and their
targets, and less clarity on entry points. Pursuing an integrated approach for implementing SDGs is indispens-
able. In this context, integrated water resources management (IWRM), as the central concept, and integrated
river basin management (IRBM) approach as a spatial unit for applying the concept has been proposed as a
pragmatic solution for implementing water related targets of SDGs. For that, the Lower Mekong Basin has been
shown as a case for examining the pertinent issues and challenges for adopting IRBM for implementing SDGs.

2.1. INTRODUCTION transformative provided their effective implementation

takes place at all levels, that is local, sub‐national,
The United Nations’ (UN) 2030 Sustainable national, and international levels.
Development Agenda agreed by the member countries Water has a dedicated goal (Goal #6) to “ensure avail-
marks the beginning of a new era and a true beacon of ability and sustainable management of water and sanita-
hope for the sustainable development. An important fea- tion for all” in SDGs. Water is at the core of SDGs and
ture of this agreement was the launching of 17 sustain- acts as an enabler for realizing the 2030 Sustainable
able development goals (SDGs), spread across 169 targets Development Agenda. Water security underpins sustain-
and over 230 indicators, encompassing the major sustain- able development as it shares a close interdependency
able development agenda of modern times. SDGs – also with multiple sustainability challenges such as in terms of
known as “Global Goals “ signifying their global food security, economic development, energy generation,
scope – provide a visionary roadmap or a guide for all environmental sustainability, and climate change.
countries, governments, and stakeholders to strive for Implementation of SDG 6 along with other targets of
sustainable development in every aspect of decision‐­ 16 SDGs is an overwhelming task for many developing
making while addressing some of the most pressing chal- countries, where the means of implementation (MOI)
lenges facing humanity (ICSU 2017). SDGs are and capacity to mobilize resources are limited. Equally
important are cross‐linkages between SDG6 and other
1
Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Unit, Institute SDGs such as water related disaster (Goal 11), zero
for Global Environmental Strategy, Hayama, Japan hunger (Goal 2), good health and well‐being (Goal 3),
*Corresponding Author: shivakoti@iges.or.jp climate action (Goal 13), etc. Because of these

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

21
22 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
inter‐linkages, implementation of each SDG could
complement or contradict the outcomes of other SDGs.
There are calls for pursuing an integrated approach for
implementing SDGs so that synergies could be maxi-
mized while warding off unintended outcomes.
Need for an integrated way of thinking is critical while
implementing water related targets. An integrated
approach to the implementation of SDG6 would signifi-
cantly boost the opportunities for achieving long‐term
sustainable development. However, an integrated vision
is lacking for implementing water related SDGs, including
the Goal 6, despite the fact that there is a long history,
scientific backing, and repeated calls to pursue a coordi-
nated water resources management. Since SDG6 was
built on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) target
on drinking water and sanitation (7c), interpretation of
the goal is still skewed towards drinking water and sanita-
tion (Targets 6.1 and 6.2). In fact, it is estimated that 2.2
billion people still lack access to safely managed drinking
water services and staggering 4.2 billion people lack
safely managed sanitation services (UN‐Water 2019). For
the achievement of SDG6 and to realize the vision of
2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, addressing the
fundamental human rights to safe drinking water and
sanitation is indispensable. From that viewpoint, SDG6
could be viewed an expansion of MDG 7.c to accommo-
date the shortcomings in the indicators for safe water and
basic sanitation (Weststrate, et al. 2019).
It is quite imperative that the implementation of the
SDG6 and other water relevant targets have to build
upon the progress made on water resource management
as well as on the achievements of MDG, in particular, the
target on drinking water and sanitation (Target 7.c).
Beyond drinking water and sanitation, it is also equally
important to balance weightage on the rest of the water
related targets, which are yet to draw enough traction. A
paradigm shift is needed to recognize that Goal6 targets
are wider in scope, highly interdependent, and will require
considerably more effort to achieve (UN‐Water 2016b).
There are calls to revitalize the role of integrated water
resource management (IWRM) to implement SDGs,
while Target 6.5 stresses the implementation of IWRM at
all levels (Smith and Clausen 2018). While criticisms on
MDG 7.c regarding the need for IWRM are covered or
complemented by Target 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 (Weststrate, et al.
2019), it is hard to conclude if IWRM could be viewed as
a means to co‐achieve SDG6 targets or an end to assess
the effectiveness of implementation of the goal or both.
The objective of this chapter is to critically assess the
relevancy of pursuing an integrated approach for imple-
menting SDG6 and other water‐relevant targets. This
chapter argues that promoting a basin‐wide collaborative
mechanism could be an effective entry point not only for
sustainable water resource management but also for
generating synergistic outcomes across multiple targets
of SDGs. It takes an example of the Lower Mekong
Basin to examine the complexities, opportunities, and
potential way forwards for a river basin approach for
implementing SDG6 along with other water related tar-
gets of SDGs.
2.2. IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS
FOR SDGS
Even after five years since the adoption of SDGs in
2015, there are ambiguities on the implementation frame-
work from the angle of institutional setup, mobilization
of resources, ensuring participation, and for tracking
progress. The approaches adopted by countries are
diverse not only because of their local circumstances but
also due to the loose governance of SDGs adopted dur-
ing its foundation. Monitoring and accountability frame-
works for SDGs exist (Fonseca et al. in this publication;
Chapter 9), however, due to its non‐binding nature, there
is no strict compliance on the countries which can for-
mally submit voluntary national reviews (VNRs) to the
High Level Political Forum for follow‐up and review of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNDESA
2019). By the means of VNR, countries take stock of and
assess progress – and shortcomings – in implementation
of the goals and targets. In that regard, many national
governments have set up SDG implementation structures
and are taking steps to integrate SDGs into national
planning (Elder and King 2018). Some countries have
tasked their planning commission to coordinate and
track implementation SDGs, while in some cases a new
institutional setup for SDGs has been created. For over-
whelming countries, a pragmatic strategy is to main-
stream existing developmental programs and actions and
then juxtapose the outcomes with the relevant SDG tar-
gets. However, at worst, and contrary to the spirit of
integrated and indivisible SDGs, the countries may end
up selecting a few of the SDGs as priority goals that fit
current national agendas, ongoing data collection, and
resource constraints (Elder and King 2018). There is also
a growing tendency among the donors, development
partners, and international organizations to incorporate
contributions to SDGs while developing plans, programs,
and actions. Despite considerable hope and enthusiasm
raised by the SDGs, many governments and stakeholders
have little idea on how to proceed with concrete actions
(Elder and King 2018).
In the absence of clear guidance, self‐innovation is also
happening on several fronts including local government,
cities, private sector and business, youth group, etc. For in-
stance, the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBSCD) provides a platform for their
member companies to strategically integrate and
 A River Basin Approach for the Coordinated Implementation  23

contribute to a wide variety of SDGs. While, SDG Business
Hub captures and packages latest insight, developments
and emerging trends on the SDGs to support business in
navigating this dynamic agenda. Local bodies or regional
governments have adopted Voluntary Local Reporting
(VLR) for an assessment of their progress of SDGs imple-
mentation and subsequently fed into the VNR. At the sec-
toral or thematic level of each SDG or target, some
specialized UN agencies are involved as per their core
mandate such as UNHABITAT for SDG11, FAO for
SDG2, WHO for SDG3, and UN Water for SDG6.
SDG6 has the most positive interaction (indivisible,
reinforcing, enabling) with all SDGs (UNU/UNOSD,
2013). However, outcomes could be counteracting, in
particular, on ambient water quality (Target 6.3), water
availability (Target 6.4) and ecosystems (Target 6.6) if
care is not taken to reduce pollution, use water sustain-
ably and protect ecosystems during the implementation
of SDGs (UN‐Water 2016b). Besides, further analysis
will be necessary to understand and assess the complex
interactions among multiple SDGs. For instance, a nexus
approach helps to understand and balance the competing
sectors such as water, food, and energy. A study on the
interaction between SDG2 (food), SDG6 (water), and
energy (SDG7) has found that SDG 6 has the highest
synergies, 124 positive interactions, and SDG 2 has the
most negative interactions (Fader et al. 2018).
Developing an ability to utilize the strategic role of
water in the implementation of SDGs are sure to result in
multiple dividends while avoiding counteracting out-
comes (Shivakoti and Bengtsson 2015, UN‐Water 2016a).
However, an integrated approach is indispensable for the
co‐implementation of these targets not only due to syn-
ergies or trade‐offs on the outcomes but also from the
perspective of resources and finance. Enormousness of
the scope of all 17 SDGs means that resources will be in
high demand and challenging to secure for each SDG.
Sooner or later, an integrated framing will be obvious
choice to find an economically rational way to finance
water related SDGs, effective mobilization of resources,
and cross‐coordination.
2.3. INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR WATER
RELATED TARGETS OF SDGS
The concept of an integrated approach to water
resource management has been around for at least 60
years (Biswas 2008). It has been firmly on the interna-
tional policy agenda since the historic Mar del Plata UN
Wáter Conference in 1977 and subsequently under the
broader call for sustainable development in the First Rio
Summit in 1992 (Figure 2.1). Since the adoption of 2030
Agenda and SDGs, the relevancy of integrated approach
of water resources management has re‐surfaced strongly.
An integrated approach to implementing SDGs will
allow more cohesive monitoring (including coordination
between existing frameworks), maximize available
resources for implementation, and ensure that certain
goals are not achieved at the detriment of others
(Schuster‐Wallace and Sandford 2015).
IWRM is a conceptual framework meant to describe
the complexity of water decisions, including planning,
organising, and operating water systems, and to balance
views and interests of relevant stakeholders (Grigg 2008).
IWRM reflects a holistic attempt to co‐manage sub‐­
sectors (water supply, irrigation, storm water and flood
management, sanitation and water quality) and their
interaction with other cross‐cutting sectors (industry,
energy, agriculture, ecosystem, and bio‐diversity, etc.).
Despite its merits, the concept of IWRM, as well as the
vision of sustainable development, confront similar chal-
lenges in that they lack clear operational roadmaps
driving their implementation (Shivakoti and Bengtsson
2015). Implementation of IWRM is difficult because of
institutional barriers and confusion over the precise
meaning of the concept (Grigg 2008). So far, IWRM has
been successful in establishing its “brand” but there is a
tendency to regard awareness‐raising on the concept as
an end in itself rather than as a means to achieving
integrated management of water resources (Giordano
and Shah 2014). A recent assessment by found that the
vast majority, 80%, of countries have laid the foundations
for IWRM while their operationalization are yet to

1977 1992 2002 2012 2015

Mar del Plata Rio Earth Summit Johannesburg Plan Rio +20 The 2030 Agenda
UN Wáter Agenda 21, Ch.18 of Implementation The Future We Want and SDGs
Conference

Foundations laid Call for integrated Call to develop Reaffirmed SDG 6 (Target 6.5 to
for the principles of water resources national IWRM and commitments to implement IWRM
IWRM. development and water efficiency develop integrated by 2030)
management plans water resources
formalized. by 2005. management.

Figure 2.1 Key global agreements on IWRM. Source: Bertule, M., Glennie, P., Bjørnsen, P.K. et al. (2018).
24 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
accelerate (UN Environment 2018; Bertule et al. 2018). It
is unlikely that 60% of countries will meet the global
target on IWRM (6.5) unless progress significantly accel-
erates. There have been many efforts to promote IWRM
at international level, such as by Global Water Partnership
(GWP), International Network of Basin Organizations
(INBO), UN‐Water, or Network of Asian River Basin
Organizations (NARBO). Or regional level initiative such
as ASEAN Working Group on IWRM which, among
others, intends to promote networking and collaboration
for the implementation of IWRM1. Development banks
like Asian Development Bank and African Development
Banks have made IWRM the core of their water related
activities (Giordano and Shah 2014). Incorporation of
IWRM in the national water laws and policies by many
countries may be seen as an outcome of international
efforts to promote IWRM (UN Environment 2018).
The establishment of river basin organizations (RBOs)
at local, national, as well as transboundary (such as the
Mekong River Commission) can be viewed as a common
response to establish an institutional mechanism to
implement policies and laws related to IWRM. The
processes of implementing IWRM are diverse and
looking at the existing policy, legal and institutional
mechanisms, it is difficult to understand how the process
of IWRM implementation really works at different levels
and how various outcomes can be related to IWRM
processes (Giordano and Shah 2014). For instance, a
variety of council, public, and corporate models, and
examples of RBOs are now helping governments and
stakeholders across Asia to implement IWRM that is tai-
lored to their local conditions (Isnugroho and Nielsen
2014).
Despite the mixed experience in implementing IWRM,
the need for integrated approaches to water resource
management has become more pressing than ever since
the adoption of SDGs, including SDG6. The need for
integrated approaches is also reflected in discussions
around a number of other policy concepts such as climate
adaptation (Cap‐Net 2009, Mysiak, et al. 2010), the Fifth
Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC 2014), Green
Economy (GE) agenda (UNEP 2011). The concepts of
“virtual water” and “water footprints” highlight the
intense water use in global supply‐chains and the role
played by a growing trade in increasing water demand.
The nexus approach is yet another strand of thinking
that points towards the need for enhanced coordination
among key sectors, in particular water, food, energy, land
use, and climate (Hoff 2011, WEF 2011). The nexus
approach, when viewed from the “water angle”, is a way
to put the concept of integrated approaches into practice
by prioritising sectors that “will affect” and “will be
affected by” water issues more than others. The SDGs
provide an opportunity to try to operationalize integrated
approaches in the real world.
2.4. INTEGRATED RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
FOR SDG6 IMPLEMENTATION
IWRM and integrated river basin management (IRBM)
are concurring concepts and compatible with each other
as ultimately both concepts seeks to achieve sustainable
water resources management and water security in an
integrated manner. The basic difference is that IRBM
seeks to focus on implementing IWRM principles on the
basis of better coordination amongst operating and water
management entities within a river basin (NARBO 2009).
IRBM is rather specific to basin’s problems and sustain-
able priorities such as conservation or preservation of
aquatic ecosystem and prevent degradation of water
resources (quantity and quality). IWRM on the other
hand is rather broad and provides guiding principles for
managing water resources in general. So IRBM could be
understood as a meaningful step towards operationaliz-
ing IWRM. IRBM is IWRM at the basin scale which
captures an integrated and coordinated approach to the
planning and management of natural resources of a river
basin by considering a wide array of social and environ-
mental interconnections in a catchment/watershed con-
text (Hooper 2010). In addition to social, economic and
environmental sustainability, IRMB also aims to realize
common principles of IWRM such as integration (of
land and water), cross‐sector collaboration, and stake-
holder participation. Due to a high degree of similarity,
and on the grounds of simplicity, subsequent discussion
therefore treats IWRM and IRBM as same concepts.
Most countries in Asia have adopted national water
policies and legislation that advocate IWRM in river
basins (Isnugroho and Nielsen 2014). The river basins
approach has been used to setup legal and institutional
mechanism under various titles such as basin commis-
sions, catchment councils, public RBOs, and corporate
RBOs, among others (Isnugroho and Nielsen 2014; UN
Environment 2018). Implementation is evolving towards
collaboration between central and local governments,
businesses and civil society, activating water‐related ben-
efits to serve national and local needs. The councils (or
committee) is established to expand and support inter-
agency coordination, stakeholder collaboration, or
conflict resolution. Public RBOs are under integral part
of the government with strong legitimacy, while corpo-
rate RBOs enjoys their autonomy in decision making and
financial strength (Isnugroho and Nielsen 2014).
A fresh perspective to mobilize existing RBOs for the
implementation of SDGs, starting from water related tar-
gets, is needed. For that to happen we need to revisit on
the basics and search for most practical answers. It is true
that a river basin is an appropriate unit for the integration
to address multiple issues related to water such as down-
stream and upstream issues, quantity and quality, surface
water and groundwater, and land use and water resources
 A River Basin Approach for the Coordinated Implementation  25
in a practical manner. The essence of the river basin
approach is that a whole water cycle is taken into account.
This need to revisit river basin from water cycle perspec-
tive is quite relevant considering the comprehensiveness
of SDG6 and its interlinkages with multiple SDGs. In
fact, one of the important message of the “Yangon
Declaration: The Pathway Forward” is to “integrate rain-
water, rivers, groundwater, glaciers, oceans and ecosys-
tems, where relevant, into water cycle analysis and related
policies at the river basin level” (APWF 2017). However,
of particular concern include institutional capacity of the
RBOs at the local level where resources and actions tar-
geting SDGs will take place (UN Environment 2018).
How RBOs could hit refresh and align their water
management strategies along the opportunities offered
by SDGs is critical. This could be done by examining the
real case situation and thereby identify opportunities and
China (Yunnan)
LAO PDR
THAILAND
CAMBODIA
Figure 2.2 The Lower Mekong Basin boundaries shared by four countries (Cambodia, Myanmar, Lao PDR,
Thailand, and Vietnam). Source: Google LLC.
challenges for building a basin wide strategy for imple-
menting water related targets of SDGs.
An assessment on the relevancy of implementing SDGs
at the river basin level is yet to be found in terms of
opportunities and challenges. Following section, there-
fore examines relevancy and associated issues for a river
basin approach of implementing SDG6 by taking the
example of the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB).
2.5. READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTING WATER‐
RELATED SDGS: THE CASE OF THE LOWER
MEKONG BASIN (LMB)
The LMB is a transboundary river basin in Southeast
Asia shared by Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar,
Thailand, and Vietnam (Figure 2.2). Ranked as 12th lon-
gest river at about 4800 km and 8th in terms of mean
LMB area shared by
LAO PDR
THAILAND
VIETNAM
CAMBODIA
MYANMAR
Water bodies
VIETNAM
TSL
Mekong
River
Mekong Delta
26 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

annual discharge at about 475 km3, the Mekong River is
one of the world’s largest river systems (MRC, 2016a).
About 65 million people living in the LMB are heavily
dependent on the river for irrigation, fishing, hydropower,
transportation, and many other socio‐economic activ-
ities. The largest freshwater lake in Southeast Asia – the
Tonle Sap Lake (TSL) – is an integral part of the LMB.
The TSL is an important water resource for people and
aquatic ecosystem in the Cambodian floodplains.
The headwaters of the Mekong River, originating in
the Tibetan Plateau, is vital for maintaining flows
accounting 18% (China, 17%; Myanmar 1%) of annual
flow and 40% of the dry season flow in the mainstream
river. Tributaries flowing in Lao PDR are the largest con-
tributor of the annual flow accounting over 40%, while
remaining three countries contribute below 20% each.
Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam have jointly established
the Mekong River Commission (MRC) – an inter‐­
governmental organization – in 1995 by the signing of the
Mekong Agreement (MRC, 2016a). The MRC aims to
jointly manage the shared water resources and the sustain-
able development of the Mekong River. China and
Myanmar, the upstream countries, are dialogue partners
of the MRC. Since its establishment, MRC has emerged as
a regional hub on information sharing, providing advice,
and a platform for policy dialogue and engagement with
private sector and civil society to address sustainability
issues in areas such as fisheries, agriculture, navigation,
hydropower, disasters, ecosystems, and climate change
(floods, droughts, sea level rise). Along with the rapid pace
of development in the region, pressures on the LMB water
resources have also surged substantially such as upstream‐
downstream tensions caused by planned and ongoing
construction of a cascade of hydropower dams, competi-
tion for water withdrawal for irrigation and drinking water
supply, fishing, disaster (droughts and floods), climate
change (including sea level rise in the delta areas), and loss
of natural water‐related ecosystem (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Country specific issues related to water resource management in the LMB.
Issues Cambodia
Hydropower ‐ Changes in river flow
dam regime and TSL water
development level
in China, Lao ‐ Reduced sediment
PDR and deposition and nutrient
Cambodia flow
‐ Fish migration and
water ecosystem
Water ‐ Low flows in the river
withdrawal due to water abstraction
by Thailand and Lao PDR
Climate ‐ Changes in monsoon
Change, rainfall and river runoff
El Nino, (too high or below
disasters average flow condition
in wet season)
‐ Inundation floods and
limited flash floods
‐ Inadequate inundation
and sedimentation in
TSL and rice fields
‐ Prolonged drought
Economic ‐ Soil erosion and runoff
development of agro‐chemicals
and land use ‐ Pollution due to
changes discharge of wastewater,
pollutants and toxic
leaks during water
navigation
Impacts/ Results
Lao PDR Thailand Vietnam
‐ Revenue from the ‐ Import of electricity ‐ Change in river flow
hydropower (internal ‐ Water supply regime
use and export) and ‐ Dam operation to control
potential flood control flood and release water
‐ Water for irrigation to maintain minimum
flows (potential)
‐ Storm surge due to
reduced flow in dry
season
‐ Irrigation and drought ‐Irrigation and drought ‐ Low flow in river due to
mitigation mitigation water abstraction in the
upstream
‐ Changes in monsoon ‐ Changes in monsoon ‐ Changes in monsoon
rainfall and river runoff rainfall and river rainfall and river runoff
‐ Flash floods and some runoff ‐ Inundation floods
inundation types ‐Flash floods ‐ Prolonged drought
‐ Impact on irrigation ‐ Impact on irrigation ‐ Sea level rise and storm
and hydropower and hydropower surge during dry season
generation generation (imports)
‐ Prolonged drought ‐ Prolonged drought
‐ Soil erosion and runoff ‐ Soil erosion and ‐Soil erosion and runoff of
of agro‐chemicals runoff agro‐chemicals
‐ Pollution due to of agro‐chemicals ‐ Pollution due to
discharge of ‐ Pollution due to discharge of wastewater,
wastewater, from discharge of pollutants and toxic
mining and toxic leaks wastewater, pollutants leaks during water
during water navigation and toxic leaks during navigation
water navigation
 A River Basin Approach for the Coordinated Implementation  27
SDGs offer a fresh perspective to priorities and could
address water resource management issues in a systematic
manner in the LMB. Since each country has been
impacted disproportionately by changes in the LMB,
SDGs could be a useful framework for these countries to
manage trade‐offs choices while reinforcing a spirit of
cooperation that was built over the past 20 years through
the Mekong Agreement and MRC. To be sustainable,
SDGs should not be pursued in a way that achieving
goals in one riparian country would incur high trade‐offs
in other countries.
Table 2.2 summarizes the most recent state of SDG 6
implementation in the LMB countries. Drinking water
and sanitation are two major targets for which all coun-
tries have achieved a remarkable progress in terms of
improving access, financing, and monitoring. In the LMB
countries, over 75% of the population now have access to
improved drinking water, and over 70% in case of access
to improved sanitation (except in Cambodia where it is
slightly over 42%). Apart from WASH related targets,
state of other targets (including on hygiene) have not
been frequently updated mainly due to lack of recent
data or state of the progress is limited. For instance, water
stress was not really high for most of the country (<14%)
but the reference data is over a decade old. Although the
LMB countries have fairly higher per capacity water
availability (3303 m3/person to 27992 m3/person in 2014)
when compared to just over 1100 m3/person in India, per
capita water availability has been subsided by 2–19% bet-
ween 2002 and 2014 (ADB, 2017). On the other hand,
water productivity (used as a proxy of water use efficiency
in this paper) is quite low (<7 US$/m3) when compared
to global average of over 18 US$/m3 in 2014. Less than
5% of generated wastewater are treated in case of
Vietnam, Lao PDR, and Cambodia while in Thailand the
treatment ratio is around 20% (WEPA, 2015). There has
been a rapid loss of original natural wetlands although
data are limited to verify the most current state (MRC,
2016a). In case of pollution control, there are standards
for ambient water quality but state of water quality are
not readily accessible except for some sites monitored on
monthly basis by MRC and published annually. In case
of IWRM implementation, it is well integrated in both
national policies as well as in MRC basin management
plans. Transboundary cooperation exists through MRC
as well as bilaterally, such as hydropower generation bet-
ween Lao PDR and Thailand. Community participation
is often promoted as a part of specific projects or
programs.
An assessment by Asian Development Bank (ADB)
finds that score of National Water Security Index (0–100)
of all four countries ranges between 37.5 and 54, which
means these countries are engaged in improving water
security and shown modest improvement when compared
to hazardous state of water security (i.e. score below 36)
(ADB, 2016). This leaves a wide challenge space for these
countries to improve water resources management while
implementing SDG6.
Observations in Table 2.2 on the status of SDG 6
reveals that all four countries seriously lack adequate
data required for monitoring the progress. Except for
WASH, most of the shown data are not from recent dates
and thus do not reflect current situation. The situation is
also reflected in the VNR submitted by four LMB coun-
tries to UN’s High‐Level Political Forum on Sustainable
Development2. In fact, Asian countries in general do not
have existing data collection systems for Goal6 targets
especially those related to water quality, efficiency of use,
water resource management, and protection and restora-
tion of water‐related ecosystems (ADB, 2017).
Each country in the LMB is in early preparatory stage
of mainstreaming SDGs into the national policy.
Although UN has agreed on official indicators, they are
not necessarily readily monitored and countries will have
to innovate nationally appropriate approaches to mon-
itor the progress of each target. In this sub‐region, coun-
tries have adopted an approach of localizing SDGs in line
with national circumstances and developmental prior-
ities. Vietnam has adopted Vietnam SDGs (VSDGs) in
its draft action plan for 2030 Agenda, while Thailand is
proposing the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP) for
the implementation of SDGs. Cambodia Sustainable
Development Goals (CSDGs) are the nationalized frame-
work to localize Global SDGs into Cambodia’s context.
Similarly, Lao PDR also stresses on localising SDGs
from the early stage of implementation. For instance,
both Cambodia and Lao PDR has introduced additional
SDG 18 on addressing negative impacts from unexploded
ordnance (UXO), explosive remnants of war (ERW) or
landmines.
In the case of MRC, SDGs are not explicitly reflected
in IWRM‐Based Basin Development Strategy 2016–
2020 or Strategic Plan 2016–2020 (MRC, 2016a, MRC,
2016b). However, MRCs mandate, procedures and pro-
grammes already addresses multiple SDGs, and SDG6
in particular. The MRC Strategic Plan 2016–2020 has
identified four basin wide result areas (basin wide per-
spectives, regional cooperation, better monitoring, and
efficient organizations) that directly complement Targets
6.5 and overall monitoring of SDG6. Similarly, MRC
has approved a set of procedures (and guidelines) on
data and information exchange and sharing, water use
monitoring, maintenance of flow in the mainstream,
notification, prior consultation and agreement for water
utilization and inter‐basin diversions, and water quality
(MRC, 2011). Further, MRC Indicator Framework, con-
sisting of 15 Strategic Indicators across 5 dimensions,
provides a direction on monitoring and evaluation of
Table 2.2 The most recent state of SDG6 in the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) countries.
Lower Mekong Basin Countries
Data
Issues SDG 6 Targets Indicator and units !
Cambodia Lao PDR Thailand Vietnam Source
USE Access to improved drinking water % population 75.54 (2015) 75.66 97.81 97.61 SD, 2017
sources (6.1) (2015) (2015) (2015)
Access to improved sanitation % population 42.43 (2015) 70.89 92.97 77.99 SD, 2017
facilities (6.2) (2015) (2015) (2015)
Hygiene (6.2) Diarrhea DALYs per 35 (2012) 83.9 2.9 (2012) 9.5 (2012) WHO,
100,000 people (2012) 2017
Water use efficiency (6.4) US$/m3 withdrawal1 7 (2014) 3 (2014) 7 (2014) 2 (2014) ADB,
2017
Water Stress (6.4) % withdrawal from the total 0.5 (2006) 1 (2005) 13.1 (2007) 9.3 (2005) ADB,
available 2017
MANAGEMENT IWRM implementation (6.5) Yes3 Yes3 Yes3 Yes3
Transboundary cooperation (6.5) % transboundary basin under 100% 100% 100% 100% MRC,
water cooperation2 1995
International cooperation and Annual WASH expenditure, 180 (98%) 90 (61%) 1406 (total, 1690 (18%) WHO,
capacity building support (6.a) million US$ (% external (2016) (2015) 2016) (2015) 2017
contribution) (year)
Community participation (6.b) Yes4 Yes4 Yes4 Yes4
ENVIRONMENT Wastewater treatment (6.3) Treated wastewater (% sewerage <5 (2015) <5 (2015) ~20 (2015) <5 (2015) WEPA,
treatment coverage) 2015
Pollution control (6.3) # of ambient water quality (WQ) 9 30 8 36 WEPA,
standards monitored 2015
Water‐related ecosystem (WRE) % of lost original natural wetland 45 (2003) 30 (2003) 96 (2003) 99 (2003) MRC,
(6.6) areas 2016a

Notes: !: Not necessarily corresponds exactly to official indicators of SDG6; 1: Water productivity used as proxy indicator and does not correspond to proposed
indicator for the Target 6.4; 2: Only considers the MRB; 3: IWRM is integrated in national water/river basin policy as well as MRC Basin Action Plan; 4: Community
participation are common but not necessarily mandatory or effectively implemented
 A River Basin Approach for the Coordinated Implementation  29
changes on MRC by adopting a consistent and stream-
lined approach of data collection (MRC, 2019). The MRC
Indicator Framework, already incorporated into Basin
Development Strategy and Strategic Plan, is also aligned
with key water‐related aspects of SDGs such as water secu-
rity, water‐related health security, ecological health, and
compliance of water quality or benefits derived from coop-
eration to total economic value of all LMB water‐related
sectors. Although it is still early to figure out a detail
strategy on SDGs, the LMB could be a model case, with
obvious role of MRC, for implementing SDGs, SDG6 in
particular, by following a basin‐wide approach. MRC is
one of the few international organizations that is governed
by a specific set of rules developed to coordinate technical
cooperation among its members centred on water related
issues. Important question however is how and in what
areas MRC role should be strengthened?
Foremost condition for that could be a close collabora-
tion among agencies, such as planning bodies, in four
countries dealing with SDGs. In fact, the VNR submitted
by all four countries highlights on the strengthening
cooperation on water resources through MRC for imple-
menting water related SDGs (RTG, 2017; GoLaoPDR,
2018; SRV, 2018; KOC, 2019). In fact, Cambodia’s VNR
credit MRC for the improvement in surface water quality
(KOC, 2019). So MRC as a common platform could be
further capitalized to explore where collaboration brings
higher synergies. As opposed to embracing multiple
reforms at once, MRC can adopt a pragmatic approach
of mainstreaming SDG planning in a step‐wise manner
and transform itself as a change agent to support imple-
mentation of water related targets in an integrated
manner. This could be initiated in those low hanging
areas where progresses are already in good shape (such as
WASH targets, water related disasters) but need extra
effort not only to retain momentum but also accelerate
improvements such as improving WASH in rural areas.
Another entry point could be collaboration on moni-
toring and evaluation such as enhanced partnership on
implementing MRC Indicator Framework which already
complement most of SDGs water related indicators.
Considering the existence of policy framework and
needed institutional setup prioritising IWRM or IRBM
in each country, SDGs could act as a leverage for upscal-
ing implementation. MRC could set up a mechanism for
countries to share their progress on water related SDGs
(as relevant along with other SDGs) before submitting to
UN. Obviously it helps countries to identify areas for
transboundary cooperation (as relevant to Target 6.5),
but more importantly MRC then could fill the information
gaps relating to the LMB that are difficult to assimilate
or need a collective response. After establishing a
collaborative mechanism on SDGs, the MRC could facil-
itate to address those issues incurring high trade‐offs such
as climate change, protection of aquatic ecosystem or
more thorny ones on water sharing and construction of
upstream dams. Solving these issues by building path for
collaboration could be a unique advantage MRC has at
this moment to show to the whole world. Given the global
scope of SDGs the implication of success cases will be
very valuable. So the readiness and first mover advantage
that MRC possess could be best utilized to turn chal-
lenges into opportunities for the implementation of water
related SDGs in an integrated manner.
2.6. SUMMARY AND WAYS FORWARD
SDGs offer a new opportunity to operationalize
integrated approaches of water resources management.
The framing of SDGs and complex interlinkages also
support an integrated framing to capitalize on synergies
while avoiding negative interactions during the imple-
mentation. This chapter examined the relevancy of
integrated approaches for co‐implementing water‐related
SDG targets by highlighting the process of SDG forma-
tions and its governance, the nature of interlinkages with
water and highlighting a need for an integrated approach.
This chapter elaborates how an integrated river basin
approach can offer a practical way to operationalize
integrated approach of water‐related SDGs implementa-
tion by describing an example of the Lower Mekong
Basin. The key recommendation from the chapter is that
a river basin approach could provide a leverage for accel-
erating implementation of SDGs and a river basin
strategy for SDGs implementation is highly desirable to
address the emerging water resources management chal-
lenges. However, concerted efforts and policy changes
will be necessary to reorient the focus on river basin
approach (including transboundary basins) as a unit for
SDGs implementation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
JSPS Kaken-hi project (Grant Number “16H02748”)
and SATREPS Project (Establishment of Environmental
Conservation Platform of Tonle Sap Lake) for financial
support and stakeholders/officials/researcher in Lao
PDR, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and MRC who
provided information and resources for the research.
NOTES
1 https://aseaniwrm.water.gov.my/about‐us/
2 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates
30 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
REFERENCES
ADB. (2016). Asian Water Development Outlook 2016. Asian
Development Bank (ADB), Manila
ADB. (2017). Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2016. Asian
Development Bank (ADB), Manila, the Phillipines.
APWF. 2017. “Yangon Declaration: The Pathway Forward.”
Yangon, Myanmar. http://apwf.org/apwf_wp/wp‐content/
uploads/2017/12/Yangon‐Declaration.pdf.
Bertule, M., Glennie, P., Bjørnsen, P.K. et al. (2018). “Moni-
toring Water Resources Governance Progress Globally: Expe-
riences from Monitoring SDG Indicator 6.5.1 on Integrated
Water Resources Management Implementation.” Water 10
(12): 1744. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10121744.
Biswas, A. K. (2008). “Integrated Water Resources
Management: Is It Working?” International Journal of
Water Resources Development 24 (1): 5–22. doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/02508060408691775.Cap‐Net. 2009. IWRM as
a Tool for Adaptation to Climate Change. Training Manual
and Facilitator’s Guide, Cap‐Net/UNESCO‐IHE.
Elder, M. and King, P. eds. (2018). Realising the Transformative
Potential of the SDGs. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES).
Fader, M., Cranmer, C., Lawford, R., and Engel‐Cox. J. (2018).
“Toward an Understanding of Synergies and Trade‐Offs Bet-
ween Water, Energy, and Food SDG Targets.” Frontiers in
Environmental Science 6 (November). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fenvs.2018.00112.
Giordano, M. and Shah. T. (2014). “From IWRM Back to
Integrated Water Resources Management.” International
Journal of Water Resources Development 30 (3): 364–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2013.851521.
GoLaoPDR. (2018). Lao People’s Democratic Republic:
Voluntary National Review on the Implementation of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Government
of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (GoLaoPDR),
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
19385Lao_Final_VNR_19_June_2018_web.pdf
Grigg, N.S. (2008). “Integrated water resources management:
balancing views and improving practice.” Water International
33 (3): 279–292.
Hoff, H. (2011). “Understanding the Nexus: Background paper
for the Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference.” The Water, Energy
and Food Security Nexus, 16 – 18 November 2011. Bonn:
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI).
Hooper, B. (2010). “River Basin Organization Performance
Indicators: Application to the Delaware River Basin
Commission.” Water Policy 12 (4): 461–78. https://doi.
org/10.2166/wp.2010.111.
ICSU. (2017). A Guide to SDG Interactions: from Science to
Implementation. Edited by D.J. Griggs, M. Nilsson and A.
Stevance. Paris: International Council for Science (ICSU).
doi:10.24948/2017.01.
IPCC. (2014). “Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.” In Cli-
mate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.,
edited by V.R. Barros, C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mas-
trandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, et al., 1132.
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(WGIIAR5:IPCC), Cambridge University Press.
Isnugroho, and Nielsen, T.K. (2014). Functional Frame-
works for River Basin Governance. Jawa Tengah Indonesia:
Research Center for Water Resources‐Indonesia, Center for
River Basin Organizations and Management (CRBOM), and
Network of Asian River Basin Organization (NARBO).
KOC. (2019). Cambodia’s Voluntary National Review 2019 of
the Implementation of 2030 Agenda. Kingdom of Cambo-
dia (KOC), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/23603Cambodia_VNR_SDPM_Approved.pdf
MRC. (2011). 1995 Mekong Agreement and Procedures. The
Mekong River Comission (MRC), Vientiane, Lao PDR.
MRC. (2016a). IWRM‐based Basin Development Strategy
2016–2020 for the Lower Mekong Basin. The Mekong River
Comission (MRC), Vientiane, Lao PDR
MRC. (2016b). Strategic Plan 2016–2020. The Mekong River
Comission (MRC), Vientiane, Lao PDR
MRC. (2019). Mekong River Basin Indicator Framework. The
Mekong River Comission (MRC), Vientiane, Lao PDR
Mysiak, J., Henrikson, H.J.,Sullivan, C. et al. (Eds.). (2010). The
adaptive water resource management handbook. London, UK:
Earthscan.
NARBO. (2009). “IWRM Guidelines at River Basin Level – Part
1: Principles.” http://www.narbo.jp/index.htm.
RTG. (2017). Thailand’s Voluntary National Review on the Imple-
mentation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Royal Thai Government (RTG), https://sustainable
development.un.org/content/documents/16147Thailand.pdf
SD. (2017, 15 June). SDG Indicators Global Database.
Retrieved from UN Statistics Division: https://unstats.un.org/
sdgs/indicators/database
Schuster‐Wallace, C. J. and Sandford, R. (2015). Water in the
World We Want: Catalysing National Water‐Related Sustain-
able Development. Ontario, Canada: United Nations Univer-
sity Institute for Water, Environment and Health and and
United Nations Office for Sustainable Development.
Shivakoti, B.R. and Bengtsson, M. (2015). Placing water at the core
of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): why an integrated
perspective is needed. IGES Policy Brief No.31, Hayama, Japan:
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
Smith, M. and Clausen, T.J. (2018). Revitalising IWRM for
the 2030 Agenda.: World Water Council Challenge Paper for
the High‐Level Panel on IWRM at the Eighth World Water
Forum, Brasilia: World Water Council.
SRV. (2018). Viet Nam’s Voluntary National Review on the Imple-
mentation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (SRV), https://sustainabledevelopment.
un.org/content/documents/19967VNR_of_Viet_Nam.
pdUNDESA. 2019. “Handbook for the Preparation of
Voluntary National Reviews by High‐Level Political Forum
(HLPF) on Sustainable Development.”
UN Environment. (2018). “Progress on Integrated Water
Resources Management. Global Baseline for SDG 6 Indicator
6.5.1: Degree of IWRM Implementation.”
UNEP. (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environ-
mental impacts from economic growth. A Report of the
Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource
Panel, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
 A River Basin Approach for the Coordinated Implementation  31
UNU/UNOSD. (2013). Water for Sustainability: Framing
Water within the Post‐2015 Development Agenda. Hamilton:
United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment
and Health (UNU), UN Office of Sustainable Development
(UNOSD), Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI).
UN‐Water. (2016a). Water and Sanitation Interlinkages across
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva.
UN‐Water. (2016). Integrated Monitorign Guide for SDG 6
Targets and global Indicators. UN‐Water.
UN‐Water. (2019). Water Facts. Accessed September 2019.
https://www.unwater.org/water‐facts/.
WEF. (2011). Water Security: The Water‐Food‐Energy‐Climate
Nexus World Economic Forum Water Initiative. Washington:
The World Economic Forum (WEF), Island Press.
WEPA. (2015). WEPA Outlook on Water Environment
Management in Asia 2015. Ministry of the Environment
Japan (MOEJ) and Institute for Global Environmental Strat-
egies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.
Weststrate, J., Dijkstra, G., Eshuis, J. et al. (2019). “The Sustainable
Development Goal on Water and Sanitation: Learning from the
Millennium Development Goals.” Social Indicators Research
143 (2): 795–810. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205‐018‐1965‐5
 3
Water‐Energy Nexus in Bio‐Based Systems
Seyed Hashem Mousavi‐Avval1, Asmita Khanal1, Juliana Vasco‐Correa1, Luis Huezo1, and Ajay Shah1*

ABSTRACT

Bio‐based systems, namely those producing fuels and non‐food products from biomass, could affect the path
towards achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A nexus approach is needed to
evaluate the sustainability of bio‐based systems in terms of supply and use of energy and water. Evaluation of
water and energy interconnections in the bio‐based systems by a nexus approach helps improve water and energy
security by integrated management of the resources use, while transitioning to a greener economy. This chapter
focuses on water and energy supply and use in bio‐based systems and discusses the interconnection between
water and energy, exhibited in the water‐energy nexus. Then, the metrics and decision‐making tools to evaluate
the sustainability of water and energy in bio‐based systems are explained. Finally, the challenges and opportu-
nities in the sustainable development of energy and water supply and use in bio‐based systems are discussed.

3.1. INTRODUCTION 3.1.1. Bio‐Based Systems for Achieving the Sustainable

Bio‐based products and fuels are produced from
renewable biomass sources such as conventional food
crops and dedicated energy crops, forestry products, and
organic residues (Langeveld et al., 2010). Bio‐based sys-
tems refer to those producing non‐food bio‐products and
biofuels, and they consist of the biomass production and
conversion processes. Bio‐products include a wide variety
of products from those with low value and high volume,
such as glycerin and lactic acid, to those with high value
and low volume, such as those used in food or pharma-
ceuticals industries (Langeveld et al., 2010). Biofuels
include gas, liquid, or solid fuel types produced directly
or indirectly from biomass. The bio‐based systems in this
book chapter refer to those which are used to produce
agricultural crop‐based biofuels.
1
Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, USA
*Corresponding author
Development Goals
One of the challenges of the twenty‐first century and
beyond is the development of secure and sustainable
sources of energy, and supply of clean water and food
for the exponentially growing world population (Waskom
et al., 2014). World primary energy consumption in 2015
was estimated as ~13.7 Billion Tons of Oil Equivalent
(IEA, 2018). In addition, the world water use in the
same year was estimated as ~ 4 trillion m3 (IGBP, 2015).
Population growth creates shortage in energy, water and
food supply. By 2050, compared to 2015, 80% more
energy and 55% more water will be required to meet the
increasing population demand (Waskom et al., 2014).
The countries are responsible to facilitate the effective
implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), set by the United Nations General Assembly
(UNCTAD, 2014). Among the SDGs, those related to the
conservation of the natural resources and environment
are of high importance for reducing the risks of natural

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

33
34 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
CO2
(uptake)
Plant
cultivation
CO2
(emission)
Use Harvest CO2
(emission)
CO2 Conversion Preprocessing CO2
(emission) (emission)
Figure 3.1 Carbon cycle of biofuels.
disasters and ensuring the resource security for future
generations. Bio‐based systems play an important role in
achieving the SDGs by: (i) sustainable management of
water resources (SDG 6), (ii) sustainable development of
energy resources (SDG 7), (iii) adopting the sustainable
production and consumption concept (SDG 12), and (iv)
developing the renewable energy sources for tackling cli-
mate change (SDG 13).
Substituting petroleum‐based fuels with biofuels allows
the conservation of natural resources and mitigates
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing the envi-
ronmental burdens associated with petroleum‐based fuels,
thus contributing to the attainment of the SDGs. The
supply of biofuels mitigates the environmental impacts
due to the use of fossil fuels, because of carbon dioxide
uptake by plants during the growing phase (Figure 3.1).
3.1.2. Interconnection of Water and Energy
in Bio‐Based Systems
Water and energy are two necessary resources for
human life. Energy production from bio‐based systems
can reduce the environmental impacts and increase the
energy security of the nations by reducing the reliance
on fossil fuels. Water being a scarce source is important
in biobased systems. Thus, bio‐based systems can con-
tribute help achieve the global climate change mitigation
goals, but this needs valuable resources such as water and
energy in the process. Some of the other key concerns
associated with the development of bio‐based systems
include food security because of the use of food crops
for energy supply, risks of increased emissions during
biomass production and processing, and reduction in
biodiversity due to land use change by expansion of bio-
energy crops. External factors such as lack of economic
competitiveness of biofuels with petroleum‐based fuels
is also restricting the expansion of bio‐based systems
for energy purposes. Development of bio‐based systems
that advance the SDGs requires policies and measures
to ensure sustainability of the systems (IRENA, 2019),
including a rational use of energy and water throughout
the entire cycle.
3.1.3. Overview of the Chapter
The goal of this chapter is to exhibit the interactions of
water and energy in the development of bio‐based systems
as a mean for achieving the SDGs. Accordingly, energy
use and supply in bio‐based systems are explained, and
water supply for bio‐based energy production as well as
the role of bio‐based energy in water supply are discussed.
Then, the water‐energy nexus in bio‐based systems is pre-
sented, and finally the tools and metrics for quantifying
the sustainability of water‐energy nexus are explained.
3.2. WATER SUPPLY AND USE IN BIO‐BASED
SYSTEMS
3.2.1. Water Availability
More than two thirds of the earth’s surface is covered
with water (USGS, 2016). However, ~97.5% of that is salt-
water which cannot be used for industrial, agricultural,
or residential purposes. Of the remaining freshwater,
~1.75% is frozen in glaciers, and the rest is available as
ground water (~0.68%) and freshwater in lakes and
rivers (0.07%) (USGS, 2016). Freshwater is used for res-
idential purposes (11%), industries (19%), and agricul-
ture (70%) (FAO, 2016). Water is essential in all sectors,
and bio‐based systems utilize large quantities of water,
increasing the pressure on this already scarce resource.
Water in bio‐based systems is not the most expensive
input; however, unlike other resources, it has no substi-
tutes. Water is required at different stages in bio‐based
systems, from irrigation during biomass production up to
recovery of the final products after biomass processing.
However, water consumed during biomass production
and processing have different intensities of water use.
Water used for irrigation during biomass production is
consumed in the process, which means no wastewater is
generated. However, some of the water used during the
processing may be reused by wastewater treatment and
purification processes. Steam used in the process can also
be reused after being condensed to water.
3.2.2. Water Use in Biomass Production
Water required to produce fossil fuel is low (1 m3/
GJ), compared to the large quantities of water needed
to produce biofuels (24 ‐ 146 m3/GJ) (Gerbens‐Leenes
et al., 2008). In biofuel production process, biomass
production uses large quantities of freshwater. In areas
with enough rainfall, crops are mainly rainfed; however,
 WATER‐ENERGY NEXUS IN BIO‐BASED SYSTEMS 35

irrigation supplements the insufficient supply of water
due to low rainfall in dry regions. Irrigation is required at
different stages of plant growth, and lack of water at the
key growth stages can significantly affect the crop yield.
Crop water demand depends on the evapotranspiration
(ET) rate, which is the process of evaporation of water from
the soil and transpiration from plants (Schwalbe, 2017).
ET is affected by the environmental conditions, such as
precipitation, soil moisture, temperature, tillage practices,
crop rotation practices, cover crops, types of fertilizers
used, and irrigation scheduling. Only ~5% of the water
received by the plant is utilized to perform biochemical
reactions, transport nutrients, and maintain turgidity,
and the remaining is lost through ET (Langeveld and van
de Ven, 2010). Of the total water received by the plant,
0.2% to 0.4% actually contribute to the plant dry matter
(Condon et al., 2004). For the purpose of sustainable
development of bioenergy systems, development of bio-
energy crops with low ET is more desirable. ET and water
footprint of some crops, including starch, lignocellulosic,
and oil containing crops, which can be used for bioenergy
purposes, are presented in Table 3.1.
Bioethanol is the main biofuel produced worldwide.
The two largest crops for ethanol production are corn
in the US and sugarcane in Brazil. Most of the US
corn is produced under rainfed conditions; however,
in areas where it is irrigated, water is mainly supplied
from groundwater sources, such as the Ogallala Aquifer
which supplies irrigation water for ~45 million ha of land
in eight states of the US (Maupin and Barber, 2005).
Sugarcane is a perennial crop, with high concentration
of sugar juices, which is mostly produced under rain-
fed conditions (Moreira, 2007). Irrigation is becoming
necessary as sugarcane production is expanding to
arid areas (Goldemberg et al., 2008). Irrigation needed
for most of the crops grown for food, except corn, is
higher than that for dedicated energy crops, such as
switchgrass, miscanthus, willow, poplar, and eucalyptus
(Fraiture and Berndes, 2009). Corn production in the
US needs low quantities of water, because it is grown in
areas with enough rainfall (Le et al., 2011; VanLoocke
et al., 2012; Wu and Liu, 2012). Other types of biomass
used for energy production, such as sewage sludge and
manure, have little to no water requirements in the pro-
duction phase. Sewage sludge and manure can be used
as by‐product of the systems for bioenergy generation
purposes without additional water requirement for the
production phase. Algae production systems need a large
quantity of water, however, in a closed system where most
of the water is recycled, the water footprint is between
1.4 – 5.8 m3/kg of dry algal biomass produced (Martins
et al., 2018).
3.2.3. Water Use in Biomass Conversion to Biofuels
Biomass processing uses water for buffers and media
preparation, pretreatment, cleaning, heating, waste heat
recovery, cooling, as well as the reactant and fluidizing
agent. Processing phase in bioethanol industry uses water
mainly for cooling purpose (Phillips et al., 2007). While
water use in processing phase may be recycled, there are
water losses primarily due to evaporation from cooling
towers and utility systems (Phillips et al., 2007). In the
US, 1 L of ethanol production from corn grain requires
~3 L of water (University of Illinois Extension, 2009).
Table 3.2 summarizes the water footprint of biofuels
from different feedstocks. Ethanol production from
sugarcane in Brazil requires large amount of water for

Table 3.1 Evapotranspiration and water footprint of some crops for energy purposes.
ET Water footprint
Feedstock m3/GJ feedstock* m3/kg feedstock* Reference
Sugarcane 18–124 0.12–0.59 Berndes, 2002; Fraiture and Berndes, 2009
Sugar beet 48–151 0.11–1.11 Berndes, 2002; Fraiture and Berndes, 2009
Corn 37–190 0.48–1.43 Berndes, 2002; Fraiture and Berndes, 2009; Postel, 1998
Wheat 21–199 0.28–1.67 Berndes, 2002; Fraiture and Berndes, 2009; Postel, 1998
Sweet sorghum 0.18 Bennett and Anex, 2008
Grain sorghum 2.67 Critchley et al., 1991
Cassava 0.55 Liu et al., 2007
Sweet potato 0.23 Liu et al., 2007
Rapeseed 46–81 0.83–2.2 Berndes, 2002
Oil palm 3.2 Berndes, 2002
Soybean 1.43–2.5 Postel, 1998
Canola 1.8 Bauder, 2019
Lignocellulosic crops 7–68 0.11–1 Berndes, 2002; Robins et al., 2009
*
ET and water footprint for the production of some agricultural crops, including starch, lignocellulosic, and oil containing
crops.
36 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

washing, condensing the vapor, and cooling the fermen- Table 3.2 Water footprint of biofuels from different
tation broth (Stone et al., 2013). feedstocks.
Most of the biorefineries are located in the same regions Water footprint
of biomass production, which reduces the transporta- Fuel Feedstock (m3/GJ energy)* Reference
tion and logistics costs; however, the large quantities of
Bioethanol Sugarcane 20–63 Postel, 1998
water demand by the biorefineries exert pressure on the
Sugar beet 96 Yang
limited water resources. For example, corn ethanol bio- et al., 2009
refineries in the US are mainly located in the Midwest, Corn 87–90 Postel, 1998
where there is already a pressing need for water in bio- Sweet 31 Berndes, 2002
mass production, food production, and processing sys- sorghum
tems (Phillips et al., 2007). Water use in the corn ethanol Grain 319 Critchley
industry in the US is taken from the local aquifer (Phillips sorghum et al., 1991
et al., 2007). Due to the concerns over water use in bio- Cassava 113 Yang
processing, there is an interest in using improved systems et al., 2009
to avoid evaporation and leaks (Stone et al., 2013). One Sweet 78 Yang
potato et al., 2009
solution is use of “zero discharge” system that recycles
Switchgrass 67 Robins
water in the ethanol industry and avoids the discharge
et al., 2009
(Phillips et al., 2007). Cooling systems is a main water Biodiesel Rapeseed 165 Yang
consumer in ethanol biorefineries (Phillips et al., 2007). et al., 2009
Air cooling can be implemented to replace the cooling Palm 444 Yang
water. Biodiesel production industry also requires large et al., 2009
amount of water, ranging from 119 m3/GJ for biodiesel Soybean 237 Critchley
production from canola, to 444 m3/GJ for biodiesel pro- et al., 1991
duction from palm (Table 3.2). Different conversion Canola 119 Bauder, 2019;
phases of corn to ethanol and soybean to biodiesel are *
Data shows the water footprint for production of biomass
presented in Figure 3.2.
and conversion to fuels.

Ethanol production Biodiesel production

Corn Soybean
Water Water
production production

Grinding
Water Oil extraction Meal
Water
Steam Hydrolysis
Oil

Cooling water Steam Transesterification

Cooling

Cooling water Fermentation

Ethanol Water Washing
Chilled water Distillation
Stillage Purified ethanol

Thin Centrifuge Molecular sieving

stillage Biodiesel Glycerin
Syrup Ethanol
Condenser Drying

Condensate Distiller's grain

Figure 3.2 Water use in ethanol production from corn, and biodiesel production from soybean.

3.2.4. Existing and Emerging Methods for Water
Conservation
Feedstock production consumes the largest amount
of freshwater in bio‐based systems, and hence efforts
should be concentrated on minimizing water use in
agricultural production systems. Water‐efficient and
targeted irrigation systems are possible solutions to min-
imizing freshwater use in feedstock production (Levidow
et al., 2014). Recent advancements in irrigation technol-
ogies provide various water saving irrigation options to
the farmers over the conventional irrigation methods.
Water application efficiency of a conventional furrow irri-
gation system is around 35–60%, while sprinkle and drip
irrigation systems have higher application efficiencies of
60–70% and 80–98%, respectively (Evans, 2019). These
techniques minimize water losses through evaporation,
surface run‐off and percolation; and hence, they max-
imize the water application efficiency. In addition, irri-
gation management practices should be directed to
maximization of water use efficiency through proper irri-
gation timing, supply of appropriate amount of water,
and minimization of water losses through evaporation
and percolation. For example, corn requires the largest
amount of water during the tasseling, silking, and dent
forming stages compared to the other stages (Kranz
et al., 2008). Therefore, it is important to recognize the
required quantity of water during different stages of the
crop growth, to maximize the water use efficiency.
Natural solutions for water conservation are also effec-
tive; they include wetland creation and rainwater har-
vesting in the wetlands, which supply water for irrigation
during the dry season. Genetic modification of crops
toward development of more drought tolerant varieties
also helps water conservation. Application of compost and
mulch, planting cover crops, and using conservation tillage
practices are other pathways to reduce the water use in agri-
culture production phase. They improve the water retention
quality of the soil and reduce the evaporation during the
plant growth (Texas Water Development Board, 2019).
Water use efficiency can be improved in bio‐based
industries by using water recycling and reuse systems. For
example, dilution of the feedstock, cooling, and steam
generation were found to be the most water intensive
processes in a distillery in India (Saha et al., 2005). Water
savings were achieved by using treated wastewater instead
of freshwater to replace the cooling water evaporation
losses (Saha et al., 2005). Total water use for corn eth-
anol production in the US is 45 billion gallons per year.
Water use in ethanol production industries in the US is
minimized by recycling the cooling water rather than dis-
charging it, using reclaimed water from the wastewater
treatment plants, and using reverse osmosis to reuse the
wastewater from the ethanol plants (Jessen, 2012).
WATER‐ENERGY NEXUS IN BIO‐BASED SYSTEMS 37
3.3. ENERGY IN BIO‐BASED SYSTEMS
3.3.1. Energy Use and Supply
Bio‐based systems are both energy users and energy
suppliers in the form of bioenergy. Energy supplied from
bio‐based systems includes the calorific value of agri-
cultural products, which can be converted to biogas,
liquid biofuels, or solid energy materials, and finally to
electricity. The life cycle of energy in bio‐based systems
can be divided into three phases: background phase,
agricultural crop production phase, and industrial phase.
The background phase includes extraction and trans-
portation of raw materials, production of agricultural
supplies, such as fuel, machinery, fertilizers, pesticides,
seed, as well as transportation of supplies to the local
markets and farms. The agricultural crop production
phase includes all the field operations, such as tillage,
planting, fertilizer and pesticides application, harvest
and post‐harvest logistics. Inputs for the agricultural
crop production phase include seeds, chemical fertilizers,
pesticides (including herbicides, fungicides and insecti-
cides), fuel, lubricants, electricity, manure, water for irri-
gation, labor, and machinery. Farm operations require
farm machines and equipment, such as tractors, culti-
vators, fertilizer spreaders, pesticide sprayers, harvesters,
irrigation systems, and short‐distance transportation
equipment. The industrial phase comprises processes in
which agricultural products are converted to biofuels,
which include transportation, storage, drying, grinding,
cooling, heating, maintaining reaction conditions, and
product separation.
Most of the energy used in bio‐based systems is
derived from fossil fuels. Although part of the modern‐
day electricity is produced from renewable sources, such
as water, wind and solar, more than 73% of the world’s
electricity is still produced from non‐renewable sources
(REN21, 2018). The shares of renewable energy sources
in heating and transportation sectors are at 27% and 3%,
respectively. Since some of the main goals of bio‐based
systems are to substitute petroleum‐based fuels and
chemicals and to reduce the environmental impacts, it is
important to evaluate the sustainability of a bio‐based
system by considering the energy use and supply in the
system.
3.3.2. Energy Analysis
Energy analysis of bio‐based systems refers to the
quantification of the balance between energy supply and
energy use in three phases of energy cycle, as described
in section 3.3.1. Energy analysis in agricultural produc-
tion has become important because of the increase in the
amount of inputs. For example, an increase in nitrogen
38 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

fertilizer used in corn production has driven an increase 3.3.3. Example: Energy Analysis in Biodiesel
in corn yield (Kraatz et al., 2009), but it has given rise Production from Oilseeds
to other issues such as eutrophication in nearby water
bodies, increasing dependency of soil fertility on fertil- Different oilseeds can be used for energy production in
izers, and negative impacts on human health. Similarly, the form of biodiesel. Energy use efficiency in biobased
energy analysis in a bio‐based industry can help quantify systems is defined as the ratio of energy output to energy
energy use in each processing step, so that the processes input. Energy use efficiency of oilseeds production varies
can be optimized to improve the energy efficiency. In based on the type of oilseed and location. Some oilseeds
energy analysis of bio‐based systems, all materials such as canola and carinata have relatively low energy use,
involved in the processing path are back‐tracked to their while the production of sesame requires a higher energy
initial fossil energy input. use (Table 3.3). Energy use efficiency of oilseeds produc-
Energy inputs and outputs in agricultural fields, fuel, tion ranges from ~1.5 for sesame to 4.28 for canola.
equipment, and consumables are quantified based on a Experimental studies have been conducted to analyze
functional unit within the defined system boundary. The energy use in biofuels from bio‐based systems. Energy
functional unit for energy analysis in bio‐based systems inputs during crop production, transportation, and
can be expressed in terms of mass (e.g. J/ton), area (e.g. J/ conversion processes for canola and carinata were esti-
hectare), or economic value of the products (e.g. J/$1000) mated based on experimental studies in Spain (Cardone
(Mousavi‐avval et al., 2018). This allows quantification et al. 2003). It was found that energy was mainly used in the
of the energy used for production, harvest and post‐ oilseed production and transportation steps (Figure 3.3).
harvest logistics. There are several transportation steps, including trans-
Direct energy use during the agricultural crop pro- portation of oilseeds from fields to the elevator (local
duction phase includes energy content of diesel fuel storage), which is mainly done by trucks, transportation
used in agricultural operations, from field preparation from storage facilities to the oil extraction facilities, and
to harvest, as well as electrical energy used in irriga- delivery of oil to the biorefineries using rail transporta-
tion systems. Energy used in background processes is tion facilities. Energy use for extraction of oil from oil-
accounted for as indirect energy. Indirect energy associ- seeds and conversion to biodiesel is low because of the
ated with physical inputs, e.g. fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, high capacity of industrial facilities at the biorefineries.
machineries, is defined as the sum of energy consumed
during the production of the input and the energy used 3.3.4. Energy Supply from Bio‐Based Systems
for transportation of the input from the plant to the end
user or local market. For example, indirect energy asso- Biomass has been identified as the most reliable poten-
ciated with agricultural machineries is estimated based tial source of energy and feedstock for the industrial sec-
on energy used during the manufacture of machineries tor until 2050 (United Nations Industrial Development
in the factory as well as energy use for transportation
of agricultural machinery from the factory to the local
Table 3.3 Total energy use and energy use efficiency of oil-
market. To estimate indirect energy associated with the seeds production.
depreciation of an agricultural machinery during specific
field operation, it is assumed that total energy consump- Energy use efficiency
tion during the manufacturing and transportation of the Total energy use (MJ/t)* (decimal)*
machine is depreciated during its economic lifetime. Lack Oilseed Average SD** Average SD**
of data availability makes the energy use estimation in the Soybean 9360 3248 2.43 0.79
background processes more complicated. However, there Canola 5565 1124 4.24 1.40
are databases, e.g. Greenhouse, Regulated Emissions, Carinata 4340 1732 3.14 1.09
and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model and Sunflower 8532 2580 3.25 1.09
Ecoinvent database, that provide an estimation of energy Sesame 1 5930 1793 1.57 0.19
use for these background processes.
In the industrial phase, liquid fuel (mainly diesel) is
*
Data were collected from Canakci et al., 2004; Cardone
et al., 2003; Hamzei and Seyyedi, 2016; Iriarte et al., 2010;
used for long‐distance transportation, heating, drying,
Kallivroussis et al., 2002; Kusek et al., 2016; Mousavi‐Avval
and other purposes. Direct energy of fuels and electricity
et al., 2017; Mousavi Avval et al., 2011; Pahlavan et al., 2012;
is quantified based on their energy content. In addition, Ramedani et al., 2011; World Energy Council, 2016.
embodied energy of the equipment and chemicals used **
SD stands for standard deviation.
for processing and conversion is quantified based on Sources: Adapted from Ruiz‐Mercado, G. J., Smith, R. L., and
depreciation of energy use for the manufacture of equip- Gonzalez, M. A. (2012). Khan, S., Khan, M. A., Hanjra, M. A.,
ment during the economic lifetime. and Mu, J. (2009).

8
6
Energy use (GJ/t)
4
0 Energy
Oilseed production
Transportatioin
Conversion
Total
Oilseed production
Canola
Figure 3.3 Energy use in different steps of biodiesel production
from canola and carinata as the feedstock. Source: Cardone,
M., Mazzoncini, M., Menini, S. et al. (2003).
Organization, 2019). Currently, biomass supplies 10% of
the total energy demand, and 68% of this is in the form
of fuelwood (World Energy Council, 2016). One third of
energy use in pulp and paper industries is supplied by bio-
mass and waste (United Nations Industrial Development
Organization, 2019). Utilization of biomass as a feedstock is
being expanded to the fuels and chemicals industries that used
to be conventionally supplied by petroleum‐based sources.
Based on the estimation by United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (2019), by 2050, biomass can
supply 37%, 25%, 18% and 10% of the total process heat in
chemical and petrochemical, non‐metallic minerals, paper
and pulp, and wood and woody products industries, respec-
tively. In 2016, biomass was the only renewable source of
liquid fuel in the transportation sector with 103 billion L
of ethanol, 31 billion L of biodiesel and 5.9 billion L of
hydrotreated vegetable oil produced globally, which contrib-
uted to only 0.3% of the total energy demand (REN21, 2018).
However, an increase in bio‐based products from $203 bil-
lion worth in 2015 to $487 billion worth in 2024 was fore-
casted (Biotechnology Innovation Organization, 2017).
Biofuels and biochemicals offer several advantages such as
lower environmental impacts and product security when
compared to depleting petroleum‐based fuels and chemicals,
which drives the expansion of the bio‐based economy and
incentivizes the development of bio‐based systems.
WATER‐ENERGY NEXUS IN BIO‐BASED SYSTEMS 39
Water use in
Water
biobased
supply
systems
SDGs
(6,7,12,13)
use Energy
Transportatioin
Conversion
Total
production from
biobased systems
Figure 3.4 Interconnection of water‐energy and SDGs.
3.4. THE FRAMEWORK FOR WATER‐ENERGY
NEXUS IN BIO‐BASED SYSTEMS
Carinata Energy is used in water supply, and the bio‐based sys-
tems use water and energy to produce different types of
biofuels and bioproducts (Figure 3.4). For developing the
bio‐based systems, sustainable use of energy and water
in the production of fuels and chemicals is a challeng-
ing task. Sustainability of energy and water in bio‐based
systems needs to be considered collectively and cannot
be effectively resolved in isolation. While addressing the
SDGs, to deal with this issue, a nexus approach is needed.
The water‐energy nexus is one of the most complex, yet
critical, issues that the society faces. Water and energy are
interconnected resources that face numerous challenges
including a growing global population, economic crises,
poverty, hunger, and climatic uncertainties.
Water‐energy nexus refers to the relationship of how
energy is used in water supply, and how water is used in
energy supply and conversion (Figure 3.5). In bio‐based
systems, the main products follow the post‐harvest logis-
tics for delivery to the conversion step, while by‐products
are used for other purposes. Then, biomass is converted
into biofuels and electrical energy which is used to supply
water for cultivation of agricultural crops in the bio‐
based systems.
Developing renewable energy sources from bio‐based
systems creates additional stress on water resources.
For this reason, the lack of water availability in some
regions limits the development of bio‐based energy sys-
tems. Water demand for biofuels production ranges
widely; for example, for the whole process of corn pro-
duction and conversion to ethanol around 5 to 2138 L of
water is required per L of ethanol (Mckenna, 2009); the
main reason for this high variation is regional irrigation
40 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Indirect Direct
energy energy

Water
Water distribution
Water

Fertilizing

Spraying

Irrigation

supply
Water
Sowing
Tillage
Water

Electricity
Labor
Electric power
transmission
Electricity
Agricultural crop production systems

Machinery

Electricity
supply
Electricity generation
Fertilizer
Crop production field

Biofuels and
bioproducts
Pesticides
Conversion

Biofuel

production
Water

Biofuel
Pre-processing
Seeds

Main product
Harvest

for food
In-field handling Drying Storage
Transportation
Main product

Harvest and post-harvest logistics

By-product

Figure 3.5 Energy and water use and supply in bio‐based systems.

requirements. In addition to water use for crop produc- expected to be environment‐friendly. However, accurate
tion and conversion to biofuels, a large amount of water assessments are necessary to avoid resource overexploita-
is needed to remove excess heat in the power plants. For tion or unexpected water/energy overuse due to land use
example, in thermoelectric power plants, generation of 1 change (Martin et al., 2018).
kWh electricity needs the evaporation of about 7.6 L of To allow comparison between different systems, stan-
water to remove the excess heat. Thus, water is likely to dard tools and indicators are required. However, this
become the most limiting resource in the development of standardization is yet to be achieved for the bio‐based sys-
bioenergy systems from bio‐based feedstocks. tems (Bosch et al., 2015). Thus, there is a variety of tools
and indicators that can be used for assessing the sustain-
3.5. ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY OF WATER ability of bio‐based systems, including metrics designed
AND ENERGY IN BIO‐BASED SYSTEMS originally for other systems, such as chemical processes.
Most of the sustainability assessment tools include indi-
Objectively assessing the sustainability of bio‐based cators related to energy use, but very few assess water
systems requires reliable metrics that accurately depict use directly (Broeren et al., 2017). Even more infrequent
the particularities and complexities of these systems. are the metrics that evaluate the water–energy nexus.
Reliable assessment tools allow a fair analysis of the bio‐ Indicators used to assess the sustainable use of water and
based processes and the comparison with other biopro- energy in bio‐based systems could be classified into the
cesses and non‐bioprocesses, and provide information sustainability triple bottom line categories from environ-
for strategic decision‐making. Bio‐based systems are mental, economic, and social perspectives. Combining the
 WATER‐ENERGY NEXUS IN BIO‐BASED SYSTEMS 41

Table 3.4 Selected indicators for water and energy use.*

Indicators Unit Definition
Water use
Total water use m3 Total water used by a process
Water productivity (WP) kg/m3 or kg/kg Mass of product
Water used
Water intensity (WI) m3/$ Fresh water used
Revenue
Fractional water consumption (FWC) m3/kg Fresh water used
Mass of product
Specific liquid waste m3/kg Wastewater produced
Mass of product
Energy use
Total energy use kJ/h Total energy consumed by a process
Energy efficiency (ηE) kJ/kJ Net energy output
Net energy input
Energy intensity (REI) kJ/$ Net energy used
Revenue
Specific energy intensity (RSEI) kJ/kg Net energy used
Mass of product
Renewable energy index (RIE) kJ/kJ Net energy supplied from renewable sources
Net energy input
Water–energy nexus
Water and energy productivity kg/m3∙kJ Mass of product
Water used * Net energy used
Water energy ratio kJ/kJ Energy used for irrigation
Net energy used

*
Adapted from Ruiz‐Mercado et al., 2012 and Khan et al., 2009.

indicators from all three categories is important to achieve
a fair assessment of the sustainability of bio‐based sys-
tems; however, most of the tools fail to include all of them
(Martin et al., 2018). Most of the metrics used for bio‐
based systems focus on efficient resource utilization.
3.5.1. Assessment of Water Use in Bio‐Based Systems
As discussed earlier, bio‐based systems consume
significant amount of water. Most metrics for assessing
water use are based on quantity of water applied; how-
ever, sustainable evaluation of water use needs assessment
of water quality as well. Water footprint is a methodology
for the quantification of water use in a system and its
related environmental impacts, usually from a life cycle
perspective. Thus, it includes direct and indirect water
use (Verones et al., 2015). Water use can be accounted in
volume or cost in sustainability assessment. Some water
and energy use indicators are presented in Table 3.4.
Several of the impact categories commonly used in
life cycle assessment (LCA) affect water resources. Water
quality assessment can be accounted by freshwater eutro-
phication and acidification, as well as eco‐toxicity and
human health measures (Verones et al., 2015). Most
analyses fail to account for water scarcity and local water
use restrictions due to large quantities of water used in
bio‐based systems, which can become a bottleneck for
sustainable development of bio‐based systems in some
freshwater basins (Martin et al., 2018).
3.5.2. Analysis of Energy Use in Bio‐Based Systems
Energy use in bio‐based systems could be assessed
in terms of material consumption or waste generation
(Sheldon, 2018). Energy balance allows quantification
of the calorific energy used and produced within the
defined boundaries of the bio‐based systems. To account
for energy quality, exergy analysis is used to assess the
42 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
available energy for work, by taking into account the
entropy generation (Sikdar et al., 2017). One of the most
common energy metrics for industrial processes is the
Cumulative Energy Demand (CED), which is defined as
the total amount of primary energy used during the life
cycle of the product (Sheldon, 2018). Other energy indi-
cators are included in Table 3.4. In addition, the global
warming potential (GWP) due to GHG emissions from
fuel combustion can be considered as an indirect metric
for energy use (Sheldon, 2018), and it is presented in most
sustainability assessments of bio‐based systems (Van
Schoubroeck et al., 2018). Ethanol equivalent (EE) is
another metric which is defined as the amount of ethanol
needed to deliver the same amount of energy from a feed-
stock or to produce the equivalent amount of a carbon‐
based chemical, based on well‐established corn‐ethanol
fermentation, and can be used for comparison with other
biomass conversion processes (Cséfalvay et al., 2015).
3.5.3. Evaluation of Water–Energy Nexus in Bio‐Based
Systems
Evaluating the water‐energy nexus requires tools and
indicators that can quantify the complexity of the inter-
action between water and energy in bio‐based systems.
Compound indexes can aggregate several components
in one indicator through normalization, weighting and
mathematical aggregation. For example, the Evaluation
Index (EVI) is the average of normalized indicators for
water use, energy use, and agricultural net return (El‐
Gafy et al., 2017). This indicator is used to evaluate
alternative scenarios and to rank them from the perspec-
tives of water use, energy efficiency, and economic prof-
itability. Accordingly, it is useful for identifying the best
scenario from a set of alternative scenarios to achieve the
sustainability goals. In addition, water‐related indicators
that measure the specific amount of water used or lost in
energy production systems are also included in the water‐
energy nexus metrics (Madani and Khatami, 2015). Other
examples of water‐energy nexus indicators are included
in Table 3.4. While showing the interconnections between
energy production and use and water production and
use, these indicators are helpful for developing national
polices and strategies for achieving the sustainable
development goals.
3.5.4. Tools Used to Evaluate the Sustainability
of Bio‐Based Systems
A variety of tools are available to evaluate industrial
processes, but very few have been exclusively designed for
bio‐based systems. The most complete tools to analyze
bio‐based systems use a life cycle approach that evaluate
the whole bio‐based system from agricultural production
to final product use and disposal (cradle‐to‐grave).
Many methodologies can be used for LCA, but most
are based on the standard ISO 14040/44 (International
Organization for Standardization, 2006). LCA results
can include water and energy use, in addition to impact
categories indirectly related to water and energy, such as
GWP, eutrophication, and acidification. S2BIOM is an
LCA‐based tool designed specifically for the environ-
mental sustainability assessment of non‐food biomass
supply chains (Manfredi, 2014).
Eco‐efficiency analysis (EEA) is a LCA‐based com-
parative methodology developed by BASF SE that
includes life cycle environmental and cost analyses, and
assists in decision‐making along the value chain (Saling
et al., 2002). EEA impact categories include materials use,
energy use, emissions, toxicity potential, risk potential,
and land use (Sheldon, 2018). EEA was expanded into
the SocioEcoEfficiency Analysis (SEEbalance), adding
a social LCA and a social hotspot assessment that link
the social impact of the process to the SDGs (Schmidt
et al., 2004). In addition, BASF SE has also developed
AgBalance, a tool designed to evaluate the sustainability
of agricultural systems. AgBalance combines SEEbalance
with a set of agriculture‐specific indicators such as biodi-
versity, land use, and soil health (Saling et al., 2014).
LCAs, however, require a significant amount of
data that might not be available for new processes and
can be time consuming. Thus, some tools have been
designed to simplify the sustainability assessment. The
Gauging Reaction Effectiveness for the Environmental
Sustainability of Chemistries with a Multi‐Objective
Process Evaluator (GREENSCOPE) is a tool developed
by the US Environmental Protection Agency to assess the
sustainability of chemical processes, that has been applied
to biomass conversion processes into biofuels and bio-
products (Ruiz‐Mercado et al., 2013). GREENSCOPE is
a gate‐to‐gate methodology, but it can be integrated with
life‐cycle inventory (LCI) to assist the design of global
sustainable processes (Ruiz‐Mercado et al., 2014).
Other tools designed to simplify the environmental
assessment have been developed in the chemical industry.
Fast Life Cycle Assessment of Synthetic Chemistry
(FLASC) from Glaxo Smith Kline plc, Eco‐footprint
from Chimex SA, and GREEN MOTION from Mane
SA have been used for the assessment of bioprocess.
FLASC includes several energy and water related indica-
tors, such as energy use, GHG emissions, oil and natural
gas depletion, acidification and eutrophication poten-
tial. Eco‐footprint includes water and carbon footprint,
aqueous waste valorization, and energy use (Leseurre
et al., 2014). Green motion accounts for energy and water
used as solvent, but not wastewater (Phan et al., 2015).
Water Accounting and Vulnerability Evaluation
(WAVE) is a method that assesses the blue water used in

processes by evaporation and product integration and the
vulnerability of drainage basins to water depletion. WAVE
includes local water scarcity but does not measure water
quality degradation. This methodology has been used to
assess the water footprint of bioethanol production from
sugarcane in different countries (Berger et al., 2014).
Some methods have been designed specifically for
bio‐based systems. Sheldon and Sanders (2015) devel-
oped a set of indicators to evaluate the production of
commodity chemicals from biomass and compared
them with their fossil fuel analogues. This methodology
focuses on energy efficiency, materials, land use, and pro-
cess economics. Patel et al. (2012) proposed a method-
ology for the fast‐preliminary assessment of biofuels and
biochemicals from biomass, that uses the CED, but does
not include water use. Nguyen et al. (2015) presented
a method for the design and assessment of bio‐based
processes that includes environmental, economic, and
social criteria, and uses indicators such as fossil energy
use, GHG emissions, eutrophication, and acidification.
The GREET model is a database tool that calculates life
cycle energy use and emissions from vehicles and fuels,
and includes the pathways for several biofuels produc-
tion, such as corn and cellulosic ethanol, and soybean
biodiesel (Burnham et al., 2006).
Tools for the sustainability assessment of farms include
the Farm Energy Analysis Tool (FEAT), a database
model that accounts for energy used and GHG emissions
and allows for the sustainability assessment of different
crops and management practices (Camargo et al., 2013).
Gaviglio et al. (2017) proposed a tool that combines
descriptive analysis and data aggregation and uses indi-
cators such as water resource management, energy
dependence, and renewable energy use.
3.6. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
This chapter has outlined some of the indicators that
are currently available in sustainability assessment of
water and energy in bio‐based systems. However, there are
different types of challenges in this context. Firstly, lack
of data availability and a well‐defined system boundary
make the quantification of the indicators difficult.
Secondly, the sustainability indicators are usually new
and the establishment of the maximum and minimum
values for these indicators is difficult. To overcome this
challenge, one solution is to define a specific project as
the standard, and use it as a benchmark. In addition, it
is important to continuously monitor the system through
the sustainability indicators, and use a feedback system
after each indicator’s assessment. This will help validate
the established ranges for each of the sustainability indi-
cators. Thirdly, quantification of energy use in bio‐based
systems requires the use of appropriate energy equivalents
WATER‐ENERGY NEXUS IN BIO‐BASED SYSTEMS 43
to show indirect energy use in the background processes.
In addition, indirect energy use during the manufacture
of inputs is affected by the type of technology applied
and the geographical location. Development and expan-
sion of databases could help quantification of indirect
energy use in the production of agricultural inputs. In
addition, energy use in agricultural crop production var-
ies significantly. For example, energy use during the cul-
tivation changes from field to field, and it is affected by
soil type and quality, climatic conditions, crop rotation,
and management of resources use. Thus, site‐specific
energy estimation in bio‐based systems should be consid-
ered. Fourthly, the water‐energy nexus in bio‐based sys-
tems has dynamic characteristics. Hence, development of
dynamic system models is necessary to precisely evaluate
the nexus impacts on the SDGs. In addition, assessments
and metrics need to be based on long‐term and life cycle‐
based solutions that reflect their broader impacts.
3.7. SUMMARY
Sustainability of energy and water in bio‐based systems
needs to be collectively considered in a nexus approach.
Bio‐based systems are important for attaining sustainable
development goals, since they produce fuels and chemi-
cals from renewable feedstock that can substitute petro-
leum‐based fuels and chemicals. In doing so, bio‐based
systems can reduce the dependence on non‐renewable
fossil fuels, provide energy and food security, and reduce
environmental impacts caused by petroleum‐based fuels
and chemicals. However, a large amount of water con-
sumption in bio‐based systems, in both biomass produc-
tion and processing phases, constitutes a bottleneck in
the expansion of bio‐based systems. Therefore, measures
for reducing water use in bio‐based systems through effi-
cient irrigation technologies, correct irrigation timing,
and recycling of wastewater in biomass processing are
being developed.
Bio‐based systems that can sustain itself on energy sup-
plied by renewable sources such as waste biomass from the
process itself and other renewable sources of energy, such as
wind and water, can play an important role in achieving the
SDGs. Reasonable assessments of the water‐energy nexus
in bio‐based systems are fundamental in understanding the
effects of resource pressure, the interconnection of both
resources, and the delicate balances required to develop
sustainable bio‐based systems, and hence contribute to
the SDGs. In addition, assessment of bio‐based systems
in comparison to petroleum‐based systems is important to
evaluate their environmental impacts and ensure the sustain-
ability of the bio‐based systems. Water and energy intensity,
efficiency and productivity are some of the indicators that
can guide us towards more sustainable bio‐based technol-
ogies and help attain the SDGs 6, 7, 12, and 13.
44 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
REFERENCES
Bauder, J. (2019). The Right Strategy for Irrigating Your
Canola Crop. Available at: http://waterquality.montana.edu/
farm‐ranch/irrigation/other_crops/canola.html (accessed on
August 28, 2019)
Bennett, A.S. and Anex, R. P. (2008). Farm‐Gate Production
Costs of Sweet Sorghum as a Bioethanol Feedstock.
Transactions Of The ASABE, 51(2), 603–613.
Berger, M., van der Ent, R., Eisner, S., Bach, V., and Finkbeiner,
M. (2014). Water Accounting and Vulnerability Evaluation
(WAVE): Considering Atmospheric Evaporation Recycling
and the Risk of Freshwater Depletion in Water Footprinting.
Environmental Science & Technology, 48(8), 4521–4528.
Berndes, G. (2002). Bioenergy and water — the implications of
large‐scale bioenergy production for water use and supply.
Global Environmental Change, 12, 253–271.
Biotechnology Innovation Organization. (2017). The Biobased
Economy : Measuring Growth and Impacts.
Bosch, R., van de Pol, M., and Philp, J. (2015). Policy: Define
biomass sustainability. Nature, 523(7562), 526–527.
Broeren, M.L.M., Zijp, M.C., Waaijers‐van der Loop, S.L. et al.
(2017). Environmental assessment of bio‐based chemicals in
early‐stage development: a review of methods and indicators.
Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 11(4), 701–718.
Burnham, A., Wang, M.Q., and Wu, Y. (2006). Development
and applications of GREET 2.7 ‐ The Transportation
Vehicle‐CycleModel. Argonne, IL.
Camargo, G.G.T., Ryan, M.R., and Richard, T.L. (2013). Energy
Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Crop Production
Using the Farm Energy Analysis Tool. BioScience, 63(4),
263–273.
Canakci, M., Topakci, M., Akinci, I., and Ozmerzi, A. (2004).
Energy use pattern of some field crops and vegetable produc-
tion: Case study for Antalya Region, Turkey.
Cardone, M., Mazzoncini, M., Menini, S. et al. (2003). Brassica
carinata as an alternative oil crop for the production of
biodiesel in Italy: agronomic evaluation, fuel production
by transesterification and characterization. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 25(6), 623–636.
Condon, A.G., Richards, R.A., Rebetzke, G.J., and Farquhar,
G.D. (2004). Breeding for high water‐use efficiency. Journal
of Experimental Botany, 55(407), 2447–2460.
Critchley, W., Siegert, K. and Chapman, C. (1991). Water
Harvesting, A Manual Guide for the Design and Construction
of Water Harvesting Schemes for Plant Production. FAO,
Rome. Available at:http://www.fao.org/docrep/U3160E/
U3160E00.htm (accessed on August 28, 2019)
Cséfalvay, E., Akien, G.R., Qi, L., and Horváth, I.T.
(2015). Definition and application of ethanol equivalent:
Sustainability performance metrics for biomass conversion
to carbon‐based fuels and chemicals. Catalysis Today, 239,
50–55.
El‐Gafy, I., Grigg, N., and Waskom, R. (2017). Water‐Food‐
Energy: Nexus and Non‐Nexus Approaches for Optimal
Cropping Pattern. Water Resources Management, 31(15),
4971–4980.
Evans, R.G. (2019). Irrigation Technologies Comparison.
Available at: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/21563/
IrrigationTechnologiesComparisons.pdf (accessed May
2019).
FAO. (2016). Aquastat. FAO’s Global Information System
on Water and Agriculture. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
aquastat/en/databases/maindatabase (accessed on 28 August
2019).
Fraiture, C. and Berndes, G. (2009). Biofuels and water. In R.
Howarth and S. Bringezu (Eds.), Biofuels: Environmental
Consequences and Interactions with Changing land Use (pp.
139–152). Gummersbach, German. Available at: https://
ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/46196 (accessed on
August 28, 2019).
Gaviglio, A., Bertocchi, M., and Demartini, E. (2017). A Tool
for the Sustainability Assessment of Farms : Selection,
Adaptation and Use of Indicators for an Italian Case Study.
Gerbens‐Leenes, P., Hoekstra, A., and van der Meer, T. (2008).
Water footprint of bio‐energy and other primary energy car-
riers, 29 (Value of Water, Research Report Series No. 29).
Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S.T., and Guardabassi, P. (2008). The
sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy
Policy, 36(6), 2086–2097.
Hamzei, J., and Seyyedi, M. (2016). Energy use and input–
output costs for sunflower production in sole and intercrop-
ping with soybean under different tillage systems. Soil and
Tillage Research, 157, 73–82.
IEA. (2018). World Energy Balances 2018. Available at: https://
webstore.iea.org/world‐energy‐balances‐2018 (accessed on 28
August 2019).
IGBP. (2015). International Geosphere‐Biosphere Programme.
Available at: http://www.igbp.net/globalchange/greataccelera
tion.4.1b8ae20512db692f2a680001630.html (accessed on 28
August 2019).
International Organization for Standardization. (2006).
ISO 14040:2006 ‐ Environmental management ‐ Life cycle
assessment ‐ Principles and framework. International
Organization for Standardization.
IRENA. (2019). International Renewable Energy Agency
(IRENA). Available at: http://www.irena.org/ (accessed on
May 19, 2019).
Iriarte, A., Rieradevall, J., and Gabarrell, X. (2010). Life cycle
assessment of sunflower and rapeseed as energy crops under
Chilean conditions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(4),
336–345.
Jessen, H. (2012). Dropping Water Use. Ethanol Producer
Magazine. Available at: http://www.ethanolproducer.com/
articles/8860/dropping‐water‐use (accessed on August 28,
2019).
Kallivroussis, L., Natsis, A., and Papadakis, G. (2002). RD—
Rural Development: The Energy Balance of Sunflower
Production for Biodiesel in Greece. Biosystems Engineering,
81(3), 347–354.
Khan, S., Khan, M.A., Hanjra, M.A., and Mu, J. (2009).
Pathways to reduce the environmental footprints of water
and energy inputs in food production. Food Policy, 34(2),
141–149.

Kraatz, S., Reinemann, D.J., and Berg, W. (2009). Energy
Inputs for Corn Production in Wisconsin and Germany.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.28850 (accessed
on 28 August 2019)
Kranz, W.L., Irmak, S., Donk, S.J. va.et al. (2008). Irrigation
Management for Corn.
Kusek, G., Ozturk, H.H., and Akdemir, S. (2016). An assessment
of energy use of different cultivation methods for sustainable
rapeseed production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112,
2772–2783.
Langeveld, J.W.A., and van de Ven, G.W.J. (2010). Principles
of plant production. In H. Langeveld, J. Sanders, and M.
Meeusen (Eds.), The Biobased Economy: Biofuels, Materials
and Chemicals in the Post‐oil Era (1st ed., pp. 49–66). Bristol,
UK: Earthscan.
Langeveld, J.W.A., Dixon, J., and Jaworski, J.F. (2010).
Development perspectives of the biobased economy: A
review. Crop Science, 50, S–142‐S‐151.
Le, P.V.V., Kumar, P., and Drewry, D.T. (2011). Implications for
the hydrologic cycle under climate change due to the expan-
sion of bioenergy crops in the Midwestern United States.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(37),
15085–15090.
Leseurre, L., Merea, C., Duprat de Paule, S., and Pinchart, A.
(2014). Eco‐footprint: a new tool for the “Made in Chimex”
considered approach. Green Chemistry, 16(3), 1139.
Levidow, L., Zaccaria, D., Maia, R. et al. (2014). Improving
water‐efficient irrigation: Prospects and difficulties of inno-
vative practices. Agricultural Water Management, 146, 84–94.
Liu, J., Zehnder, A., and Yang, H. (2007). Historical Trends
in China’s Virtual Water Trade. Water International, 32(1),
78–90.
Madani, K., and Khatami, S. (2015). Water for Energy:
Inconsistent Assessment Standards and Inability to Judge
Properly. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports,
2(1), 10–16.
Manfredi, S. (2014). Methodology for life‐cycle based environ-
mental sustainability assessment of non‐food biomass value
chains.
Martin, M., Røyne, F., Ekvall, T., and Moberg, Å. (2018).
Life cycle sustainability evaluations of bio‐based value
chains: Reviewing the indicators from a Swedish perspective.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(2).
Martins, A.A., Marques, F., Cameira, M. et al. (2018). Water
footprint of microalgae cultivation in photobioreactor.
Energy Procedia 153: 426–431.
Maupin, M.A., and Barber, N.L. (2005). Estimated with-
drawals from principal aquifers in the United States, 2000. US
Geological Survey Circular 1279.
Mckenna, P. (2009). Measuring Corn Ethanol’S Thirst for
Water; MIT Technology Review. MIT: Cambridge, MA,
USA, April 14.
Moreira, J.R. (2007). Water Use and Impacts Due Ethanol
Production in Brazil. International Conference on Linkages in
Energy and Water Use in Agriculture in Developing Countries,
Organized by IWMI and FAO, ICRISAT, India, January 2007,
1–24.
WATER‐ENERGY NEXUS IN BIO‐BASED SYSTEMS 45
Mousavi‐avval, S.H., Manandhar, A., and Shah, A. (2018).
Fundamentals of energy analysis for crop production
­agriculture. Ohio State University Extension. Available at:
https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/fabe-6621 (accessed on 29
December 2020)
Mousavi‐Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Sharifi, M. et al. (2017).
Application of multi‐objective genetic algorithms for opti-
mization of energy, economics and environmental life
cycle assessment in oilseed production. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 140, 804–815.
Mousavi Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., and Mohammadi,
A. (2011). Improving energy productivity of sunflower pro-
duction using data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 91(10),
1885–1892.
Nguyen, T.T.H., Kikuchi, Y., Noda, M., and Hirao, M. (2015).
A New Approach for the Design and Assessment of Bio‐
based Chemical Processes toward Sustainability. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research, 54(20), 5494–5504.
Pahlavan, R., Omid, M., Rafiee, S., and Mousavi‐Avval, S.H.
(2012). Optimization of energy consumption for rose pro-
duction in Iran. Energy for Sustainable Development, 16(2),
236–241.
Patel, A. D., Meesters, K., den Uil, H., de Jong, E., Blok,
K., and Patel, M. K. (2012). Sustainability assessment
of novel chemical processes at early stage: application to
biobased processes. Energy & Environmental Science, 5(9),
8430–8444.
Phan, T. V. T., Gallardo, C., and Mane, J. (2015). GREEN
MOTION: a new and easy to use green chemistry metric
from laboratories to industry. Green Chemistry, 17, 2846.
Phillips, S., Aden, A., Jechura, J. et al. (2007). Thermochemical
Ethanol via Indirect Gasification and Mixed Alcohol
Synthesis of Lignocellulosic Biomass.
Postel, S.L. (1998). Water for Food Production: Will There Be
Enough in 2025? BioScience, 48(8), 629–637.
Ramedani, Z., Rafiee, S., and Heidari, M.D. (2011). An inves-
tigation on energy consumption and sensitivity analysis of
soybean production farms. Energy, 36(11), 6340–6344.
REN21. (2018). Renewables 2018 Global Status Report.
Robins, J.G., Jensen, K.B., Peel, M.D., and Waldron, B.L.
(2009). Establishment of warm‐season grasses in summer
and damage in winter under supplementary irrigation in a
semi‐arid environment at high elevation in western United
States of America. Grass and Forage Science, 64(1), 42–48.
Ruiz‐Mercado, G.J., Smith, R. L., and Gonzalez, M.A.
(2012). Sustainability Indicators for Chemical Processes:
I. Taxonomy. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research,
51(5), 2309–2328.
Ruiz‐Mercado, G.J., Gonzalez, M.A., and Smith, R.L. (2013).
Sustainability Indicators for Chemical Processes: III.
Biodiesel Case Study. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 52(20), 6747–6760.
Ruiz‐Mercado, G.J., Gonzalez, M.A., and Smith, R.L. (2014).
Expanding GREENSCOPE beyond the gate: a green chem-
istry and life cycle perspective. Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, 16(4), 703–717.
46 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Saha, N.K., Balakrishnan, M., and Batra, V.S. (2005). Improving
industrial water use : case study for an Indian distillery, 43,
163–174.
Saling, P., Kicherer, A., Dittrich‐Krämer, B. et al. (2002). Eco‐
efficiency analysis by basf: the method. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7(4), 203–218.
Saling, P., Schöneboom, J., Künast, C. et al. (2014). Assessment
of Biodiversity within the Holistic Sustainability Evaluation
Method of AgBalance. In 9th International Conference LCA
of Food. San Francisco, CA.
Schmidt, I., Meurer, M., Saling, P. et al. (2004). SEEbalance®:
Managing Sustainability of Products and Processes with
the Socio‐Eco‐Efficiency Analysis by BASF. Greener
Management International. Greenleaf Publishing.
Van Schoubroeck, S., Van Dael, M., Van Passel, S., and Malina,
R. (2018). A review of sustainability indicators for biobased
chemicals. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94 (June),
115–126.
Schwalbe, Z. (2017). Understanding Plant Water Use:
Evapotranspiration (ET). Available at: https://coagmet.colostate.
edu/extended_etr_about.php (accessed on 7 June 2019)
Sheldon, R.A. (2018). Metrics of Green Chemistry and
Sustainability: Past, Present, and Future. ACS Sustainable
Chemistry and Engineering, 6 (1), 32–48.
Sheldon, R.A., and Sanders, J.P.M. (2015). Toward concise met-
rics for the production of chemicals from renewable biomass.
Catalysis Today, 239, 3–6.
Sikdar, S.K., Sengupta, D., and Mukherjee, R. (2017).
Statistical Algorithms for Sustainability Measurement
and Decision Making. In Measuring Progress Towards
Sustainability (pp. 153–184). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Stone, K., Hunt, P., Cantrell, K., and Ro, K. (2013). Biomass
Feedstock Production Impact on Water Resource Availability.
In B. Singh (Ed.), Biofuel Crop Sustainability (1st ed., pp.
239–260). New Delhi, India: Wiley Blackwell.
Texas Water Development Board. (2019). Agricultural Water
Conservation Irrigation Water Use Management. Available
at: http://levellandtexas.org/DocumentCenter/View/1097/
AgBrochure2_irrigation?bidId= (accessed on 28 August 2019)
UNCTAD. (2014). United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development. World investment report. Available at:
https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf
(Accessed on 6 May 2019).
United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (2019).
Renewable Energy in Industrial Applications. Available at: https://
www.solarthermalworld.org/sites/gstec/files/unido_renewables_
industrial_applications.pdf (Accessed on 6 May 2019).
University of Illinois Extension. (2009). Water Use for Ethanol
Production. Available at: https://extension.illinois.edu/ethanol/
wateruse.cfm (Accessed on 7 June 2019)
USGS. (2016). How much water is there on, in, and above the
Earth? Retrieved 13 February 2019. Available at: https://water.
usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html (accessed on 28 August 2019)
VanLoocke, A., Twine, T.E., Zeri, M., and Bernacchi, C.J.
(2012). A regional comparison of water use efficiency for
miscanthus, switchgrass and maize. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology, 164, 82–95.
Verones, F., Pfister, S., and Berger, M. (2015). Water Use Analysis.
In Sustainability Assessment of Renewables‐Based Products
(pp. 97–108). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Waskom, R., Akhbari, M., and Grigg, N.S. (2014). US perspec-
tive on the water‐energy‐food nexus. Colorado Water Institute,
Information Series, No. 116.
World Energy Council. (2016). World Energy Resources | 2016.
Available at: https://www.worldenergy.org/publications/2016/
world‐energy‐resources‐2016/ (accessed on 28 August 2019)
Wu, Y., and Liu, S. (2012). Impacts of biofuels production
alternatives on water quantity and quality in the Iowa River
Basin. Biomass and Bioenergy, 36, 182–191.
WWF. (2006). A first estimate of the global supply potential for
bioenergy. A briefing study commissioned by WWF. World
Wiildlife Fund.
Yang, H., Zhou, Y., and Liu, J. (2009). Land and water require-
ments of biofuel and implications for food supply and the
environment in China. Energy Policy 37, 1876–1885.
 4
Safe‐Sanitation Adaptive‐Integrated Management
Systems (SAIMS): A Conceptual Process Tool for
Incorporating Resilience
Peter Emmanuel Cookey1* and Mayowa Abiodun Peter‐Cookey2

ABSTRACT

In this era of climate change challenges, WASH, especially the sanitation component, needs a paradigm shift
from safely managed services to more adaptive‐integrated systems that are effective, practical, applicable and
replicable within boundaries that guarantee access without compromising public health, well‐being, water,
and environmental quality. Safe sanitation infrastructure and services will still not be able to withstand the
ravages of uncertain and sudden climate changes without deliberate considerations that incorporate resil-
ience into planning, design and management. The enormous consequences of climate impacts include stress
and disturbances on sanitation systems leading to service disruption and damage to infrastructure, increased
odour and corrosion risks, operational reality impacts, uncontrolled surcharges as well as more frequent
combined sewer overflows, evolution of infiltration and exfiltration, high flow variations, and sea entrance
into sewers and other sanitation systems, and greenhouse gas emissions. Resilient safe sanitation systems need
to be adaptive and integrated in design, operations and maintenance with quick recovery capacities in order
to reduce related risks after disruptive events. The safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management systems
(SAIMS) is founded on three conceptual perspectives: safe sanitation, regenerative sanitation, and vulnera-
bility and resilience; and they form the structural basis for the SAIMS design. SAIMS adopts the concepts of
resilience, which is significant in addressing climate change and disaster risk reduction in the WASH sector
by providing an opportunity for the integration of technology, social‐ecological and management systems
that are capable of adapting to a wide range of possible scenarios of climatic threats to safe sanitation.
Incorporating resilience into sanitation management should achieve a transformation of sanitation infra-
structure and services that can minimize and resist the impact of climate change. The process enhances human
agencies adaptive capacities particularly through improved sanitation and hygiene behaviour change prac-
tices that can reduce the vulnerability levels of sanitation systems through the application of suitable climate
change information, knowledge and skills.

4.1. INTRODUCTION

Safe sanitation infrastructure and services will still

1
Environmental Engineering and Water Technology
Department, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, The not be able to withstand the ravages of uncertain and
Netherlands sudden climate changes (in spite of the regular gains)
2
Research and Development Department, EarthWatch without deliberate considerations that incorporate resil-
Research Institute, Port Harcourt, Nigeria ience into planning, design and management (Howard
*Corresponding author et al. 2010, WHO 2018). Climate change is one of the

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

47
48 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
most significant and pressing challenges of the twenty‐
first century and the consequential risks and impacts
on public health and environmental quality through the
failure and breakdown of sanitation provisions can be
quite huge. This could further extend and exacerbate the
existing risks for areas with inadequate sanitation facil-
ities by increasing strain on sanitation systems, which will
hamper control and mitigation processes. This makes it of
paramount necessity to ensure that sanitation technologies
and services are designed, operated, and managed in an
adaptive and integrated manner so as to minimize public
health risks (WHO 2018). For example, extreme weather
events and natural disasters such as floodings, droughts,
tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, tremors (and so
on) could compromise key sanitation facilities and deci-
mate all previous progress to control environmental pol-
lutions and public health hazards (Butler et al. 2014/2016;
Diao et al. 2016). Morshed and Sobhan (2010) noted that
most climate change emergencies like recurrent floods,
cyclones and prolonged waterlogging makes it difficult to
adapt appropriate and safely managed sanitation both for
the displaced and regular residents of such areas.
Globally, climate induced natural hazards can affect
anyone in anyplace and in each year more than 200 mil-
lion people are affected by droughts, floods, tropical
storms, earthquakes, forest fires, and other hazards. In
2016, 108 countries and territories were hit by disasters,
which corresponds to 50.5% of all countries affected by
disasters since 2006 (Guha‐Sapir et al. 2016). In 2017,
4.2 billion people, which is more than half of the world
population, were potentially exposed to natural disasters
and when counting the effect of multiple disasters, this
number could jumps to more than 11.2 billion people
(Below and Wallemacq 2018). Meanwhile, in 2018, 281
climate‐related and geophysical events with more than
10,733 deaths, and over 60 million persons were affected
across the world (Guha‐Sapir 2019). In addition, the case
of drought, recent available data from Emergency Events
Database (EM‐DAT) estimates that over 50 million peo-
ple globally were affected by drought in 2011 (Stanke
et al. 2013). Also, in the same 2011, 35 million people
were affected by drought in China, while 17 million peo-
ple were affected in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Uganda,
Djibouti, Burundi and Niger (Guha‐Sapir et al. 2012).
The documentation of the impact of drought on sani-
tation facilities and its associated public health effects is
difficult, given the complexity in assigning a beginning
and an ending because effects tend to accumulate over
time (Stanke et al. 2013). These events pose significant
impacts on sanitation infrastructure and services through
three key phenomena: increase in temperature, change in
precipitation (characterized by decrease in dry weather
and increase in wet weather precipitation) and more fre-
quent and intense extreme events, and sea level rise.
The enormous consequences of these impacts include
stress and disturbances on sanitation systems leading to
service disruption and damage to infrastructure, increased
odour and corrosion risks, operational reality impacts,
uncontrolled surcharges; more frequent combined sewer
overflows (CSOs), evolution of infiltration and exfiltra-
tion, high flow variations, and sea entrance into sewers and
other sanitation systems, and greenhouse gas emissions
(IPCC 2007, Hem et al. 2015). Studies have shown that
toilet/latrine systems are vulnerable to damage and destruc-
tion from flooding and declining water availability. Disaster
occurring in sanitation systems tend to result from vulner-
abilities to a range of hazards impacting upon the system
at different geographical levels. In this context, vulnera-
bility is the capacity of a rector to experience harm from
a specific hazard or range of hazards such as floods, etc.
(Johannessen et al. 2014). For instance, increased flooding
poses major vulnerability threats to sewered and septic sys-
tems reliant on water and faecal sludge management (FSM)
facilities (Howard et al. 2010/2006, Sherpa et al. 2014,
Baum et al. 2013). Howard et al (2016) noted that the risks
of flooding will impact the ability of emptying vehicles
to access communities if roads become impassable and
wastewater treatment works may also be adversely affected
because they are often located in low‐lying areas and next
to rivers that are likely to flood. Floods cause widespread
damage and loss of access to infrastructure on a regular
basis in both developed and developing countries. For in-
stance, in Latin America and the Caribbean alone, the
impact of natural disasters on water and sanitation systems
caused damages amounting to approximately 650 million
dollars between 1994 and 2003 (PAHO 2006).
Improper sanitation provisions could heighten the
indirect impacts climate change has on public health
(IPCC 2014, WHO 2018). Consequentially, there could
be increased risk to diseases/illness from exposure to
pathogens and hazardous substances via environmental
contamination, and/or as a result of lack of adequate
sanitation where systems have been destroyed or dam-
aged (WHO 2018) or fecal matter being carried by wind
or flood water. For example, in Bangladesh, the floods of
2006 rendered large numbers of sanitation systems unus-
able for several weeks and there was widespread fecal
contamination of tube‐wells (Luby et al 2008, Howard
et al. 2010). The cyclone Sidr of 2007 was reported to
have partially or fully damaged over 55000 latrines in the
Sidr‐affected areas. The estimated loss in the districts was
put at about 1.3 million US dollars. Also, a study car-
ried out in six districts of Upazilas (Bangladesh) in 2008
found out that about 90% of all latrines were damaged
or destroyed in the flood events (Uddin 2011). In 2 of 16
provinces of Cambodia, poor sanitation was responsible
for the significant impact of floods on outbreak of diar-
rhoeal disease (Davies et al 2015, Howard et al. 2016).
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 49
The Alderman et al (2012) systematic review noted that
infectious disease outbreaks are much more likely in areas
with defective sanitation services and that infectious dis-
ease epidemics tended to occur only where there was
population displacement by floods; showing good evi-
dence of increased sanitation‐related diseases after floods.
Also, there are links between events associated with
climate change and diseases because increased global
temperature has been connected to increasing rates of
diarrhoeal diseases (WHO 2014, McMichael et al. 2006,
Kolstad and Johannson 2011, Carlton et al. 2015, Howard
et al. 2016). The risk of infection from exposure to fae-
cal contamination is a combination of the likelihood
of exposure to the hazardous events (floods, cyclones,
earthquakes etc) and the impact of the pathogen haz-
ards on exposed persons (WHO 2018). Droughts have
also being known to create conditions that generates
water scarcity and/or the need to save water; and thus,
some sanitary and hygiene measures can be prevented
from being performed. This often results in the spread
of infectious (dermatological, parasitic, respiratory)
diseases (Grigoletto et al. 2016). These drier conditions
driven by climate changes can be very problematic with
water shortages, especially with water based‐sanitation
systems, thereby restricting functionality and contrib-
uting to corrosion of sewered pipes. Water shortages can
also lead to higher pollution concentrations in waste-
water and reduce the capacity of receiving waterbodies to
dilute discharged wastewater (Howard et al. 2010, WHO
2011, Vo et al. 2014, ISF‐UTS and SNV 2019).
It, therefore, becomes essential to not just plan to cope
with impacts and manage risks, but to plan towards mak-
ing informed decisions to facilitate long term integration
of resilience into policies, planning, technology and
management innovations that address climate change
impacts so as to ensure the long‐term viability, sustain-
ability and transformational change through safe‐sanita-
tion adaptive integrated management systems (SAIMS)
(Butterworth and Guendel 2011). Transformational
change is fundamental towards a climate resilient
pathway for safe sanitation systems that are integrated
and adapted to avoid serious disruptions of access expan-
sion and service improvement (Denton et al. 2014).
The purpose of this chapter is to present a conceptual
process tool to guide the incorporation of resilience
into safe‐sanitation systems research, practice and tech-
nology designs. The next sections will discuss resilience
in sanitation with adaptive and integrated consider-
ations and then the conceptual tool of SAIMS will be
presented. The SAIMS is proposed as a guide to enhance
resilience in safely managed sanitation systems and it is
built on different theoretical perspectives that provide a
foundation to consider stability and continuity of sanita-
tion processes under climate change conditions.
4.1.1. Resilient Sanitation Systems
The term resilience was originally used in the field
of ecology to refer to an ecosystem’s capacity to sur-
vive, adapt and grow in the face of unexpected changes
(Holling 1973). It provides insights into processes of
change and the long‐term trajectory of social‐ecolog-
ical systems (Nelson 2011). Thus, resilient ecosystems are
able to remain stable in spite of stressors or they could
adapt and enter into a new stable state – i.e. change their
structure, but maintain inherent functionalities – thereby
guaranteeing their continued existence (Juan‐García
et al. 2017, Johannessen and Wamsler 2017). In like
manner, resilient infrastructure and processes should be
able to withstand anticipated and unexpected shocks and
stresses, but quickly recover from such climatic impacts
(PCC 2017, Eckstein et al. 2018). Reviews of resilience
literature have identified a number of properties that
influence levels of system resilience. These include diver-
sity, redundancy, connectivity, openness, feedback, and
slow‐changing variables (Biggs et al 2012, Walker and
Salt 2012, Kohiltz et al. 2017) see Table 4.1.
This implies that diversity, redundancy, connectivity,
and openness can improve a systems’ resilience and feed-
backs and slow‐changing variables can have positive or
negative effects (Biggs et al 2012, Walker and Salt 2012,
Kohiltz et al. 2017). Key to the resilience approach is
management of these properties to adjust them to the
most beneficial levels (Kohiltz et al. 2017).
Therefore, resilient safe sanitation systems need to be
adaptive and integrated in design, operations and main-
tenance with quick recovery capacities in order to reduce
related risks after disruptive events (Sherpa et al. 2014,
WHO 2018, Morshed and Sobhan 2010). These could
include feature considerations as: (i) context‐specific,
Table 4.1 Properties of resilience (source: Kohiltz et al. 2017).
Property Definition
Diversity The variety of ways in which system
elements can respond to a disturbance
Redundancy The presence of system elements that can
compensate
Connectivity The way and degree of which different
system components interact with one
another
Openness The ease with which ideas, species, and
people can flow in and out of a system
Feedbacks When a change in one system component
is reinforced or dampened by a
subsequent change in another
environment
Slow‐changing System variables that change slowly over
variables time and subtly determine the underlying
structure of a system
50 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
(ii) adaptable to different climate change hazards and
risks scenarios, (iii) able to identify latrine and toilet
technologies that increase pit life, especially in ecological
unstable zones, (iv) able to identify socially and cultur-
ally appropriate behaviour change and cost effective tech-
nologies for children, women and men, disabled, elderly
and other vulnerable characteristics, (v) able to identify
appropriate mechanisms, policies and governance instru-
ments to support resilient infrastructure and services, (vi)
able to identify adaptation and resilient measures that
support workforce, infrastructure and service delivery,
and (vii) able to present adaptable designs for planned‐
resource recovery to support livelihood and improved
resilience for sanitation systems.
Sherpa et al. (2014) observed that introducing planned‐
resource recovery into sanitation facility can improve
resilience like connecting pour‐flush toilets to a bio‐gas
reactor instead of using twin‐pits toilets can improve
resilience. Attaching a bio‐gas reactor dome to the pour‐
flush facility could make it structurally resistant to flood
damages – due, perhaps, to secure and watertight lids on
the dome opening, which when constructed above ground
can prevent water intrusion in the system. In addition,
these facilities could have underground holding tanks to
prevent the impacts of floods – e.g. groundwater intru-
sion, surface water infiltration and flotation. The water-
less system in combination with options is another case
example. When constructed above ground, it could stand
above the highest flood levels in order to recover dehy-
drated faecal matter and urine for sanitation‐derived‐fer-
tilizers (SDF) (Sherpa et al. 2014). This may be more
appealing to users who will be more inclined to invest
in strengthening resilience in their sanitation infrastruc-
ture if they thought it could yield livelihood benefits for
them. A study carried out by Luh et al. (2017) observed
that the weighted‐average resilience scores for sanitation
technologies ranged from 2.8 to 9.8 out of maximum of
10. Drought and decreased inter‐annual precipitation
showed large ranges in resilience between different sani-
tation technologies, indicating that the selection of tech-
nology is important for drought‐prone areas. Pit latrines
and compositing toilets were found to be the most resil-
ient technologies in areas with decreased water avail-
ability, as these two technologies do not require water.
For floods and superstorm floods, most sanitation tech-
nologies were scored similarly except compositing toi-
lets, which were scored as the most resilient technology
for areas that experience floodwaters. Almost, all sanita-
tion technologies scored above 7 against wind damage,
although the preferred choice for regions prone to high
wind would be septic tanks (Luh et al. 2017).
This, then, calls for a paradigm shift from safely managed
sanitation systems to resilient technology, management
and delivery solutions that can withstand major climate
change threats and natural disturbances and at the same
time provide resource recovery services. Sanitation sys-
tems can then be more effective, practical, applicable and
replicable within contextual boundaries that guarantee
access and delivery without compromising public health,
well‐being, water and environmental quality. To this
effect, the main objectives of the proposed SAIMS tool is
to incorporate resilience into safely‐managed sanitation
infrastructure and service provisions from stages of con-
ceptualization through to planning implementation so as
to accelerate preparations for and after climate‐change
uncertainties and occurrences. SAIMS aims to present a
strategy and approach for mainstreaming resilience and
its core principles into sanitation infrastructure and tech-
nology designs, research and development, governance
and management as well as in service delivery.
4.2. SAIMS FOUNDATIONS
SAIMS is founded on three conceptual perspectives:
safe sanitation (SS), regenerative sanitation (ReGenSan),
and vulnerability and resilience (VR); and they form the
structural basis for the SAIMS design. They provide dif-
ferent insights into safely‐managed sanitation infrastruc-
ture and services, climate science and policy and effectively
incorporating resilience into safe‐sanitation systemic
processes. Safe sanitation aims to ensure separation of
human excreta from contact with humans all through the
sanitation service chain (SSC) – i.e. from toilet capture
and containment to emptying, transport, treatment (in‐
situ or offsite), final disposal or end‐use and other activ-
ities like co‐disposal of greywater, associated hygiene
practices and essential services that support technology
functions (WHO and UNICEF, 2017, WHO 2018). But,
simple separation processes will be inadequate to mini-
mize and/or prevent consequences from climate change
and natural disaster disturbances. The pressure of cli-
mate change threatens to unravel the significant gains
of investments and interventions of the Millennium
Development Goal (MDG) period and hinder the con-
tinuous progress and expectations of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) agenda (UN 2016, Alhassan
and Hadwen 2017). An assessment of resilience in tech-
nologies and management approaches of key climatic
threats reveal that existing sanitation technologies show
low levels of resilience levels (Howard et al. 2010, Sherpa
et al. 2014), which implies that treatment and in‐situ dis-
posal, temporary storage, emptying and transport for off‐
site treatment or sewer‐flow with wastewater for off‐site
treatment (WHO and UNICEF 2017) will require addi-
tional considerations.
In essence, risks from climate change and natural haz-
ards/disasters are likely to further undermine sustain-
ability unless safe‐sanitation systems are made more
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 51
adaptive and integrative in order to improve system resil-
ience (Confalonieri et al 2007). To this effect, regenerative
sanitation (ReGenSan) strives to manage sanitation from
an ecological‐systemic worldview built from a holistic‐
systemic‐integration paradigm. It proposes sanitation
systems that mimic the principles of nature, respects
the peculiarity of place and scale, considers ecology
and geography, incorporates resilience and integrates
all aspects of sanitation to take advantage of multi‐dis-
ciplinary and trans‐disciplinary characteristics in design
and development for more locally fit‐for‐purpose, accept-
able and practical solutions (Koottatep et al. 2019).
ReGenSan aims to revitalize and rejuvenate the entire
sanitation system to improve service and expand access
based on systemic internal processes for restoration and
sustainability (Koottatep et al. 2019).
The concept of vulnerability and resilience (VR)
addresses the central impacts of climate change on safe
sanitation systems. Resilience is designed to reduce the
vulnerability of sanitation infrastructure and service
delivery to climate change disturbance while vulnera-
bility is the potential of a sanitation system to experience
harm from specific hazards or range of hazards and/or
disasters which could affect different geographical levels
and cause minor and/or serious functional disruptions,
damage and performance failure of sanitation infrastruc-
ture and services (Johannessen et al. 2014, Momtaz and
Shameem 2016). This suggests that vulnerability relates
to external and internal stressors, which the system must
attempt to cope with (Momtaz and Shameem 2016). Safe
sanitation systems without inherent resilient qualities
are vulnerable to climatic and natural disaster impacts.
A classic example is the 2005 Hurricane Katrina that
destroyed about 50% of existing treatment plants with
20% of sewage collection systems needing rehabilitation
in the Greater New Orleans area after the storm (Seed
et al. 2006, Johannessen et al. 2014). On the other hand,
resilience provides the potential for sanitation infrastruc-
ture and services (SIS) to cope and recover from disrup-
tions as well as anticipate trends and variability in order
to maintain services for people and protect the natural
environment of today and the future (Holling 1973,
OFWAT 2015a/b, Juan‐García et al. 2017, Johannessen
and Wamsler 2017).
The SAIMS conceptual tool is, thereby, aimed at
reducing vulnerabilities of safe‐sanitation systems and at
the same time increase resilience through proactive pre‐
considerations in order to minimize the costs to public
health, environment and facilities. It provides a platform
for identifying, designing, implementing and evaluating
resilient measures for safe sanitation systems so as to
deliver infrastructure and management solutions that are
able to combat, absorb, adapt to or rapidly recover from
disruptive climate and extreme weather events such as
increases in the strength and frequency of heavy precip-
itation, flood, and drought. The intent and expectations
are that systems should be able to anticipate and absorb
potential disruptions; develop adaptive capacities to
accommodate external and internal changes; and estab-
lish response behaviour to withstand the disruption and/
or recover as quickly as possible from impacts (Francis
and Bekera 2014).
However, in spite of the vulnerabilities of sanita-
tion infrastructure/facilities to climate‐related threats,
the effects and adaptability potentials have not received
much attention (Howard et al 2010, Sherpa et al. 2014).
In addition, approaches, methods and tools developed to
assess climate change impacts are primarily guidelines on
the steps to take for identifying, designing, implementing
and evaluating mitigation, adaptation and resilience mea-
sures on the broader WASH sector, but there is minimal
focus specifically targeting sanitation. Thus, the SAIMS
conceptual tool is particularly structured for the core
sanitation sector to place resilience at the heart of safe
sanitation provisions against climatic threats in order to
support the SDG no. 6 and 7. It is situated as a cross‐
cutting process that interlinks across the SDGs and the
entire 2030 agenda, especially since scaling up sanitation‐
related climate change actions is essential for achieving
the SDGs (UNDP 2016). It also supports the goals of the
Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction.
4.3. THE SAIMS CONCEPTUAL TOOL
This conceptual tool is designed as a structural guide
for planning, management, design and development for
sanitation systems that can withstand and/or strategically
recover from any sudden or unexpected disturbances with
climate and natural disasters. It will serve as an analyt-
ical and innovative instrument for problem‐solving and
decision‐making for producing technology, services and
management that is proactive, creative and strategic to
deal with climate and natural disruption before and after
the effect. The thought process is made up of dimensions
and components that operate in seamless interactions to
integrate resilient capacities to deliver the desired output
and outcome (Figure 4.1).
There are five dimensions: vulnerability system (VuS)
‐ derived from climate vulnerability studies (Johannessen
et al. 2014, Holling 1973, OFWAT 2015a/b, Juan‐García
et al. 2017, Johannessen and Wamsler 2017, Momtaz and
Shameem 2016); social‐ecological system (SES), techno-
logical system (TeS), and resource system (ReS) derived
from the conceptual framework of the regenerative sani-
tation (ReGenSan) (Koottatep et al. 2019); and resilience
capacity (ReC) – derived from climate resilience studies
(Johannessen et al. 2014, Holling 1973, OFWAT 2015a/b,
52 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

OUTCOME
Safe-sanitation
Contextual
Considerations
adaptive
Governance and
(Place-scale-Based) management
Human agency integrated
(users/regulators/
architecture managers)
management
systems
(SAIMS)

Social-Ecological

Transformational
- external stressor -climate hazards/disasters
- internal stressor -existing sector challenges

System (SES)

change
Vulnerability System (VuS)

Technological
System (TeS) OUTPUT
Resilient
Ab
infrastrcture
Safe-sanitation so
rp and services
tiv

tive
Service chain e

ap
Ad
Resilience
capacity (ReC)
Resource System
(ReS)
Recovery

Functional
value chain

Operational Integrated Integrated

integration feedback adaptation

Figure 4.1 SAIMS process of integrating resilience into safe sanitation systems.

Juan‐García et al. 2017, Johannessen and Wamsler 2017, terrorist attacks) on sanitation systems (Johannessen and
Momtaz and Shameem 2016). Figure 4.1 illustrates Wamsler 2017, Juan‐García et al. 2017);
the synergistic interactive processes that should lead to
desired output and outcome of resilient infrastructure 4.3.2. Social Ecological System (SES)
and services and safe‐sanitation adaptive integrated
management systems (SAIMS) Table 4.2. The SES acts as a platform to clearly understand the
interactive effects of psychosocial, cultural, economic,
4.3.1. Vulnerability Systems (Internal and External geographical, and ecological factors and provides insights
Stressors) for sanitation science, governance, behavioural change,
and technology in pursuit of resilience (Koottatep et al.
The internal and external stressors exert pressure on 2019). It also enables the sanitation infrastructure,
sanitation systems that make them vulnerable to climate management, and services to tap into the natural social‐
change and natural disasters and ultimately affect their ecological resilience so as to assist the entire sanitation
performance. The internal stressors, often referred to as system to maintain its identity in the face of change,
chronic stressors, are recurrent challenges of the sani- external shocks, and disturbances, and reorganize while
tation sector such as urbanization, population increase, undergoing changes in order to still retain (or upgrade)
aging infrastructure, institutional and organizational essentially the same functionalities, structure and feed-
constraints, lack of participation and accountability, backs (Holling 1973, Johannessen and Wamsler 2017,
regulatory and science‐policy inadequacies that under- Koottatep et al. 2019). Furthermore, resource recovery
mine the performance of sanitation infrastructure and and reuse could also be influenced by determining appro-
services, thereby making them more vulnerable to natural priate approaches for technological adoption by the
disasters (Juan‐García et al. 2017). The external stressors, human agencies (Koottatep et al. 2019). This SAIMS
known as acute stressors are unpredictable, uncommon dimension will help the human agencies involved in the
and can have devastating consequences and distur- governance of safe sanitation systems such as users,
bances (e.g. floods, earthquakes, disease‐outbreaks and regulators, service providers, managers, researchers,
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 53

Table 4.2 Description of SAIMS dimension component.

Dimension Components Description
System External stressors Threats relating to climate change hazards/natural disasters e.g.,
vulnerability earthquakes, floods, droughts, landslides, earth tremors,
monsoonsw and armed conflicts to increase systems vulnerability
and impact negatively on resilience.
Internal stressors Existing sector challenges that undermine the achievement of the
SDG no.6 e.g. inappropriate technologies, improper operations
and maintenance of sanitation facilities, institutional fragmentation
and gaps, weak or absent of standards and disregard for social‐
ecological systems
Social‐ Contextual considerations SES provides support for the enabling environment that enhances
ecological (place‐scale‐based) sanitation system resilience such as governance and management
system (SES) Governance and management architecture that provides the rules, guidelines, standards for
architecture (institutional policies, practice and service delivery with contextual considerations that
regulations and standards, etc) are place‐scale‐based as well as the human agencies that influence
Human agency (users/regulators/ resilience by their actions and inactions
managers)
Technological Safe‐sanitation service chain (SSC) TeS provides the needed inputs for ReS through the sanitation service
system (TeS) chain (SSC) and sanitation value chain (SVC) and ReS in turn
provides necessary feedbacks into TeS. The understanding of these
complex dynamic interactions and their maximization could result
in innovative sanitation solutions for resource recovery and
utilization.
Resource system Functional value chain (FVC) ReS ensures a closed‐loop in the sanitation system that is central to
(ReS) components of resource recovery and utilization as well as a pillar
for enhancing system resilience and most critical for all non‐ or
slowly‐renewable resources
Resilience Absorptive capacity ReC are links to the sanitation systems through an interactive
capacity (ReC) Adaptive capacity integrated feedback mechanism that infuses resilient characteristics
Recovery capacity into the sanitation systems. The overall results lead to an output of
designing, operating and maintaining sanitation infrastructure and
services that are resilient to both the internal and external climate
change and human induced stressors and then transform sanitation
systems to safely‐managed adaptive integrated infrastructure and
services

and manufacturers to ensure that their expectations are
matched through adequate‐integrated feedback mech-
anisms with the TeS and ReS. This encourages partici-
pation, accountability, regulatory enforcement, capacity
development and science‐policy integration, which is cru-
cial for the transition to more resilient infrastructure and
service (Partzch 2015, Johannessen and Wamsler 2017).
See Table 4.2.
4.3.3. Technological System (TeS):
The TeS includes an extensive range of possible com-
binations of technical and socio‐technical components
driven by sanitation infrastructural standardization to
deliver the most appropriate and best applicable engi-
neering and technological‐sound resilient solutions
within contextual considerations and climate variability
(Koottatep et al. 2019). It aims for infrastructural,
operational and service resilience to reduce the magni-
tude and/or duration of disruptive events (Francis and
Bekera 2014). The effectiveness of resilient infrastructure
and services depend upon its ability to anticipate, absorb,
adapt to, and/or rapidly recover from a potentially disrup-
tive event (Aven and Zio 2011, Francis and Bekera 2014,
Koottatep et al. 2019). Therefore, TeS supports a coordi-
nated planning process across the entire sanitation service
chain (SSC) and sanitation value chain (SVC) through
responsive, flexible and timely recovery measures and the
development of culture and practices that have the ability
to provide a minimum level of service during interrup-
tions, emergencies and disasters, and ensure return to
full operations quickly (Aven and Zio 2011, Francis and
Bekera 2014, Koottatep et al. 2019). The SSC consists of
collection and storage, transport, treatment on/off site,
recovery/reuse and disposal processes and the SVC is the
technical steps in the production and transformation of
54 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
CAPTURE STORAGE TRANSPORT
Figure 4.2 Sanitation value chain (SVC) used to illustrate sanitation service chain (SSC). Source: Modified from
van Welie, M. J. and Romijn, H. A. (2018).
sanitation materials to usable products within the TeS
and the value‐added activities within the SSC through
the collaboration and interaction of enterprises and their
partners in the delivery of products and services to cus-
tomers and users (van Welie et al. 2018, Koottatep et al.
2019), Figure 4.2.
4.3.4. Resource System (ReS)
The ReS, on the other hand, focuses on how to recover
and reuse valuable resources of by‐products of human
digestion in order to ensure that sanitation systems min-
imize depletion of the natural resources and environ-
mental degradation, which could improve infrastructure,
ecological and service resilience (Koottatep et al. 2019). It
ensures that more quantity of sanitation stock materials
are made to pass through the system for treatment so that
even if they leak out due to an uncontrolled event, they
would be less hazardous and/or perhaps, would have been
extracted for reuse (Drechsel et al 2011). ReS integrates
planned resource recovery and reuse into sanitation sys-
tems to increase engineering, structural, and ecological
resilience illustrated through the SVC (Sherpa et al. 2014,
van Welie et al. 2018, Koottatep et al. 2019). Studies have
shown that safely managed sanitation facilities are more
resilient when designed to incorporate additional benefits
of resource recovery and utilization that shift the para-
digm from treatment for disposal to treatment for reuse
(Murray and Buckley 2010, Koottatep et al. 2019). This
critical reuse of sanitation‐derived products (SDF) pro-
vides lasting ecosystem services and prevents ecological
disturbances by way of pollution prevention (Drechsel
et al 2011, Koottatep et al. 2019) and also supplements
TREATMENT REUSE
the depletion of the natural stocks of essential minerals
from the earth system.
4.3.5. Resilience Capacities (ReC)
The ReC, as depicted in Figure 4.1, consists of absorp-
tive capacity, adaptive capacity, and recovery capacity: (i)
absorptive capacity refers to the degree which the sani-
tation system can absorb impacts of climate change
and minimize consequences with little effort and is
achieved by designing robust sanitation infrastructure
with adequate buffer capacity to overcome internal and
external stressors (Shinozuka et al. 2004, Francis and
Bekera 2014), (ii) adaptive capacity supports the ability of
sanitation systems to adjust to undesirable situations by
changing in response to adverse impacts, especially if the
adaptive capacity has been exceeded (Holling 1973, Juan‐
García et al. 2017, Johannessen and Wamsler 2017), and
(iii) recovery capacity ensures the rapidity of sanitation
infrastructure and services to return back to acceptable
performance after disturbances (Shinozuka et al. 2004,
Vugrin et al. 2011, Francis and Bekera 2014).
It is essential to start by considering that external and
internal stressors (Table 2) of particular locations and
contexts that increase sanitation subsystems’ (SES, TeS
and ReS) vulnerabilities will impact negatively on sani-
tation systems at all levels. These stressors will be pecu-
liar to social‐ecological‐systems (e.g. areas prone to
floods, earthquakes, droughts, hurricanes, landslides,
monsoons, and armed conflicts as well as densely‐popu-
lated, hard‐to‐reach and culturally‐influenced areas) and
their effects will vary as well. In addition, the types and
performance of technologies and services appropriate
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 55
for sanitation and resource recovery facilities in the SES
should be considered in conjunction with a comprehen-
sion of the existing technologies, infrastructure, services
and management. This will provide critical and strategic
data and information to address the issues of resilience
across the subsystems. One key component of the SES is
the ability to provide the enabling environment through
a systemic governance and management architecture
(e.g. rules, guidelines, regulations, policies, legislation,
standard, etc.) that promote resilience for sanitation
devices, facilities and services with contextual consider-
ations that are place‐scale‐based; and then strengthen
the human agencies (e.g. regulators, NGO/CBOs,
professional/practitioners, manufacturers, researchers,
etc) that could provide resilience through their actions
or inactions (Giddens 1982, Chapin et al. 2009,
Partzsch 2015, Francis and Bekera 2014, Johannessen
and Wamsler 2017, Koottatep et al. 2019). Additionally,
building resilience into sanitation infrastructure and ser-
vices will purposefully require an understanding of how
the sanitation service chain (SSC) components of the TeS
and the functional value (FVC) of the ReS interact to
reduce waste and provide viable resources for other sec-
tors; which could produce innovative sanitation solutions
designed to minimize faecal matter released into the envi-
ronment due to climate or natural disruptions (Drechsel
et al 2011, Koottatep et al. 2019).
Subsequently, the operational integration between san-
itation subsystems will allow for a seamless overview of
how to incorporate resilience capacities (ability to adapt,
absorb and recover) into sanitation systems of particular
Define
Define system sub-systems
vulnerability design
consideration
Operational/
intergated
feedback
mechnaism
Figure 4.3 Key steps towards SAIMS.
SES. Through an interactive integrated feedback process,
the design, operations and maintenance of sanitation
infrastructure and services can then be made to survive
and ameliorate the effects of such negative impacts. All
of these considerations should culminate in resilient san-
itation solutions that are able to absorb the shocks from
the internal and external stressors and/or armed conflicts,
and then adapt to the resulting changes as they recover
quickly to resume operational functions and minimize the
consequential hazards (which could have further exacer-
bated the damages from disasters). The integrated adap-
tations that are then generated through these thought
processes can transform any SES towards safely managed
adaptive integrated infrastructure and services.
4.4. KEY STEPS TOWARDS SAIMS
If SAIMS is to be of practical value for technology
designers, policy makers, regulators and users, it must be
translated into sensible decision‐support tools. We pre-
sent herein a set of SAIMS thinking attributes that will
help sanitation practitioners to apply resilient principles
to safe‐sanitation design applications. SAIMS seeks to
reveal where resilient performance could be potentially
incorporated into sanitation systems. The process consists
of six steps adapted from several resilience integration
studies such as SES (Kerner and Thomas 2014); gover-
nance performance (Cookey et al. 2016); WASH (GWP
and UNICEF 2017); armoury (Cannon and Paulo 2018);
critical infrastructure (Rehak et al. 2018); and regenera-
tive sanitation (Koottatep et al. 2019), Figure 4.3.
Characterize
Define system system resilience
resilience design
consideration
Characterize
SAIMS
controllable
system
performance
Integrate SAIMS
resilience
components
Verify/validate
SAIMS
components
performance
56 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
I. Define and identify system vulnerability factors/
attributes: this estimates the degree that could
impact on climate variability and/or change which
could compromise the integrity, effectiveness, or
longevity of safe sanitation systems. It involves
screening for vulnerability and risk assessments
to gauge the potential impacts of climate change
(Heath et al. 2010). A set of plausible scenarios
based on the exposure of sanitation systems to
stressors, and the degree of the sensitivity of the
system to climate change impact could be contem-
plated (Cutter et al. 2008). This aspect could then
identify sanitation systems climatic induced haz-
ards, thereby forming the basis for pre‐impact and
hazard mitigation planning (Brooks et al. 2005,
Clark et al. 2000, Cutter et al. 2000, O’Brien
et al. 2004). In addition, results findings from fol-
lowing this stage could support the modelling of
basic failure modes and system stressors associated
with the failure mode as well as identifying appro-
priate system strains under increasing stress magni-
tude (Diao et al. 2016).
II. Define and identify sub‐system design factors/attrib-
utes: This focuses on determining the degree of
configurations of SES, TeS and ReS required to
improve resilient characteristics of safe sanitation.
It answers the questions of how to achieve the right
mix between the complex interconnectedness of the
sanitation subsystems (SES, TeS and ReS) (opera-
tional integration), resilience capacity (integrated
feedback), and resilient infrastructure and services
(integrated adaptation) that would eventually result
in SAIMS (transformational change). Thus, deter-
mining what qualities and/or attributes enhance or
detract from resilient safe‐sanitation resilience as
well as being able to understand which resilience
attributes need attention is an important first step
toward avoiding undesirable thresholds, absorbing
shocks, mitigating disruptions, and managing
transition (Kerner and Thomas 2014).
III. Define and identify system resilience design consider-
ations: The defined SAIMS configurations that will
be needed to increase resilience of safely managed
sanitation and is one of the critical steps needed
to reduce vulnerability from stressors. Therefore,
it is expedient to define desirable resilience con-
siderations and identify the manner in which they
are to be applied (Cannon and Paulo 2018). The
two core factors and variables determining resil-
ience are technology elements and management
(Denyer 2017, Rehak et al. 2018). The technolog-
ical and physical protection, which is technical, is
determined by the robustness and recoverability
of system elements while, the enhancement of
technical resilience is invariably achieved exclu-
sively in relation to types of sanitation designs,
particular elements and materials used in their con-
structions and system configurations whether or/
not to include resource recovery facilities (Kerner
and Thomas 2014). Robustness and recoverability
are key technical indicators where robustness is the
measure of stressors’ preparedness, redundancy,
detection ability, responsiveness, and physical resis-
tance while recoverability is determined by material
resources, financial resources, human resources
and recovery processes (Rehak et al. 2018). The
management aspect, then, defines’ the capacity of
an SES internal processes has to create optimum
conditions for resilience to disruptive climate
change events (Denyer 2017). The governance and
management deal with issues relating to adaptation
and are defined by such indicators as risk
management, innovation processes and education
and development processes (Rehak et al. 2018).
IV. Identify and characterize system resilience design
factors/attributes: This is the stage where the three
core factors/attributes of resilience are defined. The
absorptive capacity (stability), adaptive capacity,
and recovery capacity (readiness) within the three
sanitation subsystems are examined. They provide
the basis for the development of interactive indi-
cators and approaches that assess safe‐sanitation
systems’ resilience (Kerner and Thomas 2014). The
absorptive/stability attributes refer to the inherent
ability of safe‐sanitation structured and func-
tioning systems to remain unaffected or minimally
affected by disruptive forces (Walker at al. 2004,
Kerner and Thomas 2014). It will ensure that safe
sanitation systems maintain balanced measures
by the degree to which a system is not skewed
toward one strength at the expense of others, i.e. by
ensuring that it does not sacrifice certain strength
in favour of optimizing others (Walker at al. 2004,
Biggs et al. 2012, Thomas and Kerner 2013, Kerner
and Thomas 2014). Other key indicators include
physical, human, and administrative factors, com-
munication and information, monitoring and
warning signals, system vulnerability and system
resistance (Kerner and Thomas 2014). The adaptive
capacity supports indicating the deployment of
alternative components of sanitation systems,
features, skills, and strategies to accomplish the
intended functions and enhance systems ability to
withstand stresses. It also covers issues of variety
that enable system operators and users to select
operational modes and capabilities that are either
unaffected by perturbations or able to spread the
force of the disturbance over multiple system facets,
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 57
which allows the system to continue to function as
intended (Kerner and Thomas 2014). The recovery
(readiness) capacity attributes define the level of
responsiveness and measures the forces impeding
system recovery from climate change perturba-
tions; while readiness is driven by organizational,
administrative, legal, social and related institu-
tional characteristics that supports actions for self‐
organization. Furthermore, it indicates the choice
of timing, order and priority of actions deemed
appropriate for a given circumstance to avoid
systemic failure (Anderies et al. 2013, Kerner and
Thomas 2014). At the same time, it ensures that
system users, operators and managers can select
and employ alternate actions and configurations
to respond adequately to stressors. Also, adequate
command and control systems must be institu-
tionalized and personnel trained to handle these
autonomous decision‐making making along with
the ability to negotiate and coordinate other parties
during periods of perturbation (Holling 1973,
Folke et al. 2002, Kerner and Thomas 2014). This
will allow for assessing the degree of preparedness
through the development and provisions of ade-
quate plans, procedures, personnel and equipment
for responding to system perturbations while also
providing situational awareness that enables mon-
itoring of functional capabilities of the sanitation
systems (Kerner and Thomas 2014).
V. Characterize SAIMS controllable system
performance: this step deals with the configuration
of SAIMS resilient designs’ parameters, indicators
and critical vulnerability reduction strategies to
achieve the desired range of resilient performance.
Controllable indicates that the factors can be
manipulated to achieve the desired degree of resil-
ience required for the sustainability of safe sani-
tation. The performance solution configuration is
the factor state that meets or advances the system’s
resilient characteristics (Cannon and Paulo 2018).
VI. Integrate SAIMS resilience components, modules
and configurations into safe sanitation system: this
process involves in‐depth integration of the defined
and identified SAIMS system contextual vulnera-
bility factors, resilience design considerations, and
resilience performance controllable components
and modules to achieve the desired transformation
to safely managed resilient sanitation infrastructure.
VII. Verify and validate SAIMS component configura-
tion and performance: the integrated SAIMS resil-
ience components, modules and configurations
shall be verified and validated against functional
requirements of the overall safe sanitation system.
The purpose of this aspect is to ensure that the
safe‐sanitation infrastructure and management
systems are capable of physically performing at the
functional and resilient required ranges of output
(Cannon and Paulo 2018). Verification ensures that
the integrated‐adaptive system actually achieves the
desired system resilience performance and will fulfil
its intended purpose in the face of any climatic or
unexpected disturbances; such response after such
distrubances.
4.5. POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF SAIMS
TO THE SDGS
Studies have shown that lack of sanitation can hinder
other development priorities such as improved global
health, economic productivity, and food security. Some
sanitation programs offer opportunities to help people
adapt to climate variability and change and when cli-
mate is not considered, the objectives of other programs
may well be undermined. As a result, supporting climate
change adaptations for sanitation systems will increase
the resilience of development programs to improve public
health and environmental protection (USAID 2012).
Climate change resilient infrastructure and services are
critical for the achievement of sustainable development
goals (SDGs), especially as response to reducing effects
that could undermine future development and even
offset already achieved gains in the sanitation sector
(Denton 2014). It is clear that sustainable development
and tackling climate change must go hand‐in‐hand if
sanitation infrastructure (hardware and software) must
continue to function or rapidly return to function dur-
ing and after a climate‐related disturbance. This includes
all aspects of functionality without a compromise of
quality, quantity, containment, continuity, and reliability
for the purpose of service improvement and access expan-
sion (Luh et al. 2017). The impacts of droughts, floods,
tropical storms, earthquakes, and other hazards on san-
itation infrastructure and services require an increase
in the delivery of resilient sanitation systems mainly in
marginal urban and rural areas where natural hazards
pose the greatest risks (PAHO 2006).
Systems that remain resilient in the face of natural
disasters are an important step toward ensuring increased
access and improved services for a sustained period espe-
cially with the integration of planned‐resource recovery
and reuse. Building resilient sanitation infrastructure
and services such as waterless toilets for those in vul-
nerable situations could help reduce their exposure and
susceptibility to climate‐related extreme events and other
social economic and environmental shocks and disas-
ters. This could eventually contribute to the achievement
of SDG no. 1 (SuSanA 2018). The strategy of resource
recycling and recovery creates additional opportunities
58 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
for livelihood support for poor households, for instance,
in the areas of supplementing chemical fertilizers for
small‐farm holders and thereby contribute to food secu-
rity or business generation through the application of
the SVC (SuSanA 2018 – SDG no. 1). Sanitation stock
materials have been transformed into usable resources
since ancient times and sustainability acknowledges
by‐products of human digestion as renewable resources
from which water (Gaigger 2008, Drechsel et al. 2011,
Koottatep et al. 2019), materials, e.g. fertilizers (Larsen
et al. 2009, Drechsel et al. 2011, Koottatep et al. 2019),
bioplastics (Kleerebezem and van Loosdrecht 2007,
Drechsel et al. 2011, Koottatep et al. 2019), and energy
(Daigger 2008, Drechsel et al. 2011, Koottatep et al.
2019) can be recovered instead of merely removed (Guest
et al. 2009, Drechsel et al. 2011, Koottatep et al. 2019)
and reduce hazards of broken or fouled systems in events
like floods, earthquakes.
SAIMS supports resilient sanitation infrastructure
and services that incorporate planned resource recovery,
which then results in good health and wellbeing (SDG2),
and ensures that these facilities and provisions protect
and promote human health by breaking the cycle of
disease. The results of SAIMS could further support
climate adaptations for improved sustained services
that contribute to the prevention and control of sanita-
tion‐related diseases and those linked to poor hygiene
(Howard et al. 2006) as well as ensure environmental sus-
tainability by significantly reducing the degree of pollut-
ants to water and soil and minimize their adverse impacts
on human health (SuSanA 2018). SAIMS considers sani-
tation systems as holistic‐integrated resilient systems that
go beyond the provision of toilets to more comprehen-
sive strategies for the protection of riparian communities
that may be exposed to pathogens from untreated san-
itation materials (Bartram and Cairncross 2010, Mara
et al. 2010). One key principle for resilient safe sanitation
is that design, construction, operations, and maintenance
should integrate contextual consideration with peculiar
climate vulnerability in such a way that users are safely
separated from excreta, by preventing active contact with
soiled surfaces and passive contact via flies and/or other
vectors (WHO 2018).
Improving resilient designs and management of safe
sanitation systems have also been shown to support
resource recovery and reuse (RRR) (SDG 6); harvesting
of renewable energy resources from sanitation systems
(SDG 7) and recovering energy from sanitation mate-
rials to provide affordable renewable energy (SDG 7). For
instance, biogas can be generated as part of safe sanita-
tion systems to generate electrical and mechanical power,
including fuel for vehicles and homes before and after
disturbances. Biogas can also provide low‐cost domestic
cooking and heating fuel as an alternative to wood and
other biomass which provides access to modern energy
services (Andersson et al. 2016, SuSanA 2018); while at
the same time, ensuring sustainable production and con-
sumption through agriculture, aquaculture, and other
industrial processes that deplete non‐renewable natural
resources (SDG 12) (Sherpa et al. 2014, Otoo and
Drechsel 2017, UNDP 2018, SuSanA 2018, Koottatep
et al. 2019). Studies also indicate that treated urine, fecal
sludge and wastewater provide quick‐acting nitrogen fer-
tilizer, soil conditioners and sources of water and nutri-
ents; their safe use can significantly increase poor people’s
access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food, reduce mal-
nutrition, reduce costs for small‐holder farmers lacking
access to chemical fertilizers and result in more resilient
and sustainable agricultural practices in food production
(Andersson et al. 2016, SuSanA 2018).
In addition, SAIMS could support the use of sanitation‐
derived products (SDPs) to restore degraded soils (SDG
15) by utilizing resources from sanitation to improve food
security through the practice of resilient and regenera-
tive agriculture that help maintain ecosystems (SDG 2)
and designing sanitation infrastructure for urban regen-
eration that help build resilient cities (SDG 11) (Otoo
and Drechsel 2017, UNDP 2018, SuSanA 2018). In this
regard, SAIMS supports urban resilience through sani-
tation systems that support urban regeneration, urban
food production, urban greening, and ecosystem ser-
vices as well as ensuring improved services and expanded
access at scale. SAIMS draws from ReGenSan to plan for
the continuous improvement of existing sanitation infra-
structure and services, retrofitting of dysfunctional facil-
ities and emerging solutions that incorporate planned
resource recovery into technologies and infrastructure
for effective and efficient service delivery (Koottatep et al.
2019). With resilient safe‐sanitation infrastructure, there
is the potential for quicker and affordable recovery with
resources for agriculture and energy within easy access
after sudden and unsettling climatic and other events.
4.6. DESIGNING SAIMS BASED
INFRASTRUCTURE
Structural (technological) resilience adaptation mea-
sures should be incorporated into sanitation infra-
structure designs and service delivery (Francis and
Bekera 2014), in order to increase their resilient capacities
and this could be entirely new innovative solutions. Three
core areas could be explored: (i) absorptive capacities
that create engineering hardness in the sanitation sys-
tems to increase the proportion of the original systems’
functionality (performance) to be retained immediately
after post‐climatic‐disruptive‐events, (ii) adaptive capac-
ities that improve the proportion of the original sys-
tem’s functionality (performance) retained relative to the
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 59
original capacity after post‐climatic‐disruptive‐events,
and (iii) recovery capacities that minimize recovery time
after post‐climatic‐disruptive‐events. The more func-
tionality (performance) that sanitation infrastructure
retains relative to original capacity after post‐climatic‐
disruptive‐events, the higher the resilience (Francis and
Bekera 2014). Designs should also look at reducing the
hazardous impacts of failures and breakdowns when
these systems are changed due to climatic‐disruptive‐
events. On the other hand, sustained service delivery can
be designed based on climate resilient engineering stan-
dards and practices that cut‐across elements of both
disaster risk reductions, climate change adaptations and
sustainability standards (GWP and UNICEF 2017).
As a matter of fact, climate‐proofing measures are
now embedded into resilience and adaptation as key
requirements for large scale sanitation infrastructure pro-
grammes funded by international development banks.
For instance, in Japan, topography‐oriented sewer net-
works are designed to continue to deliver effective
treatment when pump stations are damaged from natural
hazards. The Minami‐Gamo wastewater treatment plant
is a case example where the gravity system is designed
to ensure that sanitation networks use the service area’s
topographic and geographic features to continue sew-
erage treatment even if pumping stations get damaged
upon a disaster (World Bank 2018). Also, the Initial
Environment Examination (IEE) report for sanita-
tion infrastructure of the Cimahi wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) at Leuwigajah, funded by the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) for five cities of Indonesia
(Cimahi, Jambi, Makassar, Palembang, and Pekanbaru),
included climate change adaptation considerations in the
design. This is because the ADB realized that inadequate
attention to climate change impacts could increase the
long‐term costs of sewerage investments for Cimahi City,
but the resilient features could increase the likelihood of
such investments delivering the benefits for which they
were intended (ADB 2017). Thus, SAIMS advocates
for sanitation technologies that are designed, operated,
and maintained to tackle a wide range of climate con-
ditions, accommodate unexpected service demand in
extreme climate events and operate with multiple options
and/or suitable components for service delivery that
ensure failures in one part of the system do not lead to
cascading failure of other elements or related systems
(OFWAT 2015a/b). This is because all existing sanita-
tion technologies have been found to be vulnerable to
climate change and even the most preferred sewered and
non‐sewered sanitation technologies are only resilient to
climate change in some scenarios (Howard et al. 2010).
In addition, infrastructural designs should be flexible,
robust, redundant, and resourceful so as to ensure that
sanitation facilities withstand, respond to, and adapt
more readily to stressors (MCEER 2006, Tyler and
Moench 2012, OFWAT 2015a/b).
To this end, SAIMS recommends design consider-
ations that focus on addressing resilient technologies’
functionality (performance) under variable climatic con-
ditions through adapting and updating technical norms
and regulations as well as enhancing governance and
management mechanisms. Several studies have shown
that the degree of resilience in various sanitation tech-
nologies differ under different climate‐related hazards
(Luh et al. 2017). Precipitation levels decline could
make sewerage systems more difficult to operate and
maintain, especially in conventional sewerage with high
water requirements. Also, problems could arise from the
reduced capacity of water to absorb and dilute pollution
for increased performance requirements and sewers are
also at risk from flooding damage mainly when it carries
storm water, which can overwhelm treatment facilities
(Howard et al. 2010). Studies also reveal that rising water
levels due to storm surge, sea level rise, and flooding can
lead to a failure of safe sanitation, impacting community
health (USAID 2012 – Table 4.3).
In response to some of these challenges, the Sewerage
Act of Japan mandates that the structural design of drain-
age and wastewater treatment plants should be robust and
durable. It also specifies necessary measures to prevent or
minimize damage from earthquakes, including improve-
ment of ground conditions and installations (World
Bank 2018). Design for SAIMS should address the “resil-
ience deficit” characteristics inherent within conventional
sanitation infrastructure with an aim to reduce the overall
systems vulnerability to climate change hazards and
extreme weather events, Table 4.4. (Schertenleib 2005;
Maurer et al. 2012; Chang et al. 2011) SAIMS explores
the possibility of diversification and decentralization of
service delivery through planned resource recovery such
as reuse/recycling of biomass for energy and nutrients
production from sanitation materials with added benefits
of lowering overall greenhouse gas emissions (GWP and
UNICEF 2017).
The introduction of faecal sludge management (FSM)
facilities ensures the improvement of household contain-
ment, safe transport and disposal at dedicated treatment
facilities coupled with planned resource recovery. All of
these spread the risk between sources and systems as
well as limits the exposure of populations to source/net-
work‐critical failures during extreme weather events and
disturbances so that the systems do not pose a threat to
the environment and public health (Hawkins et al. 2013,
Strande et al. 2014, Howard et al. 2016, Larson et al. 2016,
GWP and UNICEF 2017). For instance, faecal sludge
management (FSM) was used as a resilience strategy to
address flood risk from 900 pit latrines that service more
than 25,000 people in Lusaka, Zambia, which prevented
60 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Table 4.3 Potential climate impacts on sanitation infrastructure and services (USAID 2012).
Wastewater treatment Latrines Septic and leach field
Temperature increase •• Lower water quality due to increased algal •• Increased odours use less •• Minimal impact
blooms and pathogens and lower dissolved attractive
oxygen
Increased intensity of •• Overwhelmed treatment systems, •• Decreased separation from •• Decreased separation
precipitation and especially associated with combined groundwater due to rising from groundwater due
storm events sewers or through inflow/infiltration water tables to rising water tables
•• Inundation of outfall causing discharge to •• Inundation and overflow
back up
•• Flood damage to collection systems and
treatment facilities
•• Disruption of pumping and treatment due
to power loss
Prolonged drought •• Reduced capacity of water resources to •• Minimal impact •• Minimal impact
absorb and dilute pollution due to lower
flows in receiving streams
•• Reduced treatment performance due to
lower flows
Sea level rise •• Inundation of low‐lying treatment facilities •• Inundation of low‐lying •• Inundation of low‐
requiring relocations latrines requiring lying latrines requiring
•• Inundation of outfall causing discharge to relocation relocation
back‐up •• Decreased effectiveness ••
due to rising water tables •• Decreased
effectiveness due to
rising water tables

Table 4.4 Sanitation technology resilience (Source: WHO/ systems and treatment processes that can function effec-
DFID 2009). tively with reduced dilution (Hawkins et al. 2013, GWP
Technology Resilience Issues and UNICEF 2017). SAIMS is important for bridging
the gap between disaster risk reductions and climate
Pit latrines High Many adaptations possible,
change adaptations based on traditional risk assessments
flooding represents a
and management approaches that relate to specific haz-
particular challenge
Septic tanks Low‐ Vulnerable to flooding and ards in particular areas to enhance systems’ performance
medium drying environments in the face of multiple hazards; instead of just ame-
Modified Medium Less vulnerable than liorating and mitigating the loss of assets from these
sewerage conventional sewerage to specific events (Rockefeller Foundation (2014). Thus,
reduced water quantity, but SAIMS climate resilient infrastructure design focuses on
flooding a threat the processes used and outcomes achieved to determine
Conventional Low‐ Risk from reduced water whether climate change impacts have been considered
sewerage medium availability and flooding of and, if necessary, managed (OECD 2018).
combined sewers
Sewage Low‐ Vulnerable to increases and
treatment medium decreases in water, treatment 4.7. GOVERNANCE OF SAIMS
requirements may increase as
carrying capacity is reduced Governance enhances the efficiency of sanitation oper-
ational responsibilities, i.e. the day‐to‐day functionality
of service delivery and the institutional arrangements that
public health and environmental degradation risks (GWP include the formal and informal contexts which help or
and UNICEF (2017). hinder the successful delivery of these day‐to‐day activ-
However, for sewered systems, standards need to be ities (Ross et al. 2014, Koottatep et al. 2019). It covers
raised to account for the lower absorptive and dilution wider ranges of issues such as ownership, management
capacity of the receiving water bodies. More attention and operations, institutional and regulatory frameworks,
should also be on designing new systems with low/zero funding mechanisms, and cost recovery (Ross et al. 2014,
water use latrines, modified and/or decentralized sewerage Koottatep et al. 2019). It also provides for collaborative,
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 61
adaptive, flexible and learning‐based approaches that
support resilient sanitation infrastructure and services in
the face of wide range climate change challenges (Gupta
et al 2010, Denton et al. 2014, Koontz et al. 2015).
Governance is the structure and process that society
uses to make decisions and share power, which involves
the interaction of laws and implementation of decisions
that ensure accountability and set the rules under which
management operates (Folke et al. 2005, Pahl‐Wostl 2009,
Cookey 2016, Cookey et al. 2016, and Koottatep et al.
2019). Management refers to the actual operational and
institutional responsibilities of organizations to provide
sanitation services based on adopted business, legal and
socio‐cultural orientations aimed at enhancing the func-
tionality of sanitation system (Koottatep et al. 2019);
while governance takes into account the different actors
and networks that help formulate and implement sani-
tation policies and/or institutional instruments while
embracing the full complexity of regulatory processes
and their interactions (Pahl‐Wostl 2009, Koottatep
et al. 2019). Meanwhile, institutions are the body of
rules, regulations and processes that guide sanitation
management actions and procedures, and direct enforce-
ment (Pahl‐Wostl 2009).
Thus, governance systems respond to increasing cli-
mate change hazards by integrating formal institutions,
informal groups/networks, and individuals at multiple
scales for the purpose of collaborative management
of sanitation infrastructure by enhancing the capacity
to learn and manage resilience (Folke et al. 2005,
Cookey 2016, Cookey et al. 2016). This is because cli-
mate change impacts have the potential to affect a range
of sanitation‐related decisions and SAIMS will function
effectively and efficiently in a governance environment
that ensures (Ebbesson 2010, Heath et al. 2010): (i) flex-
ibility in social systems and institutions to deal with cli-
mate change. (ii) openness of institutions to provide for
broad participation, especially in local decision‐mak-
ing and administration, (iii) build long‐term resilience
through stronger institutions, and invest in infrastructure
and well‐functioning ecosystems, (iv) improve and share
knowledge and information on safe sanitation resilience
measures and invest in data collection, (v) effectiveness
of multilevel governance, and (vi) social structures that
promote learning and adaptability without limiting the
options for future development.
In this regard, SAIMS advocates for a governance
structure that works to improve the functionality, reli-
ability, and resilience of sanitation infrastructure and ser-
vice provisions, increase and protect asset life and returns
through a package of management measures such as
changing maintenance schedules and including adaptive
management to account for uncertainty in the future
(OECD 2018). Furthermore, the functions of governance
would be to support the following (Denton et al. 2014):
(i) the design, operations and maintenance of resilient
sanitation infrastructure solutions, (ii) capacity building
to increase options available for improved resilience
and coping with unexpected threats, (iii) monitoring the
effectiveness of vulnerability reduction efforts, and (iv)
revising risk reduction responses on the basis of contin-
uous learning.
This kind of conceptual thinking will require that
existing governance systems undergo expansive legal
reforms by identifying principles and possible mech-
anisms for achieving a shift to resilience‐based gover-
nance (Garmestani and Benson 2013). The key resilient
infrastructure–governance solution is embedded in the
proper understanding of human and organizational per-
ceptions and behaviour, including individual and insti-
tutional needs, desires, wants (motivations), and power
issues (Giddens 1982, Partzch 2015, Johannessen and
Wamsler 2017). The important role of governance is to
provide participatory and inclusive approaches that allow
climate affected communities to play active roles in deter-
mining how best to prevent and manage climate resultant
risks (Lebel et al. 2006, Satterthwaite et al. 2009, Tyler and
Moench 2012). Hence, SAIMS supports adaptive institu-
tions that lead to adaptive governance, which then ensures
government actors are able to adjust and encourage
individuals to act in ways that improve resilience. These
adjustments will demonstrate flexibility and diversity,
where the ability of institutions to bend, but not break,
and learn through experience, speaks to its ability to man-
age crises effectively and efficiently (Koontz et al. 2015).
For instance, studies reveal that household‐managed san-
itation facilities have greater potential to be highly resil-
ient to climate change (Howard et al. 2010). Therefore,
resilience‐based governance is predicated on the fact that
adequate intervention and service/solution provisions in
any local context is predominantly dependent on pre-
vailing policies, legislations, regulations and acceptable
standards (Koottatep et al. 2019). Enhanced local insti-
tutions will also influence the ability of communities to
adapt their sanitation systems towards climate resilience
(Denton et al. 2014). In the end, an SAIMS aligned gov-
ernance mechanism will provide supportive guidance and
policies for sanitation facility users as a priority towards
achieving resilient infrastructure/services in pursuit of
the SDG 6 sanitation targets (Howard et al. 2010).
4.8. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Integrating resilience into the sanitation sector through
the adoption and implementation of SAIMS is not
devoid of challenges. The key barriers are management
and administration; governance and institutions;
information; knowledge and skills, resource constraints,
62 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

and infrastructure standardization (Royal Academy of Development Plan Framework (NMTDPF) iden-
Engineering 2011). tified cross‐cutting issues of gender, disability
and climate change as necessary requirement for
I. Management and administration: Management and
the District Medium‐Term Development Plans
administrative fragmentation create coordination
(DMTDP). While gender and disability have been
challenges in the sanitation sector because of
mainstreamed into the administrative structure
the efforts required to coordinate numerous
of the Assembly, climate change is yet to receive
government departments with inherent sanita-
such support. The Environmental Health and
tion functions and responsibilities as well as inte-
Sanitation Unit (EHSU) and Community Water
grate the informal actors and networks that help
and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) stakeholders sug-
formulate and implement sanitation programmes.
gest that it is mandatory for statutory support of
These tasks will require the adoption of flexible
climate change issues to ensure that the effects of
and adaptive processes and allocation of resources
climate change are recognized and acted upon by a
to prevent measures of climate uncertainties, in
set of stakeholders like the service users, public sec-
the anticipation of future threats (Bahadur and
tor and private sector providers, local and central
Tanner 2014, Boin and Lodge 2016, Coaffee
governments, NGOs and development partners
et al. 2018). The greatest challenge will be how
(Alhassan and Hadwen 2017). This is because if
best to restructure the activities of various sanita-
governance and institutional capacities are strong
tion infrastructure and service delivery agencies to
and effective, they can then deliver and enhance
break down the silos that protect fields of exper-
adaptive responses and produce resilient infrastruc-
tise in traditional bureaucratic settings and move
ture and services (Oates et al. 2014).
towards integration, collaboration, development of
III. Information, knowledge and skills: Information,
adaptive capacities and long term integrated proac-
knowledge, and skills are consistently among the
tive planning, which is critical for the implementa-
key challenges in the implementation of climate
tion of SAIMS (Hupe 2011, Koottatep et al. 2019).
change resilience strategies like SAIMS. Knowledge
II. Governance and institutions: Governance and insti-
is acquired through comprehension of information
tutional challenges manifest in the way current
gained through learning that creates and enhances
and existing institutional structures and statutory
the application of skills (Koottatep et al. 2019).
mechanisms that support formal and informal
Resolving this challenge will require the design of
sanitation policies and laws are inappropriately
adequate training tools and innovative learning
framed and thus inadequate; in most cases non‐
approaches to enhance the competencies and
existent making it difficult to implement SAIMS
institutional capacities of the sanitation sector to
(Alhassan and Hadwen 2017). The commitment
adopt and implement SAIMS (Koottatep et al.
of formal and informal actors would best be
2019). Also, the degree of knowledge, awareness,
reflected in existing legislative frameworks evi-
availability, accessibility, credibility, and reliability
dent in the presence and absence of local laws
of information, as well as how the information is
and regulations that do support the integration of
communicated and translated to individual, com-
resilience into safe sanitation systems (Duff 2011,
munities, and decision makers on issues relating
Cuevas et al. 2015). The most pressing challenges
to climate change can impact on their acceptabil-
are institutional rigidity, political turbulence and
ity of SAIMS (Tearfund 2006, Mukheibir and
discontinuity, legal requirements, and institution-
Ziervogel 2007, UNDP/UNEP 2011, Ekstrom
alization of climate change actions that could dis-
et al. 2011, Bryan and Behrman 2013, Ayers
courage the application of resilient approaches like
et al. 2014, Cuevas et al. 2015). In most cases, the
SAIMS (Cuevas et al. 2015). Such institutional
scientific knowledge and information needed to
inertia seems to stem largely from difficulties of
develop resilient technologies, proactive approaches,
organizational change and especially in ceding
and tools are often lacking, especially in developing
power and control to new stakeholders and gov-
countries that are worst hit by climate change haz-
ernance configurations. Therefore, policies that
ards/disasters; and this is coupled with access and
promote the principles of adaptation and resil-
service expansion problems. Moving forward will
ience have largely remained in bureaucratic silos
require adequate and appropriate skills to generate,
with weak cross‐sectoral coordination and could
share, educate, and ensure right use of knowledge
impact the implementation of robust strategies
and information.
like SAIMS (Therrien 2010, Coaffee et al. 2018).
IV. Resource Constraints: Human and financial resource
For instance, Ghana’s National Medium Term
constraints would be key obstacles for the uptake
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 63
of SAIMS, mainly at local levels where the impact
of climate change on sanitation infrastructure
and service delivery are most felt (Mukheibir and
Ziervogel 2007, OECD 2009, Measham et al. 2011,
Cuevas et al. 2015). Budgetary constraints will
impact on needed innovations for the adaptation
and resilient transformations (Mukheibir and
Ziervogel 2007, Cuevas et al. 2015). The inadequate
human capacity to undertake SAIMS related activ-
ities will greatly impede the progress needed for the
expansion of access and for service improvement
towards achieving the SDGs. The interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary systemic perspectives of
SAIMS – in which engineers work alongside scien-
tists, economists, and other social scientists – may
provide cost effective solutions, but would require
rethinking of sanitation infrastructural and ser-
vice delivery capacity building (Royal Academy of
Engineering 2011). The lack of specific skills and
expertise are the greatest challenges for operation-
alization of SAIMS (Moser and Ekstrom 2010,
Cuevas et al. 2015).
V. Infrastructure standardization: Global challenges
of inadequate standardization for existing sani-
tation infrastructure and practices could hinder
SAIMS implementation, specifically in developing
countries with huge deficits on sanitation cov-
erage and could also impact technological inno-
vations for adaptation and resilience. In the same
vein, inadequate standards for design, installation,
operations, and maintenance for sewered and non‐
sewered infrastructure may also restrict the uptake
of SAIMS (Royal Academy of Engineering 2011,
Sherpa et al. 2014, Koottatep et al. 2019).This
increases the vulnerability of sanitation facilities
because infrastructure systems are prone to a range
of human‐caused or natural disruptive events.
Thus, development of relevant technical guide-
lines and standards for building resilient sanitation
infrastructure and services will reduce vulnerability
to natural hazards (Ofwat, 2015a/b). The use of
appropriate materials and technology that target
existing risks and a dynamic process for updating
design standards are indispensable for developing
resilient and safe sanitation systems (PAHO 2006).
Despite these challenges, however, climate change
also presents us with considerable opportunities, largely
through the adoption and application of SAIMS process
as a response mechanism to the impact of climate change
on safe sanitation systems and also as a requirement to
achieve the SDGs (UNDP 2016). Safe sanitation resilient
infrastructure and services would guarantee increased
(OECD 2018):
(i) Reliability of service provisions by reducing the fre-
quency and severity of disruptions.
(ii) Safe sanitation facility life, which then reduces repair
and maintenance costs because preparing for climate
change at the outset can avoid the need for costly ret-
rofitting and reduce the degree of dysfunctionality.
(iii) Efficiency in service provision – in most cases, recog-
nizing the impact of climate change can reduce the
unit costs of service provision relative to business‐as‐
usual approaches.
(iv) Co‐benefits – some approaches to climate‐resilient
infrastructure like planned‐resource recovery could
deliver additional benefits to the users (OECD 2018).
Therefore, SAIMS provides the opportunity for doing
things better, differently and could become a poten-
tial driver for innovations geared towards meeting the
SDGs (Butterworth and Guendel 2011) through recog-
nizing that a climate change situation that is deficient
of preparation may not leave room for access expansion
and service improvement. At the same time, SAIMS
prepares actors and stakeholders to prioritize financing
management and technological activities as well as
strengthen sanitation institutions and the enabling envi-
ronment that enhances adaptive capacity and resilience
(Oates et al. 2014). Research and development in the
sanitation sector could also be enriched by investigating
SAIMS further and exploring SAIMS‐compliant innova-
tive technology and management solutions. In summary,
implementing SAIMS could provide opportunities in
the areas of (Butterworth and Guendel 2011, Drechsel
et al. 2011, Oates et al. 2014): (i) modification of sanita-
tion policies to account for climate change impacts in the
sector; (ii) integration of policies and measures to address
climate change in sanitation planning and management
for long‐term viability and sustainability of investments;
(iii) development of climate change resilience technical
guidelines and standards for sanitation infrastructure
and service delivery; (iv) designs of planned resource
recovery and reuse from sanitation systems as a pil-
lar for enhancing system resilience; and (v) design and
construction of resilient sanitation infrastructure and
services that allow for future transitions.
4.9. CONCLUSION
SAIMS adopts the concept of resilience which is
significant for addressing climate change and disaster
risk reductions in the WASH sector by providing an
opportunity for the integration of technology, social‐
ecological and management systems that are capable
of adapting to a wide range of potential safe sanita-
tion climate threats scenarios. Thus, incorporating resil-
ience into sanitation management should achieve a
64 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
transformation of sanitation infrastructure and services
that can minimize and resist the impact of climate change
(Butler et al. 2014/2016, Diao et al. 2016). This process
enhances the human agencies’ adaptive capacities partic-
ularly through improved sanitation and hygiene behav-
iour change practices that can reduce the vulnerability
levels of sanitation systems through the application of
suitable climate change information, knowledge, and
skills (Füssel 2007, CARE International 2009, Alhassan
and Hadwen 2017). In order to achieve safe sanitation
systems that could survive and/or recover quickly from
climate change or sudden extreme weather occurrences,
SAIMS focuses on continuous improvement of the cur-
rently adjudged improved sanitation facilities estimated
to be used by 5 billion people while also guaranteeing
effective fecal sludge management (FSM) for the esti-
mated 2.7 billion people using on‐site sanitation facil-
ities as well as retrofitting unimproved and dysfunctional
sanitation systems currently used by 2.4 billion people
(WHO and UNICEF 2017). It will also require changes
to sanitation designs so as to reduce the risk of flood-
ing under current climate variability and uncertainties
as a first step toward building resilience and adaptation
(Koottatep et al. 20). Butterworth and Guendel (2011)
summarized these uncertainties as: (i) uncertainty linked
to knowledge, especially those dealing with scientific
understanding, (ii) uncertainty linked to societal and
bio‐physical systems with complex feedback loops and/
or delays that might exacerbate or reduce the impacts of
climate change, (iii) uncertainty linked to system behav-
iour and more specifically, the ability of systems to adapt
and cope with and/or even prosper from climate change
impacts, (iv) uncertainty in the perception and/or mental
models that institutions or people have of climate change;
which are and will continue to be diverse, ambiguous and
difficult to reconcile, and (v) uncertainty in the potential
impacts of policy, framework, methods, and tools aimed
at practical adaptation and resilience (Butterworth and
Guendel 2011, Denton et al. 2014, Sherpa et al. 2014,
WHO 2018).
Therefore, a conceptual thinking instrument that
addresses the most critical and relevant issues of the sani-
tation sector essential for identifying the population, sec-
tors, regions, technology and services most vulnerable to
the impact of climate change, review the ability of climate
change events to increase the vulnerabilities of sanitation
infrastructure and services, and the ability of such events
to reduce the resilience of the sanitation sector, thereby
endangering the achievement of the SDGs in 2030. The
impact of climate change and disaster events on san-
itation management in urban, small, and rural areas
whether in developed and developing communities, often
lead to infrastructural and service delivery failures, result-
ing in public health and environmental deterioration. In
essence, sanitation systems are highly vulnerable because
they could crack, break and overflow to contaminate
soil, ground and surface water and these situations pose a
huge threat to already dire circumstances. But, this could
be avoided or minimized with infrastructure and service
delivery that are deliberately designed to interact with the
peculiar characteristics of particular locations and with
their capacity to adapt to changes, absorb shocks and
recover quickly through seamless integrated feedback
processes embedded in the SAIMS approach for concep-
tualizing resilience in sanitation management.
REFERENCES
ADP (Asian Development Bank) (2017) Guidelines for climate
proofing investment in the water sector: Water supply and sani-
tation. Asian Development Bank, e‐ISBN 978‐92‐9257‐670‐7,
Mandaluyong City, Philippines. https://www.adb.org/sites/
default/files/institutional‐document/219646/guidelines‐
climate‐proofing‐water.pdf (accessed 2 February 2019).
Alderman, K., Turner, L.R., and Tong, S. (2012). Floods and
human health: a systematic review. Environ. Int. 47:37–47.
Alhassan, S., and Hadwen, W.L., (2017) Challenges and Oppor-
tunities for Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into
WaSH Development Planning in Ghana. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 14 (7), 749; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14070749
Anderies, J.M., Folke, C., Walker, B., and Ostrom, E., (2013)
Aligning key concepts for global change policy: Robustness,
resilience, and sustainability. Ecol. Soc., 18, 8.
Andersson, K., Rosemarin, A., Lamizana, B. et al. (2016). San-
itation, Wastewater Management and Sustainability: From
Waste Disposal to Resource Recovery. UNEP/GPA/SEI,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Aven, T., and Zio, E., (2011) Some considerations on the
treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical
decision making. Reliability Engineering and System Safety
2011;96(1):64–74.
Ayers, J.M., Huq, S., Faisal, A.M., and Hussain, S.T. (2014).
"Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development:
a case study of Bangladesh." WIREs Climate Change no.
5:37–51. doi: doi: 10.1002/wcc.226.
Bahadur, A.V. and Tanner, T. (2014). Policy climates and cli-
mate policies: Analysing the politics of building urban cli-
mate change resilience. Urban Climate, 7, 20–32. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.08.004
Bartram J. and Cairncross S. (2010) Hygiene, Sanitation, and Water:
Forgotten Foundations of Health; PLoS Med 7(11): e1000367;
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371
/journal.pmed.1000367 (accessed 26 January 2019)
Baum, R., Luh, J., and Bartram, J. (2013). Sanitation: a global
estimate of sewerage connections without treatment and the
resulting impact on MDG progress. Environ. Sci. Technol.
47:1994–2000
Below, R. and Wallemacq, P. (2018) Annual Disaster Statistical
Review 2+017. Published by Centre for Research on the Epi-
demiology of Disasters (CRED) https://www.cred.be/annual‐
disaster‐statistical‐review‐2017 (accessed 05/02/2019)
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 65
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D. et al. (2012) Toward principles
for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 37, 421–448.
BMGF (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) (2012) Water, san-
itation and hygiene: strategy review. Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, Seattle.
Boin, A. and Lodge, M. (2016). Designing resilient institu-
tions for transboundary crisis management: a time for public
administration. Public Administration, 94(2), 289–298.
Bryan, E., and Behrman, J., (2013) Community–based adaptation
to climate change: A theoretical framework, overview of key
issues and discussion of gender differentiated priorities and
participation In CAPRi Working Paper no. 109. Washington,
D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Brooks, N., Adger, N., and Kelly, M.P., (2005) The determi-
nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national
level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environ-
mental Change Part A 15 (2), 151–163.
Butler, D., Farmani, R., Fu, G., et al. (2014). A new approach
to urban water management: safe and SuRe. Procedia Eng.
89, 347–354.
Butler, D., Ward, S., Sweetapple, C. et al. (2016). Reliable, resil-
ient and sustainable water management: the Safe &SuRe
approach. Global Chall. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gch2.1010.
Butterworth, J., and Guendel, S., (2011) WASH & climate
change adaptation training module: factsheets. A training
module prepared by the IRC International Water and Sanita-
tion Centre for UNICEF and the National Water Resources
Institute, Kaduna. https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/
files/wash_and_climate_change_adaptation_factsheets.pdf
(accessed 07/02/2019)
Cannon, J. and Paulo, E., (2018) Toward a methodology for the
system integration of adaptive resilience in armor. Systems
Engineering 22, 43–53. DOI: 10.1002/sys.21467.
CARE International (2009) Climate Vulnerability and
Capacity Analysis Handbook. Available online: http://
careclimatechange.org/tool‐kits/cvca/ (accessed on 3 June
2016).
Carlton, E.J., Woster, A.P., DeWitt, P, et al. (2015). A systematic
review and meta‐analysis of ambient temperature and diar-
rhoeal diseases. Int. J. Epidemiol. 45(1):117–30.
Chang N.‐B., Pires A. and Martinho G. (2011). Empowering
systems analysis for solid waste management: challenges,
trends, and perspectives. Critical Reviews in Environmental
Science and Technology, 41(16), 1449–1530. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10643381003608326.
Chapin, F.S., Folke C., and Kofinas G.P. (2009) A Framework
for Understanding Change. In: Folke C., Kofinas G., Chapin
F. (eds) Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship. Springer, New
York, NY
Clark, W.C., Jager, J., Correll, R. et al. (2000) Assessing Vulnera-
bility to Global Environmental Risks. Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, Cambridge, MA.
Coaffee, J., Therrien, M‐C., Chelleri, L. et al. (2018) Urban
resilience implementation: A policy challenge and research
agenda for the 21st century. J Contingencies and Crisis
Management 26:403–410. DOI: 10.1111/1468‐5973.12233.
Cookey, P. (2016) Adaptive Integrated Lake Basin Management:
Measuring Lake Basin Governance Performance. ISBN‐13
978‐3‐659‐94249‐5LAP Lambert Academic Publishing,
­Germany.
Cookey P. E., Darnsawasdi R., and Ratanachai C. (2016).
A Conceptual Framework for Assessment of Governance
Performance of Lake Basins: Towards Transformation to
Adaptive and Integrative Governance. Hydrology, 3 (1), 12,
doi: 10.3390/hydrology3010012.
Confalonieri, U., Menne, B., Akhtar, R., et al. (2007) Human
Health. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vul-
nerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (ed. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof et al.),
pp. 391–431. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Cuevas, S.C., Peterson, A., Robinson, C., and Morrison, T.H.,
(2015). "Challenges in Mainstreaming Climate Change
Adaptation into Local Land Use Planning: Evidence from
Albay, Philippines." The International Journal of Climate
Change: Impacts and Responses no. 7(3): 45–65. http://ijc.
cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.271.
Cutter, S.L., Mitchell, J.T., and Scott, M.S., (2000) Revealing the
vulnerability of people and places: a case study of George-
town County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 90 (4), 713–737.
Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., et al. (2008) A place‐
based model for understanding community resilience to
natural disasters. Global Environmental Change 18 598–606.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013.
Daigger G.T. (2008). New approaches and technologies for
wastewater management. The Bridge, 38(3), 38–45.
Davies, G.I., McIver, L., Kim, Y. et al. (2015). Water‐borne
disease and extreme weather events in Cambodia: review of
impacts and implications of climate change. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 12(1):191–213.
Denton, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Abeysinghe, A.C. et al. (2014) Cli-
mate‐resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable
development. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change [C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J.
Dokken et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1101–1131.
Denyer, D., (2017) Organizational Resilience: A Summary of
Academic Evidence, Business Insights and New Thinking, 1st
ed.; BSI and Cranfield School of Management: Cranfield, UK.
Diao, K., Sweetapple, C., Farmani, R. et al. (2016) Global resil-
ience analysis of water distribution systems. Water Research
106, 383–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.10.011.
Drechsel, P., Cofie, O.O., Keraita, B. et al. (2011) Recovery
and Reuse of Resources: Enhancing urban resilience in low‐
income countries. Urban Agriculture magazine, 25. https://
www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/UAM%2025‐Recovery%20
and%20Reuse%2066‐69.pdf (accessed 23 January 2019.
Duff, L. (2011). " Introduction." In: Overcoming Barriers to Cli-
mate Change Adaptation Implementation in Southern Africa,
edited by Lesley Masters and Lyndsey Duff, xxiii‐xxx. Preto-
ria 0001, South Africa: Africa Institute of South Africa.
Ebbesson, J., (2010) The rule of law in governance of complex
socio‐ecological changes. Global Environmental Change 20,
414–422. Doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.009.
66 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Eckstein, D., Hutfils, M., and Winges, M., (2018) Global Climate
Risk Index 2019 Who Suffers Most From Extreme Weather
Events? Weather‐related Loss Events in 2017 and 1998 to
2017. ISBN 978‐3‐943704‐70‐9. https://www.germanwatch.
org/sites/germanwatch.org/files/Global%20Climate%20
Risk%20Index%202019_2.pdf (accessed 15/02/2019)
Ekstrom, J.A., Moser, S.C., and Torn, M., (2011). Barriers
to Climate Adaptation: A Diagnostic Framework. USA:
California Energy Commission.
Francis, R., and Bekera, B., (2014) A metric and framework for
resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 121, 90–103. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.07.004.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T. et al. (2002) Resilience
and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a
world of transformations. Ambio 31, 437–440.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive
governance of social‐ecological systems. Annual Review
of Environment and Resources 30:441–473. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.
Füssel, H.M., (2007) Vulnerability: A generally applicable
conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob.
Environ. Chang. 17, 155–167. [CrossRef].
Garmestani, A.S., and Benson, M.H. (2013). A framework
for resilience‐based governance of socialecological systems.
Ecology and Society 18(1): 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES‐05180‐180109.
Giddens, A. (1982). Hermeneutics and social theory. Pages 1‐17
in A. Giddens. Profiles and critiques in social theory. Univer-
sity of California Press, Berkeley California, USA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐349‐86056‐2_1 (accessed 27 Janu-
ary 2019).
Grigoletto, J.C., Cabral, A.R., Bonfim, C.V. et al. (2016)
Management of health sector actions in drought situations.
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 21(3):709–718. DOI: 10.1590/1413
‐81232015213.26212015.
Guest, J.S., Skerlos, S.J., Barnard, J.L. et al. (2009).Anewplan-
ning and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource
recovery from wastewater. Advances in Environmental Science
and Technology, 43, 6126–6130, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/
pdf/10.1021/es9010515.
Guha‐Sapir D., (2019) 2018 Review of Disaster Events
Supplementary Information. file:///C:/Users/cooke2/Down-
loads/Review2018.pdf (accessed 05/02/2019).
Guha‐Sapir D., Hoyois Ph., Wallemacq P., and Below. R., (2016)
Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2016: The Numbers and
Trends. Brussels: CRED; http://emdat.be/sites/default/files/
adsr_2016.pdf (accessed 05/02/2019).
Guha‐Sapir D, Vos F, Below R, and Ponserre S. (2012) Annual
Disaster Statistical Review 2011: The Numbers and Trends.
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
(CRED), Brussels.
Gupta, J., Termeer, C,. Klostermann, K. et al. (2010): The
adaptive capacity wheel: a method to assess the inherent
characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity
of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13, 459–471.
GWP and UNICEF (2017) Linking risk with response:
options for climate resilient WASH. WASH Climate Resil-
ient Development. Technical Brief. Prepared in cooperation
with HR Wallingford and the Overseas Development Institute
(ODI). ISBN: 978‐91‐87823‐38‐1. New York, United State
of America. https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/about‐
gwp/publications/unicef‐gwp/gwp_unicef_linking_risk_
with_response_brief.pdf (accessed 27/01/2019)
Hawkins, P., Blackett, I., and Heymans, C. (2013). Poor‐
inclusive urban sanitation: An overview. Water and Sanitation
Programme Study 80347, August 2013. World Bank, Wash-
ington DC.
Heath, T., Parker, A., and Weatherhead, K., (2010) How to
Climate Proof Water and Sanitation Services for the Urban
Poor. https://www.wsup.com/content/uploads/2017/08/033‐
How‐to‐Climate‐Proof‐WASH‐1.pdf (accessed 17 February
2019).
Hem, L.J., Hafskjold, L.S., Pieras, R.M. et al. (2015) Chapter 4.1:
Introduction and state‐of‐the‐art. (ed) by Hulsmann, A.,
Grützmacher, G., van den Berg, G. et al. In: Climate Change,
Water Supply and Sanitation: Risk Assessment, Management,
Mitigation and Reduction. ISBN 9781780405001. IWA Pub-
lishing, London, UK.
Holling, C.S., (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological sys-
tems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4, 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.es.04.110173.000245..
Howard, G., Calow, r., Macdonald, A and Bartram, J., (2016)
Climate Change and Water and Sanitation: Likely Impacts
and Emerging Trends for Action. Annual Review of Environ-
ment and Resources 2016 41:1, 253–276.
Howard, G,, Reed, B., McChesney, D., and Taylor, R. (2006).
Human excreta and sanitation: control and protection. In
Protecting Groundwater for Health: Managing the Quality of
Groundwater Sources, ed. O. Schmoll, G. Howard, J. Chilton,
and I. Chorus, pp. 587–612. London: IWA Publ.
Howard, G., Charles, K., Pond, K. et al. (2010). Securing 2020
vision for 2030: climate change and ensuring resilience in
water and sanitation services. J. Water Climate 1(1):2–16
Hupe, P. L. (2011). The thesis of incongruent implementa-
tion: Revisiting Pressman and Wildavsky. Public Policy and
Administration, 26(1), 63–80.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014a)
Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. http://
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_
reports.shtml#.Uot5GTc5Oyk (accessed December 2013).
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014b).
Human health: impacts, adaptation, and co‐benefits. In: Cli-
mate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change [C.B. Field, V.R. Barros,
D.J. Dokken et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp.709–754.
ISF‐UTS and SNV, (2019). Considering climate change in
urban sanitation: conceptual approaches and practical impli-
cations. The Hague: SNV. http://www.snv.org/public/cms/
sites/default/files/explore/download/2019‐considering‐
climatechange‐in‐urban‐san‐ushhd‐learning‐snv_0.pdf
(accessed 06/08/2019).
Johannessen, A., Rosemarin, A., Thomalla, F. et al. (2014)
Strategies for building resilience to hazards in water, sanita-
tion and hygiene (WASH) systems: The role of public private
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 67
partnerships. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
10, 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.07.002.
Johannessen, Å., and Wamsler, C. (2017). What does resilience
mean for urban water services?. Ecology and Society 22(1):1.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES‐08870‐220101 (accessed 20 Janu-
ary 2019)
Juan‐García, P., Butler, D., Comas, J. et al. (2017) Resil-
ience theory incorporated into urban wastewater systems
management. State of the art. Water Research 115, 149–161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.047.
Kerner, D.A., and Thomas, J.S., (2014) Resilience Attributes of
Social‐Ecological Systems: Framing Metrics for Management.
Resources 3, 672–702; doi:10.3390/resources3040672.
Kleerebezem, R. and van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. (2007). Mixed
culture biotechnology for bioenergy production. Current
Opinion in Biotechnology, 18(3), 207–212.
Kohlitz, J.P., Chong, J., and Willetts, J. (2017) Review Paper
Climate change vulnerability and resilience of water, sanita-
tion, and hygiene services: a theoretical perspective. Journal
of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 07.2, 181–
195. doi: 10.2166/washdev.2017.134.
Kolstad, E.W. and Johannson, K.A. (2011). Uncertainties asso-
ciated with quantifying climate change impacts on human
health: a case study for diarrhea. Environ. Health Perspect.
119(3):299–305.
Koontz, T.M., Gupta, D., Mudliar, P., and Ranjan, P., (2015)
Adaptive institutions in social‐ecological systems governance:
A synthesis framework. Environmental Science & Policy 53,
139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.003.
Koottatep, T., Cookey, P.E. and Polprasert. C. (2019).
Regenerative Sanitation: A Framework for Sanitation 4.0.
IWA Publishing, the Hague, Netherlands, https://books.
google.com.ng/books/about/Regenerative_Sanitation.
html?id=6MgstwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en (accessed
29 June 2018).
Larsen, T.A., Alder, A.C., Eggen, R.I. et al. (2009). Source sep-
aration: will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater handling.
Environmental Science & Technology, 43(16), 6121–6125, doi:
10.1021/es803001r.
Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B. et al. (2006). Gover-
nance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social‐
ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 19. Retrieved
from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/.
Larson, T.A., Hoffmann, S., Luthi, C. et al. (2016). Emerging
solutions to the water challenges of an urbanising world.
Science Special Section Urban Planet, Vol 352 Issue 6288, 20
May 2016.
Luby, S.P., Gupta, K., Sheikh, M.A. et al. (2008) Tubewell water
quality and predictors of contamination in three flood‐prone
areas in Bangladesh. J. App. Microbiol. 105, 1002–1008.
Luh, J., Royster, S., Sebastian, D. et al. (2017) Expert assessment
of the resilience of drinking water and sanitation systems to
climate‐related hazards. Science of the Total Environment
592, 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.084.
Mara, D., Lane, J., Scott, B., and Trouba, D. (2010) Sanita-
tion and Health. PLoS Med 7(11): e1000363. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000363 (accessed 25/01/2019).
Maurer, M., Bufardi, A., Tilley, E. et al. (2012). A compatibility‐
based procedure designed to generate potential sanitation
system alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management,
104, 51–61.
MCEER (Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research) (2006) MCEER’s Resilience Framework. http://
mceer.buffalo.edu/research/resilience/resilience_10‐24‐06.
pdf, pp.1–2. Available at: http://mceer.buffalo.edu/research/
resilience/resilienc e_10‐24‐06.pdf [Accessed October 2012].
McMichael, A.J., Woodruff, R.E., and Hales, S. (2006). Climate
change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet
367(9513):859–69.
Measham, T.G., Preston, B.L., Smith, T. F. et al. (2011)_ Adapt-
ing to climate change through local municipal planning: bar-
riers and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change no. 16:889–909.
Momtaz, S., and Shameem, M., (2016) Adaptation in climate
change discourse: A conceptual framework. In book: Experi-
encing Climate Change in Bangladesh, pp.7–28, DOI: 10.1016/
B978‐0‐12‐803404‐0.00002‐8.
Morshed, G., and Sobhan, A., (2010) The search for appro-
priate latrine solutions for fl ood‐prone areas of Bangla-
desh. Waterlines, Vol. 29 No. 3. Practical Action Publishing,
doi: 10.3362/1756‐3488.2010.024, ISSN: 0262‐8104 (print)
1756‐3488 (online). https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/
files/Morshed‐2010‐Search.pdf (accessed 05/02/2019).
Moser, S.C., and Ekstrom, J.A., (2010) "A framework to diag-
nose barriers to climate change adaptation." PNAS no. 107
(21):22026–22031.
Mukheibir, P., and Ziervogel, G., (2007) "Developing a
Municipal Adaptation Plan (MAP) for climate change: the
city of Cape Town." Environment & Urbanization no. 19
(1):143–158. doi: 10.1177/0956247807076912.
Murray, A. and Buckley, C. (2010) “Designing Reuse‐Oriented
Sanitation Infrastructure: the Design for Service Planning
Approach”, in: P. Drechsel et al. (eds) Wastewater Irrigation
and Health: Assessing and Mitigation Risks in Low‐Income
Countries, Earthscan‐IDRC‐IWMI, UK, p. 303–318.
Nambi, A.A/ and Prabhakar, S.V.R.K. (2011). "Mainstream-
ing Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture and Water
Sectors in India: Current Status, Issues and Barriers." Asian
Journal of Environment and Disaster Management no. 2
(4):443–451. doi: 10.3850/S179392401100085X.
Nelson, D.R., (2011). Adaptation and resilience: responding to
changing climate. WIREs Clim. Change 2, 113–120.
O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U. et al. (2004) Mapping
vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and glob-
alization in India. Global Environmental Change 14 (4), 303–
313.
Oates, N., Ross, I., Calow, R. et al. (2014) Adaptation to Cli-
mate Change in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Assess-
ing risks and appraising options in Africa. Water Policy
Programme, Overseas Development Institute (ODI) 2 Oxford
Policy Management (OPM) 3 Richard Carter & Associates
Ltd. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi‐assets/
publications‐opinion‐files/8858.pdf (accessed 09/02/2019).
OECD (2009) Policy Guidance on Integrating Climate Change
Adaptation into Development Co‐operation. Paper read
at Joint high‐level meeting of the OECD Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) and the Environment Policy
Committee (EPOC), 28–29 May 2009.
68 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
OECD (2018) Climate‐resilient Infrastructure. Policy Perspec-
tives. OECD Environment Policy Paper No. 14. ISSN 2309‐7841,
http://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/policy‐perspectives‐
climate‐resilient‐infrastructure.pdf (accessed 02/02/2019).
Ofwat, (2015a). Towards Resilience: How We Will Embed Resil-
ience in Our Work. Available at: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/
publication/towards‐resilience/ [Accessed: 01 March 2017].
Ofwat, (2015b). Resilience Task & Finish Group 1 (England and
Wales) Available at: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/publication/
resilience‐task‐and‐finish‐group‐finalreport/ [Accessed: 01
March 2017].
Otoo, M. and Drechsel, P. (2017). Resource Recovery from
Waste Business Models for Energy, Nutrient and Water Reuse
in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries. Routledge, London.
Page 890, ISBN 978‐1‐138‐01655‐2.
Pahl‐Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analys-
ing adaptive capacity and multi‐level learning processes in
resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change,
19(3), 354–365, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001.
PAHO (Pan American Health Organization), (2006) The
challenge in disaster reduction for the water and sanitation sector:
improving quality of life by reducing vulnerabilities Washington,
D.C: PAHO. https://www.unisdr.org/files/2031_VL206902.pdf
(accessed 24/01/2019).
Partzsch, L. (2015). No change without power ‐ an agenda for
a multidimensional understanding of power in sustainability
research. [Translated from the German] GAIA – Ecolog-
ical Perspectives for Science and Society 24(1):48–56. http://
dx.doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.1.10.
PCC (Prairie Climate Centre) (2017) Building a Climate‐Resil-
ient City: Water supply and sanitation systems. Publication
of the International Institute for Sustainable Development
and the University of Winnipeg. https://www.iisd.org/sites/
default/files/publications/pcc‐brief‐climate‐resilient‐city‐
water‐supply‐sanitation.pdf (accessed 20 January 2019).
Rehak, D., Senovsky, P., and Slivkova, S., (2018) Resilience of
Critical Infrastructure Elements and Its Main Factors. Sys-
tems 6, (21) doi:10.3390/systems6020021.
Rockefeller Foundation (2014) City Resilience Framework. https://
assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20140410162455/
City‐Resilience‐Framework‐2015.pdf (accessed 30 October
2019).
Ross, K., Abeysuriya, K., Mikhailovich, N., and Mitchell, C.
(2014). Governance for decentralised sanitation: Global
Practice Scan. A working document. Prepared by the Insti-
tute for Sustainable Futures, UTS as part of the Australian
Development Research Award Scheme (ADRAS). http://
c o m mu n i t y s a n i t at i o n g ove r n a n c e. i n fo / w p ‐ c o n t e n t /
uploads/2016/06/20140125‐ADRAS‐GDS‐Global‐Practice‐
Scan‐a.pdf (accessed 14 October 2017).
Royal Academy of Engineering (2011). Infrastructure, Engi-
neering and Climate Change Adaptation – Ensuring Services
in an Uncertain Future. Published by The Royal Academy
of Engineering on behalf of Engineering the Future. ISBN
1‐903496‐61‐6. https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/
engineering‐the‐future (accessed 09/02/2019).
Seed, R.B., Bea, R.G., Abdelmalak, R.I. et al. (2006) Investi-
gation of the Performance of the New Orleans Flood Pro-
tection System in Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005:
Independent Levee Investigation Team: Final Report.
2006. National Science Foundation. [online] URL:⟨http://
Malam 53digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1031& context=cenv_fac⟩.
Satterthwaite, D., Dodman, D., and Bicknell, J. (2009). Con-
clusions: Local development and adaptation. In J. Bicknell,
D. Dodman, and D. Satterthwaite (Eds.), Adapting cities to
climate change: Understanding and addressing the development
challenges (pp. 359– 383). London: Earthscan.
Schertenleib, R. (2005). From conventional to advanced envi-
ronmental sanitation. Water Science and Technology, 51 (10),
7–14.
Sherpa, A.M., Koottatep, T., Zurbruegg, C., and Cisse, G.
(2014). Vulnerability and adaptability of sanitation ´ systems
to climate change. J. Water Climate Change 5(4):487–95.
Shinozuka, M., Chang, S.E., Cheng, T.C. et al. (2004) Resilience
of integrated power and water systems. Buffalo, NY: MCEER
Research Progress and Accomplishments (MCEER‐04‐
SP01).
Stanke, C., Kerac, M., Prudhomme, C. et al. (2013) Health
effects of drought: a systematic review of the evidence.
PLoS Curr. 2013 Jun 5;5. pii: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/23787891 (accessed 06/08/2019).
Strande, L., Ronteltap, M., and Brdjanovic, D.(eds) (2014).
Faecal Sludge Management: Systems Approach for Implemen-
tation and Operation. IWA Publishing, 2014.
SuSanA (2018). Sustainable sanitation and the SDGs: interlinkages
and opportunities. SuSanA secretariat, Eschborn, Germany.
https://www.susana.org/en/knowledge‐hub/resources‐and‐
publications/library/details/2859 (accessed 24/01/2019).
Tearfund. (2006). Overcoming the barriers: Mainstreaming cli-
mate change adaptation in developing countries. In Tearfund
Climate Change Briefing Paper 1. UK.
Therrien, M.‐C. (2010). Strategies de r esilience et infrastruc-
tures essen‐ tielles. Telescope, 16(2), 154–171.
Thomas, S., and Kerner, D., (2013) Metrics for assessing resil-
ience: A social‐ecological systems perspective. In Proceedings
of the Presentation to the Challenges of Natural Resource Eco-
nomics and Policy National Forum on Socioeconomic Research
in Coastal Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 25 March 2013.
Tyler, S. and Moench, M., (2012) A framework for urban cli-
mate resilience, Climate and Development, 4:4, 311–326, DOI:
10.1080/17565529.2012.745389.
Uddin, M.S., (2011) Assessment of UDDTs as a Flood Resilient
and Affordable Sanitation Technology, and their Potential
to Contribute to the Fertilizer Demand. Master of Science
degree at the UNESCO‐IHE Institute for Water Education,
Delft, the Netherlands. https://www.susana.org/_resources/
documents/default/2‐1206‐saifuddinmwi‐se2009‐11thesis.
pdf (accessed 10/02/2019).
UN (United Nations), (2016) The Millennium Development
Goals Report. Available online: http://www. un.org/millen-
niumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20
rev%20(July%201).pdf (accessed on 13 March 2016).
UNDP‐UNEP. (2011). Mainstreaming Climate Change
Adaptation into Development Planning: A Guide for Practi-
tioners UNDP‐UNEP Poverty‐Environment Facility.
UNDP (2016) Scaling Up Climate Action to Achieve the Sus-
tainable Development Goals. file:///C:/Users/cooke2/Down-
loads/Climate%2520Change%2520and%2520the%2520SDG
s%2520English%2520Report.pdf (accessed 10/02/2019).
 SAFE‐SANITATION ADAPTIVE‐INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SAIMS) 69
UNDP (2018). Sustainable development goals. http://www.undp.
org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable‐developmentgoals.
html (accessed 31 May 2018).
Vo, P.T., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W. et al. (2014). A mini‐review on
the impacts of climate change on wastewater reclamation and
reuse. Science of the Total Environment, 494–495:9–17.
USAID (2012) Sanitation Systems Addressing Climate Change
Impacts On Infrastructure: Preparing For Change. https://
www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/
Infrastructure_SanitationSystems.pdf (accessed 25/01/2019).
van Welie, M.J. and Romijn, H.A. (2018) NGOs fostering tran-
sitions towards sustainable urban sanitation in low‐income
countries: Insights from Transition Management and
Development Studies. Environmental Science & Policy, 84,
250–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.011.
Vugrin, E.D., Warren, D.E., Ehlen, M.A., (2011) A resilience
assessment framework for infrastructure and economic sys-
tems: quantitative and qualitative resilience analysis of pet-
rochemical supply chains to a hurricane. Process Safety
Progress 30(3):280–90.
Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., and Kinzig, A. (2004)
Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social‐ecolog-
ical systems. Ecol. Soc. 9, 5.
Walker, B., and Salt, D., (2012) Resilience Practice: Building
Capacity to Absorb Disturbance and Maintain Function.
Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
WHO (2018) Guidelines on sanitation and health. ISBN
978‐92‐4‐151470‐5, Licence: CC BY‐NC‐SA 3.0 IGO, Geneva.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/274939/
9789241514705‐eng.pdf ?ua=1 (accessed 12/02/2019).
WHO and DFID (2009) Vision 2030: The resilience of water
supply and sanitation in the face of climate change. ISBN
978 92 4 159842 2. https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_
health/vision_2030_9789241598422.pdf ?ua=1 (accessed
10/02/2019).
WHO and UNICEF (2017) WASH in the 2030 Agenda
New global indicators for drinking water, sanitation and
hygiene. https://washdata.org/sites/default/files/documents/
reports/2017‐07/JMP‐2017‐WASH‐in‐the‐2030‐agenda.pdf
(accessed 20/01/2019).
World Bank (2018) Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services
the Case of Japan. The World Bank, Washington, DC. http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/946581518158330102/
pdf/123342‐WP‐PUBLIC‐P159507‐ResilientWSSJapanCase
StudyFINALweb.pdf (accessed 30/01/2019).
World Health Organ. (WHO). (2014). Preventing Diarrhoea
Through Better Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: Exposures
and Impact in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries. Geneva,
Switz.: WHO
World Health Organization (WHO), (2011). Guidance on
water supply and sanitation in extreme weather events. Geneva:
WHO.
 Section II
Sustainability Approaches, Tools,
and Techniques
 5
Approaches and Tools to Assess Water‐Climate‐Sustainability Nexus:
A Systematic Review
Olusola O. Ololade1*, Enoch Bessah2, and Marinda Avenant1

ABSTRACT

This chapter presents a systematic review of approaches and tools used to assess the water–climate–
sustainability (WCS) nexus. A total of 139 peer‐reviewed articles published between January 2016 and January
2019 were identified from the Scopus database, based on selected keywords. Out of these articles, 77 were selected
based on a set of criteria. In the second round, articles related to overviews and reviews were excluded in order
to identify the articles that employed the distinct features of WCS‐nexus assessments. Our findings showed that
the WCS‐nexus assessment shifted from its original roots in the engineering sciences to an interdisciplinary and
multi‐sectoral field with environmental science, agricultural and biological sciences, earth and planetary sci-
ences, and social science taking the lead. Our review indicated that Integrated Water Resources Management
(IWRM) was the concept that best fitted the WCS‐nexus assessment idea. Furthermore, water sustainability
research mostly occurs in locations subjected to water scarcity problems, and that river basins or watersheds
were the highest scale at which WCS‐nexus studies were carried out. This makes WCS‐nexus studies a truly
transboundary issue that will require regional policies and agreements to be put in place.

5.1. INTRODUCTION and unsustainable water resources management prac-

Sustainable management of water resources in the
twenty‐first century faces significant challenges that
crosses political, administrative, economic and ecolog-
ical boundaries. Water can be a critically limiting element
to socio–economic development, especially in semi‐arid
and arid regions where the resource is limited (Feng
et al., 2018; Mycoo, 2018). Globally, river basins are vul-
nerable to anthropogenic pressures like population growth
(Falkenmark and Molden, 2008; Wang et al., 2018), cli-
mate change and variability (Meko et al., 2007; Overpeck
and Udall, 2010), agricultural pollution, urbanization,
1
Centre for Environmental Management, University of the
Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
2
Pan African University, Institute of Life and Earth Sciences
(Including Health and Agriculture), University of Ibadan,
Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
*Corresponding author
tices. All these factors pose challenges to sustainable
water resources management (Vadiati et al., 2018). The
challenge to balance water provision and basic human
demands with economic development and healthy ecosys-
tems is becoming increasingly difficult (Berggren, 2018).
Water is therefore not only the most important substance
for sustaining life on earth, but plays an important role
in other resources and sectors (Kresmann et al., 2018;
Ololade, 2018).
Climate change is a major driver of global environmental
change with the potential to have adverse impacts on
water quantity and quality, now and in the future (MEA,
2005; IPCC, 2014; World Bank Group, 2016). Climate
change adaptation will therefore play an important role
in future water resources management (Garrote, 2017).
There is therefore a need to explore methods for assess-
ing the impacts and adaptation measures in relation to
water resources management. The revolution that took
place in the water resources management sector over the

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

73
74 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
last century called for the development of new tools and
approaches to address new challenges associated with
complex water systems, including economic analyses
related to water resources (Garrote, 2017). Considering
the uncertain climate and cumulative impacts thereof, on
water resources in the future, more creative problem solv-
ing and management strategies are needed.
Assessing sustainability at a geographical scale requires
that water management strategies include climatological
scenarios, which directly influence the amount of water
in watersheds (Mattos et al., 2019). Water resources are,
however, highly dynamic due to variable meteorological
patterns (Mattos et al., 2019). This variability is expected
to increase in future and poses a threat to a large por-
tion of the world’s population in terms of water security
(Vörösmarty et al., 2010). The impacts of climate change
are already affecting the hydrological cycle at global,
regional and local scales (IPCC, 2014), causing hydrolog-
ical stress in many regions (Barnett et al., 2005; Henriques
et al., 2008; Seneviratne et al., 2010; Seager et al., 2013).
The sustainability of water resources is not limited to the
impact of environmental change on quantity, but also on
quality and availability, which are largely dependent on
future socio‐economic scenarios (Garrote, 2017). The
alteration of water resources by extreme events due to cli-
mate change will consequently have a negative impact on
socio–economic development. Sustainable development
relies on cross‐cutting interlinkages ranging from ethical,
and socio‐cultural, to political‐economic issues (Atampugre
et al., 2016). The challenges associated with the sustainable
management of water is even more serious in arid and semi–
arid regions (Feng et al., 2018), making the water‐climate‐
sustainability (WCS) nexus an important topic to review.
Water scarcity, which could be defined as the deficit
between water availability and demand without providing
for environmental flows (Gu et al., 2017), is already caus-
ing competition between water users, resulting in social
conflicts. Water scarcity is expected to become more
severe in future as climate models project a consistent
decrease in water availability, especially in semi–arid
regions where the socio‐economic backbone of the region
may collapse due to its over‐dependence on rain‐fed agri-
culture (Garrote, 2017). Water scarcity may also occur
in water rich regions due to poor water quality (Friesen
et al., 2017), and inadequate policies and management
strategies that should have secured water for present and
future use. Around the globe, countries like the United
States of America (Morckel, 2017), Brazil (Dobrovolski
and Rattis, 2015) and Iran (Madani, 2014) have experi-
enced water crises mainly due to poor management strat-
egies (Mattos et al., 2019). Even though water demand
will increase due to climate change (Nkomozepi and
Chung, 2012), socio–economic drivers are expected
to have the biggest influence on water sustainability
(Alcamo et al., 2007; Garrote, 2017). It is, therefore,
critical that climate, social and policy issues are integrated
into management approaches in order to achieve sustain-
ability (Garrote, 2017). There is also a need to develop
tools and methods that are capable of addressing issues
such as insufficient monitoring, sufficient reduction of
nutrient loads, lack of investment in restoration mea-
sures, lack of cross‐sector involvement in the implemen-
tation of sustainability strategies, and building scenarios
with reduced uncertainties (Carvalho et al., 2019).
This chapter describes the background of water,
climate and sustainability assessment, their inter‐­
­
connection, approaches and tools used to assess the
WCS‐nexus. Section 2 provides details about the meth-
odology used to select the articles for our systematic
review and the types of analyses carried out in this study.
Section 3 focuses on the characterization of WCS‐nexus
methods and approaches as presented under three sub-
sections: (i) conceptual background, (ii) decision analysis
approaches and (iii) impact studies, tools and approaches.
Section 4 presents the main features of the methods
reviewed in this study. They were categorized under the
following: (i) new approaches and tools for WCS‐nexus
studies, (ii) multi‐sectoral and multi‐discipline collabora-
tion for WCS‐nexus studies and (iii) market‐based solu-
tions studies. Findings on the geographical distribution
of research on WCS‐nexus and the scale of the studies
reviewed in this chapter are presented in Section 5.
5.2. METHODOLOGY
The articles used for the study were sourced from the
multi‐disciplinary Scopus database using the keywords
water, climate, sustainability, and nexus in the abstract,
title, and keywords sections of the database. The search
was limited to January 2016 to January 2019, covering the
period after the launch of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) in 2015 (United Nations, 2015). A total
of 1659 peer‐reviewed journal articles and book chapters
in English were found within this period on the Scopus
database. This database was specifically used, because it
includes journal articles from a wide range of disciplines
(Mongeon and Paul‐Hus, 2016). A total of 139 peer‐
reviewed articles were identified, representing 8.4% of
the total number of articles published during the search
period. Articles were included in the study if they: (i)
employed the nexus concept (interlinkages) on climate,
water and sustainability, (ii) assessed water resources
alone, or in combination with other natural resources
such as land with climate as the impact factor, and (iii)
evaluated or proposed tools and methods for nexus and/
or impact assessment. Based on these selection criteria,
62 articles (45%) were excluded from the systematic
review. The selected 77 articles (55%) were grouped into
three categories: 13 articles (17%) presented overviews
and reviews on nexus concepts of water, climate and
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 75
sustainability, hereby classified as review articles, 13 arti-
cles (17%) focused on decision analyses, which comprised
policy and stakeholder surveys and assessments, and 51
articles (66%) were impact studies assessing water sus-
tainability. The impact studies category included articles
that focused on the effects of climate, either alone or in
combination with land use changes, on the sustainability
of water resources using trend analyses and projections.
Studies considering the combined impacts of climate
and land use on water were mostly from the field of agri-
culture (Lu et al., 2019). Quality control measures were
employed by reviewing the abstract of each article before
categorization. This ensured that articles, which only used
keywords in their titles as buzz words, were excluded. For
example, articles that only mention sustainability in the
conclusion or abstract.
The term water included precipitation, irrigation, sur-
face and groundwater, freshwater, urban water, hydro-
power, and extreme events such as floods and droughts
(Feng et al., 2018; Vadiati et al., 2018). The term sur-
face water encompassed rivers, lakes, transitional and
coastal waters (Carvalho et al., 2019). Climate was
limited to assessments of variation between historical
and current climate parameters (temperature, rainfall,
etc.), as well as scenario analyses using the Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCPs) emission scenarios
(Garrote, 2017). Perception analyses of climate, in terms
of qualitative appraisals, were also considered under the
term climate. Sustainability was not limited to the con-
text of SDG 6 and 14 (United Nations, 2015; Keys and
Falkenmark, 2018; Kresmann et al., 2018). Synonymous
references to sustainability in this study were water vul-
nerability (reliability, resilience and uncertainty), water
security (availability, equitability and reliability) and
the trends of change (Garrote, 2017; Feng et al., 2018;
Sung et al., 2018). We also considered the utilization of
water in agriculture (food production), ecosystem ser-
vices (environmental flows) and socio‐economic water
needs (domestic and industrial), taking into account
the quantity and quality of the water that makes it sus-
tainable (Feng et al., 2018; Popoola et al., 2018; Vadiati
et al., 2018; Iqbal et al., 2019).
The 77 articles selected for this systematic review were
coded based on publication information (e.g., journal,
year, journal discipline), trend of major disciplines in
publication, and types of nexus methods adopted (e.g.
multidisciplinary, level of interdisciplinary, qualitative,
quantitative). We also assessed whether the articles pro-
posed or evaluated a new method, combined methods,
combined sectors or a single sector, and the scale of anal-
ysis. The WCS‐nexus methods were evaluated under two
sections in the first coding, which were either decision
analyses or impact studies. In a second round of coding,
64 articles, excluding the 13 review and conceptual arti-
cles were evaluated under three features: (i) new/novel
innovation of approaches and/or tools, (ii) context or
type of collaboration for the WCS‐nexus assessment, and
(iii) market based solutions.
Under new and innovative approaches, methods that
addressed the complexity of nexus interactions, such as
understanding the linkages, system dynamics, system
boundaries, in new and novel ways, were included. The
context of collaboration included methods that integrated
at least two sectors, or disciplines, in the WCS‐nexus
assessment, and captured multi‐scalar system dynamics
with flexible or adaptable features to suit different con-
ditions. The market based solutions category included
methods addressing current or projected problems at
different scales and across sectors or disciplines with or
without a direct link to the SDGs. Articles that high-
lighted multi‐disciplinary and multi‐sector integration
of nexus methods and tools are presented in detail under
Section 4.2 as examples of future developments in the
context of the study.
5.3. CHARACTERIZATION OF WCS‐NEXUS
METHODS/APPROACHES
Journals that contributed more than one article to
the sample used for the systematic review (n = 77) were
Science of Total Environment (16%), Water (MDPI)
(13%), Sustainability (MDPI) (5%), Ecological Indicators
(4%), Regional Environmental Change (3%), Hydrology
and Earth System Sciences (3%), Geo Journal (3%), and
Environmental Pollution (3%). These journals cut across
the disciplines of Environmental and Social Sciences.
The categorized disciplines of the articles are presented
in Figure 5.1. Environmental Science, Agricultural and
Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and
Social Sciences took the lead in WCS‐nexus studies
based on the articles published in journals categorized
in Scopus between January 2016 and January 2019. Of
note is that some journals were listed under more than
one discipline. The Engineering, Decision Science, and
Biochemistry disciplines contributed equal amounts of
articles to the sample used in this study. Disciplines that
did not contribute significant number of articles are not
shown in Figure 5.1. With reference to Major and Lenton
(1979), water resources management, which is central to
the WCS‐nexus, originated from the Engineering disci-
pline. Over the past four decades, Environmental Science
dominated the field due to its interdisciplinary nature
(Skjerven and Reitan, 2017).
It was clear when reviewing the three complete years
of 2016 to 2018 that the paradigm shifted from physical
assessment and management of water sustainability
to Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)
(Pahl‐Wostl et al., 2011). The majority of the articles
were published in the Environmental Science discipline
(Figure 5.2). However, as the scope of water research
76 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Engineering

Decision Sciences

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Economics, Econometrics and Finance

Energy

Medicine

Social Science

Earth and Planetary Sciences

Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Environmental Science

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percentage peer reviewed articles

Figure 5.1 Percentage of reviewed articles published in journals categorized under Scopus disciplines listed.
Most journals were listed under more than one discipline. Categories without significant number of articles not
shown in the figure are: Business, Management and Accounting, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceuticals,
and Mathematics and Computer Science.

35

30
2016 2017 2018
Number of published articles

25

20

15

10

Agricultural and Earth and Planetary Environmental Social Science

Biological Sciences Sciences Science

Scopus list of Journal discipline

Figure 5.2 Trend of article publication in major disciplines in Scopus from the study.

widened, especially with regard to WCS‐nexus assess-
ments, the number of articles published in the Social
Sciences increased markedly. Articles from the Social
Sciences increased by 150% from 2016 to 2017, and by
200% from 2017 to 2018, albeit from a low base. Over
the same period, articles from Environmental Science
increased by 117% and 131%, and Agricultural and
Biological Sciences by 100% and 225%, respectively. The
Earth and Planetary discipline was the only one that did
not record a consistently increasing trend. It appears
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 77
therefore that WCS research grew faster in the Social
Sciences and Agricultural and Biological Sciences than in
the Environmental Sciences over the assessed period. This
also confirms the inter‐ and multi‐disciplinary nature of
WCS‐nexus studies.
5.3.1. Conceptual background of WCS‐nexus
approaches
5.3.1.1. Multidisciplinary Dimensions
to the Investigation of WCS
Achieving water sustainability, cuts across the natural
ecosystems as well as domestic, industrial, and agricul-
ture sectors (An, 2012). Interdisciplinary research for
achieving sustainable water management originated in
integrated modelling approaches where hydrological
models and socio–economic activities were nested in
the same environment (Feng et al., 2018). Conceptual
tools, models and interdisciplinary research topics such
as socio‐hydrology, virtual water, and the food–energy–
water nexus, need to integrate ecological processes with
the dynamics of the environment (Biggs et al., 2015;
Chen, 2015). Achieving sustainability under conditions
of climatic uncertainty poses novel challenges to water
managers in water‐scarce regions. It requires that the
existing paradigm is expanded to include, not only eco-
system functions and services, but also social consider-
ations. Interdisciplinary approaches should cover a wide
variety of themes, and offer opportunities to incorporate
social, political, and economic issues.
Recent research trends show that water management
has gradually shifted from a stand‐alone science towards
a more integrated approach (Jakeman et al., 2016;
Brunner, 2017). Water management has moved beyond
the boundaries of natural science to become an impor-
tant issue in the socio‐political field as well. According
to Vadiati et al. (2018), policy making and legislation
are key in driving interdisciplinary research in water sus-
tainability. Due to the importance of interdisciplinary
research and research methods, special attention should
be paid to analyzing the linkages between social and bio-
physical water components (Feng et al., 2018). In the end,
a comprehensive strategy that takes into consideration
the environmental, socio‐economic and political contexts
should be adopted (Aeschbach‐Hertig and Gleeson, 2012;
Walton and McLane, 2013).
The WCS‐nexus is well aligned with the IWRM con-
cept. Integrated Water Resources Management is a cross‐
sectoral and participatory approach used in sustainable
development as well as in the allocation and moni-
toring of water resources (Rizvi et al., 2013; El Chami
and El Moujabber, 2016). Integrated Water Resources
Management is a holistic approach that focuses on envi-
ronmental, economic, and social factors, which may
influence water availability and supply. Management
approaches should be highly specific for particular areas
and situations, and should not be “one‐fits‐all” solu-
tions (Friesen et al., 2017). For example, very specific
water management approaches are needed in Africa,
which has to provide water to a growing and urban-
izing population in an insecure water environment (Keys
and Falkenmark, 2018). The ecological sustainability of
water can only be achieved when limits to water use, as
defined by natural systems, are accepted by humans. The
concept of allocating a portion of a water resource to
sustain the ecosystem itself is relatively new. The decision
on how much water should be left in the resource and
how much can be allocated to other uses does not lie with
water scientists and managers alone, but requires collab-
oration between all the stakeholders. Water users and
managers alike should accept to live within the limits of
the water available by using it more efficiently (Morote
et al., 2017). The scientific community has acknowledged
the need for interdisciplinary and multi‐sector collabo-
ration, especially with regard to water sustainability (El
Chami and El Moujabber, 2016). Kresmann et al. (2018)
demonstrated that science can significantly benefit from
working in inter‐ and trans‐disciplinary research envi-
ronments to achieve sustainability in water management.
Interdisciplinary approaches hold the potential to foster
strong collaboration between the scientific or technical,
and political teams for feasible water governance
(Hurlimann and Wilson, 2018).
A case study of a collaborative research project by Lanier
et al. (2018) provided an insight into the successful imple-
mentation of multi‐disciplinary collaboration. By scientif-
ically evaluating the effectiveness of the multi‐disciplinary
collaboration model used in the project, the authors found
the following useful for supporting integration:
•• Building a well‐defined team and leadership struc-
ture for collaboration across geographic distance and
disciplines.
•• Ensuring adequate coordination of funding, and
encouraging cross‐pollination.
•• Allowing team structure to thrive.
•• Intentionally designing a process and structure to
facilitate collaboration.
•• Creating mechanisms for routine analysis.
•• Incorporating collaboration tools that foster
communication.
•• Using a shared research output to encourage and
support integration within the scientific framework.
Lanier et al. (2018) also found that adaptability and
flexibility emerged as key drivers of the success of the
project. According to Hoch and Kozlowski (2014),
shared leadership enhances team performance, especially
in a virtual environment.
78 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Socio‐economic and political developments in some
developing nations has transformed the traditional gov-
ernance of water use. These transformations have not
necessarily been beneficial. For example, the modern
approaches to water governance in Ghana has proven
to be insufficient in ensuring water sustainability and
resulted in more water scarcity (Atampugre et al., 2016).
In cases where sustainable development is accepted as a
policy framework, it has the potential to integrate tech-
nocratic and scientific approaches to improve water
management. According to Garrote (2017), policies
for climate change adaption should include not only
technical and economic criteria, but also ecological and
social considerations.
Social questions, such as who benefits from what, and
who bears the impact of development processes, gener-
ally have low priority in the integrative approaches of
water governance. Atampugre et al. (2016) proposed that
the incorporation of the social aspects of water gover-
nance into sustainable water management approaches
should accommodate traditional water management
arrangements alongside statutory initiatives. This could
potentially readdress their inherent inadequacies, and
ultimately yield sustainable hybrid methods and insti-
tutions that could realize the long‐term goal of sustain-
ability. One of the approaches developed for achieving
sustainability in water governance, involves the Bellagio
Principles that call for openness, communication, broad
participation, iterative processes, sufficient institutional
capacity, and the need for a coherent framework (Hilden
and Rosentrom, 2008).
Some of the new methods developed to support
decision analysis in water governance, are traditional
multi‐criteria analyses (Hajkowicz and Collins, 2007),
and so called novel approaches (Madani and Lund, 2011;
Tsakiris and Spiliotis, 2011). These novel approaches
mostly come in the form of model‐based tools developed
to support water management (Berger et al., 2006; Maia
and Schumann, 2007; Purkey et al., 2007). These novel
approaches have, however, limited capacity to resolve prac-
tical water management problems (Garrote, 2017). For
example, the lack of thorough oversight about the imple-
mentation of land use policy in the municipality of Itabuna
in Brazil, contributed to water scarcity in 2015 to 2016.
Water governance without a balanced interplay between
the various disciplines and smart policy can promote water
insecurity, even in water rich areas (Mattos et al., 2019).
A new approach that combines top‐down with bottom‐
up participatory decision making should be promoted
when redesigning water governance (Garrote, 2017).
The lack of efficient policies to prioritize water sustain-
ability may increase the impacts associated with water
crises (Mattos et al., 2019). When political and participa-
tory approaches are not balanced in water management
projects such as dam infrastructure, the consideration
of externalities is limited (Chen et al., 2016; Mattos
et al., 2019). The search for innovative integrative solu-
tions is still new and has many grey areas to be covered in
the WCS‐nexus assessment.
5.3.1.2. Monitoring Tools for WCS
The development and implementation of appropriate
mitigation and adaptive measures to deal with water scar-
city could be hindered by factors such as (i) unavailable
or poor data limits, (ii) the number of analysis techniques
and methods available to researchers, and (iii) the accu-
racy of models and projections (Friesen et al., 2017).
Attaining sustainable water management at varying
times, scales, and forms of interventions, has limited our
ability to adapt to climate change in the past. Spatial
planning has been found to be a very useful tool in that
it provides a flexible and adaptive set of principles and
processes that could ensure a more sustainable balance
between the demands of urban areas, irrigation and eco-
system functions (Hurlimann and Wilson, 2018).
The monitoring of water resources is a basic require-
ment for developing tools to assess the WCS‐nexus.
Monitoring serves to inform on the present state of
resources, and when conducted at regular intervals as
part of a monitoring program, it helps to determine the
rate of degradation or improvement. Lu et al. (2018) sug-
gested that the monitoring of factors, which affect the
sustainability of water, such as climate related param-
eters and environmental pollutants form a basis in risk
assessment and management. This is especially true
for groundwater, where monitoring is an important
approach to ensure sustainable extraction (Adamowski
et al., 2013). According to Adamowski et al. (2013), poor
monitoring of water allocations could result in failure to
achieve a balance in the regional groundwater budgets
despite the use of technical methods, such as water diver-
sion, artificial aquifer recharge, and efficient irrigation.
The imminent threat posed by climate change to water
sustainability, makes the monitoring of water allocation
and use even more important. Lu et al. (2018) proposed
the use of real‐time monitoring to provide a scientific
basis for long‐term monitoring programs, such as the
global integrated observation system used in coastal eco-
system management.
The combined application of remote sensing mon-
itoring, surface field observations, and modeling is key
to WCS‐nexus assessments (Feng et al., 2018). Earlier
research on data assimilation methods indicated that
in‐situ and remotely sensed data could be incorporated
into hydrological models to provide flood forecasting
(Moradkhani et al, 2005; Alvarez‐Garreton et al., 2016).
Further examples include: the PEARS framework,
which involves the use of remote sensing data to monitor
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 79
hydrological and agricultural systems following a seismic
event (Rodriguez et al., 2016); a decision support tool
using hydrological and economic information (SEEAW)
(Vicente et al., 2016); a hydrogeological modeling
approach where freshwater karst aquifers were tested in
southern Italy (De Filippis et al., 2016); and water related
indicator analysis for assessing sustainability (Pires
et al., 2017). Feng et al. (2018) propose that future data
assimilation efforts should include socio‐economic data
in a coupled natural‐human system.
The potential role of spatial planning in facilitating sus-
tainable adaptation measures to climate change impacts,
has been widely acknowledged (Wilson, 2006; Greiving
and Fleischhauer, 2012; Hurlimann and March, 2012;
Abunnasr et al., 2015; Carter et al., 2015), for example
in reducing or eliminating exposure to extreme events or
disasters such as floods (Burby, 1999; Buxton et al., 2011).
Even though spatial planning could be useful in adaptation
planning, only a few studies have analyzed such examples.
These studies found that spatial planning had variable suc-
cess in achieving successful adaptation (Few et al., 2007;
Macintosh, 2012; Picketts et al., 2013; Hurlimann
et al., 2014; Storbjörk and Hjerpe, 2014). Hurlimann and
Wilson (2018) reported that spatial planning provides
tools and processes that can facilitate the full implementa-
tion of sustainable urban water management goals. They
also developed a framework to consider a broad range
of spatial planning interventions to facilitate adaptation
and sustainable water management actions concurrently.
Mattos et al. (2019) used a spatial approach, based on field
observations, to estimate levels of environmental degra-
dation and to understand the causes of the water crisis
in the municipality of Itabuna, Brazil. Their approach
was to assess water quality and quantity from an inter-
face of land use classes with hydrological regime. Keys
and Falkenmark (2018) examined three key insights into
green water management at different spatial and temporal
scales. They concluded that improvement in evaporation
management at a local scale, dividing water between green
and blue flows at a landscape scale, and the monitoring
of moisture recycling patterns at a regional scale provided
the leverage to integrate green water management into
broader sustainability policies. For example, Lanier et al.
(2018) developed a holistic decision‐making framework to
improve the understanding of the complex natural–social
system underpinning water allocation in South Florida,
USA, by using a water resources optimization model to
integrate information.
Areas that require further investigation into tools
and approaches for interdisciplinary research, are the
assessment of extreme events and resilience of eco-
systems and communities (Raziei et al., 2009), water
conflicts in transboundary rivers (Arfanuzzaman and
Abu Syed, 2018), and limited governance capacity for
water management in developing countries (Bormann
et al., 2016). The concept of sustainability, together
with the impacts of climate change and human activ-
ities on water distribution, and the trade‐offs of water‐
related ecosystem services should be key in developing
approaches for the nexus assessment (Feng et al., 2018).
Feng et al. (2018) furthermore identified the following
gaps in WCS‐nexus research: the exploration of water
constraints to landscape’s multi‐functional ability; the
spatial and temporal flow of hydrological ecosystem ser-
vices; and the support of environmental planning, water-
shed management and policy decisions.
5.3.2. Decision Analysis Approaches and Tools
in Water–Climate–Sustainability Nexus
The decision analysis methods used in the 13 articles
under this category were surveys, stakeholder participa-
tion, and indicator assessment studies (Table 5.1). Of
these, surveys and stakeholder participation were applied
in seven articles individually while indicator assessments
were only used in two. A number of articles, Adego et al.
(2018), Berggren (2018), Mycoo (2018), Watto et al.
(2018), and Carvalho et al. (2019) used both qualitative
and quantitative methods. Gu et al. (2017), Hong et al.
(2017), Bolson et al. (2018), Uppanunchai et al. (2018),
and Yasmin et al. (2018) applied only qualitative methods,
while the remaining articles used quantitative methods
only in their analyses. The majority of the survey studies
used questionnaires and focus group discussions (FGDs),
while the stakeholder participatory studies used inter-
views and round table meetings. Both survey and stake-
holder participatory studies were interdisciplinary and
multi‐sectoral in nature. The stakeholder participatory
approach assisted to develop a shared understanding,
differentiate between individual and group choices, and
enhanced transparency that builds commitment to out-
comes (Poff et al., 2016; Uppanunchai et al., 2018; Mehta
et al., 2018). The “supposed” collaborative environment
Table 5.1 Methods used for decision analysis in WCS‐nexus
assessment.
Type of Analysis/
Methods Studies
Survey (n = 7) Adego et al., 2018; Bolson et al., 2018;
Mycoo, 2018; Robert et al., 2018;
Watto et al., 2018; Yasmin et al., 2018;
Carvalho et al., 2019
Stakeholder Poff et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017;
participatory Berggren, 2018; Bolson et al., 2018;
(n = 7) Mehta et al., 2018; Uppanunchai
et al., 2018; Carvalho et al., 2019
Indicators (n = 2) Hong et al., 2017; Adego et al., 2018
80 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
created by stakeholder participation is necessary for sus-
tainable water management. The indicator assessment
approach assisted with decision making by assigning
weights to each indicator in order to facilitate the pri-
oritization of the most important issues during decision
making (Hong et al., 2017; Adego et al., 2018).
5.3.3. Approaches and Tools Used for Impact Studies
on Water, Climate, and Sustainability
Many studies assessed the WCS‐nexus by specifically
considering the impacts of climate change and socio‐
economic factors on the availability, vulnerability, and
security of water resources. Of the 51 articles evaluated,
six tools were used in more than one article (Figure 3).
The most frequently used methods included statistical
analyses, which made use of regression analyses to link
various components in order to determine the sustain-
ability of water resources. For example, Feng et al. (2017)
used the Mann–Kendall statistical test to examine the
trend of streamflow by combining the elasticity method
and the Budyko framework on meteorological and hydro-
logical data. Lu et al. (2019) used linear regression anal-
ysis to examine the linkages between climate change
and eutrophication under the Mann–Kendall mutation
method. Wang et al. (2018) used a regression function to
determine the key meteorological variables that affects
wheat yields resulting from drought.
The second most used tool was the Soil and Water
Assessment Tool (SWAT, Arnold et al., 1998). The SWAT
is a physically based hydrologic model that is efficient in
estimating water balance within a catchment by using daily
meteorological variables, topography, land use, vegetation,
and soil characteristics for historical and future assess-
ments (Arnold et al., 1998; Neitsch et al., 2011). The model
has the capacity to provide continuous, long‐term simula-
tions that allows for scenario analyses, which can cover the
entire 21st century by adopting climate scenario data from
climate models (Gassman et al., 2007). The SWAT model
has been widely tested and is adopted globally for various
applications, including water availability and sustainability
assessments, among others (Nejadhashemi et al., 2011;
Shi et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2015; Thapa
et al., 2017; Pandey et al., 2019).
Three tools, the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem
Services and Trade‐Offs (InVEST, Sharp et al., 2016),
MODFLOW (USGS, 2010) and Water Evaluation and
Planning (WEAP, Raskin et al., 1992) were used in 6%
of the articles included in this study (Figure 5.3). The
InVEST model is a spatially explicit tool that comprises
a suite of models. It uses biophysical and economic data
and the relationships between them to estimate the bio-
physical levels and economic values of ecosystem ser-
vices (Sharp et al., 2016). Depending on the availability
of data, InVEST is capable of presenting results in either
biophysical or monetary terms (Daily et al., 2009). The
model operates on the bases of the universal soil loss
equation (USLE) to estimate sediments loss (Tallis
et al., 2011). Some of the data required to run InVEST
includes climate, land‐use, management practices and
geomorphology. This model is more often used as an
ecosystem services model than as a hydrological model
(Sharp et al., 2016). The MODFLOW was developed by
the US Geological Survey (USGS, 2010). It is a three‐
dimensional hydrogeological model, which uses a block‐
centered finite‐difference approach for the simulation
of steady‐state transient flow in confined or unconfined
aquifers. The model can also be incorporated into other
methodologies (AQUAVEO, 2010). The WEAP model
is a flexible hydrological modeling tool that takes an
integrated approach to water resources planning. It can
be used for analyses like water balance simulations, policy
scenarios, stakeholder processes, and integrating various
models cutting across social to natural sciences for a
specific purpose (Amin et al., 2018; SEI, 2019).
Decision Support System Shell (DSSS) AQUATOOL
(Andreu et al., 1996) accounted for about 4% of articles
that was used to determine the WCS‐nexus (Figure 3).
The AQUATOOL model is a decision support model
developed by the Department of Water Resources of the
Technical University of Valencia and essentially allows
for the complex simulation of surface and groundwater
systems, as well as water allocation models (Andreu
et al., 1996; Maliva, 2014). AQUATOOL can be used for
scenario assessments. Spain’s river basin authorities have
adopted the model in many research studies (Henche
et al., 2002; Murillo and Navarro, 2008). Table 5.2 pres-
ents tools applied in only one article and indicates the
purpose of their usage.
4
6 SWAT
18
Statistical
(equations)
6
InVEST
MODFLOW
6
WEAP
AQUATOOL
20
Figure 5.3 Percentage distribution of tools used more than
once in 51 articles to determine WCS‐nexus (SWAT: Soil and
Water Assessment Tool; InVEST: Integrated Valuation of
Ecosystem Services and Trade‐offs; WEAP: Water Evaluation
and Planning Tools).
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 81

Table 5.2 Tools used only once in WCS‐nexus assessments over the study period (n=51).
Tools
RASP model (RASP code
is written in MATLAB)
FAO Agro‐ecological Zone Model
University of Torino model of land Processes
Interaction with Atmosphere (UTOPIA)
VHM model
Discrete optimal control model
The economic model based on PMPT
Inventory
Hydropower management model
MIKE SHE/MIKE11
Variable infiltration capacity (VIC)
SSARR model and HEC‐ResSim model
MODSIM‐DSS
GR4j conceptual hydrological model
Hydrologic Risk Transfer Model (MTRH‐SHS)
CROPWAT
WF framework
Cost‐benefit analysis (CBA)
Analytic Hierarchy Process Combining Set Pair
Analysis (AHPSPA) model
Global Land Data Assimilation System
(GLDAS)–Noah land surface model (NOAH)
US EPA Storm Water Management Model
(biophysical model)
Aims/Purpose
Assessed climate change impacts on rainwater harvesting with respect to the
reliability of water supply
Impacts of irrigation systems on sugarcane production
Quantified the changes in hydrologic components in the Alpine area and
northern Italy
Assessed future climate impacts on regional hydropower potential
Addressed the gap on climate‐stressed groundwater resources by employing
downscaled data on precipitation
Proposed a new approach to water allocation problem in the face of climate
change
Determined the suitability of the groundwater in Al Burayhi and Hedran sub‐
basin as a source of drinking water
A multidisciplinary approach to streamflow and energy mix management
Effects of future climate and irrigation intensification on surface and
groundwater
Shows which basins and cities are more susceptible to increased water
shortage
Comprehensive analysis of climate change, runoff, reservoir operation, and
power generation
Quantified the future sustainability of a water supply system using
dynamically‐downscaled regional climate models (RCMs)
Assessed the sustainability of planned water uses in mesoscale river basins
under multiple climate change scenarios
Developed the Brazilian‐contextualized insurance model to assist water
resources management and to inform stakeholders
Sustainability of agricultural water consumption
Ability of water footprints(WFs) to inform water resource management at
catchment‐scale
Analysed the socio‐economic feasibility of the Managed Aquifer Recharge
system in the overexploited Boquerón aquifer
Multifunctional hierarchy indicator system for the performance evaluation of
water resources vulnerability
Examined the agricultural water use sustainability of water resource increase
caused by climatic variability
Explored future trajectories in urban drainage systems, emphasizing the
adoption and implementation of sustainable ‘nature‐based’ storm water
management strategies

5.4. DISTINCT FEATURES OF WCS‐NEXUS
APPROACHES AND TOOLS
The main features of approaches and tools applied in
the selected articles (n=64) were grouped under three cate-
gories, namely novel approaches, multi‐sectoral and inter-
disciplinary collaborations, and market‐based solutions.
5.4.1. Novel Approaches and Tools for WCS‐nexus
assessments
The seven articles that used novel approaches to
assess the WCS‐nexus are listed in Table 5.3. Two of
these, Berggren (2018) and Mehta et al. (2018) com-
prised decision analyses and the remaining five were
impact studies. Analysis of statistical relationships was
frequently used in the integration of data in these new
approaches. For example, statistical methods such as
multiple logistic regression (Berggren, 2018; Salerno
et al., 2018), iterations (Mehta et al., 2018), linear approx-
imation demand function (Gohar et al., 2019), third
component of Gini coefficient (Mahabadi et al., 2018),
and indices (Hernández‐Bedolla et al., 2017) contributed
86% to the novel approaches of WCS‐nexus assessment
studies. Other than statistical analyses, WEAP, GAMS
and SWMM computer‐based models were adopted by
Mehta et al. (2018), Gohar et al. (2019), and Zischg
et al. (2019) respectively, to integrate various data sets
to assess the sustainability of water. Some of the major
limitations of the novel methods were scalability and
the need for verified basic data for each site (Zischg
et al., 2019).
82 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Table 5.3 New/novel innovative approaches to assess the WCS‐nexus.
Approach(es)/Tool(s) Feature(s)
Integration of three 1. Stakeholder participation: An
decisions index variable was created to
components test relationships between
(Berggren, 2018) support for increased
stakeholder participation and a
variety of other variables
2. Decision‐making transparency:
Multiple logistic regression
analyses using views on
transparency as a dependent
variable with three different
groups of independent
variables.
3. Fairness: An index variable was
created to test relationships
between fairness and other
variables.
Using customized 1. Participatory scoping:
interactive graphics 2. Identification of uncertainties,
to explore water management strategies,
resources model objectives and performance
results (Mehta metrics using the XLRM
et al., 2018) problem elicitation method
3. System evaluation: Analysis of
water resources system and
management strategies by
integrating automated Visual
Basic (VB) scripts and the
WEAP Application
Programming Interface (API).
4. Results communication:
Results exploration drives
iteration and learning. Iterative
process between 2 and 3 was
done in R software and the
interactive graphics customize
in Tableau software.
An integrated hydro‐ 1. The framework was developed
economic using the General Algebraic
framework (Gohar Modeling System (GAMS)
et al., 2019) software.
2. Three RCP emission scenarios
were integrated to augment the
base scenarios.
3. A quadratic functional
relationship between the yield
(dependent variable) and the
uptake of soil water derived
from precipitation (independent
variable) was used.
4. A demand function, through a
linear approximation was
developed for the socio‐
economic component.
Advantages/ Opportunity
1. Allowed for the inclusion of
decision rules for each policy,
specific allocations, decision‐
making processes, and
inclusion of specific elements
of the sustainability criteria.
2. Distributing costs and benefits
across all users in a given
institutional arrangement
results in greater support for
the decision making process.
1. Promote cooperation between
agencies formerly unlikely to
cooperate, once they agree to
participate.
2. May be successful in
developing many key parts of
a Groundwater Sustainable
Plan (GSP) such as the
articulation of sustainability
goals, indicators, thresholds
and management actions, the
use of models and stakeholder
engagement in a robust and
inclusive way.
1. Reduced external costs in
adaptation and mitigation
policies, when upscaling
results from a targeted micro
level to a larger geographic
level.
2. It provides better guidance for
adaptation and mitigation
policy design and
implementation.
Challenges/ Disadvantages
1. In order for it to be used
for sustainability support
outcomes, the site or
context specific and
variation in understanding
are needed.
2. It has the challenge of
vertical governance
1. The iterative process
cannot produce the entire
GSP by itself. A level of
engagement covering
feature 1 and 2 are at least
needed from Groundwater
Sustainable Agencies
(GSAs) for successful
GSPs.
2. The process by itself
cannot ensure that all
necessary parties will
participate.
3. Model was limited to
two policies: (1)
unrestricted abstraction
policy and (2) potential
for more effective use of
existing resources
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 83

Table 5.3 (Continued)

Approach(es)/Tool(s) Feature(s) Advantages/ Opportunity Challenges/ Disadvantages
An economic model 1. Water sub‐system: includes the 1. PMPT provides optimum 1. PMPT is limited by the
based on Post‐ elements of hydrologic cycle, points of water allocation via assumptions used in
Modern Portfolio water supply, and environment. the plane of efficiency it building and implementing
Theory (PMPT) 2. Economic sub‐system: consists generates. it.
(Mahabadi of services, agricultural and 2. . PMPT gives multiple 2. The model takes into
et al., 2018) industrial sectors. optimum solutions to decision account only the deficit
3. Social sub‐system: includes makers through the efficiency water allocation as a risk.
three population cohorts (0–10 plane according to his/her
years old, 11–60 years old, and level of risk acceptance
more than 60 years old). The attitude.
3rd component of Gini
coefficient was added to the
model to embrace the social
dimension.
4. Water withdrawal and return
flows sub‐models.
An integrated urban The overall model considers the The model provides an important Observed and projected
drainage systems functional relationships between relationship for designing and changes from previous
(UDS) /river model features such as meteoric events renovating urban drainage studies were averaged to
(Salerno et al., and the overflow structure (OS) systems as an adaptation determine the rainfall
2019) basin with combine sewer measure to climate change and
intensity for the future sce-
overflow (CSO) frequency and urban urbanization.
receiving‐water quantity and
nario simulations.
quality.
1. Rainfall‐runoff model:
simulated discharges by
transiting in each of OS into
rainy event.
2. Logistic multiple regression
model: linked CSO occurrence
with precipitation and basin
features.
3. The ROC curve (Receiver
Operating Characteristic) was
used as indicator of
performance of the logistic
model.
New indices to Five indices (I) proposed by study: 1. The approach gives the Assessment of indices
assess the I1 – indicate supply to different possibility to identify performances were
availability of demands at a monthly scale. vulnerability and sustainability limited to reliability‐
water using an I2 – indicate average conditions of in IWRM. resilience‐vulnerability
IWRM approach the amount of water stored in 2. It is useful for comparative index, sustainability index
(Hernández‐ dams. studies of the indices and and sustainability by
Bedolla I3 – degree of pressure from the sustainability. groups index
et al., 2017) different demands on the
aquifer.
I4 – availability of surface water
resources
I5 – volume of water flowing
through the river.
(Continued )
84 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Table 5.3 (Continued)

Approach(es)/Tool(s) Feature(s) Advantages/ Opportunity Challenges/ Disadvantages

Adoption and 1. Urban planning (UP) and
implementation of urban engineering (UE): it
sustainable covers geospatial and temporal
‘nature‐based’ city development plan (city’s
approach to storm masterplan).
water management 2. Socio‐technical transition
strategies (Zischg (STT): Consists of possible
et al., 2019) population, policy and climate
scenarios, and their effects on
the urban drainage system.
3. Biophysical model (BPM):
linked UP and UE and the STT
through hydrologic‐hydraulic
simulations using the US EPA
Storm Water Management
Model (SWMM5.1.012)
1. The approach has implications
for planning practice, which
can be explored in future
applications.
2. The future drainage system is a
hybrid system, with interacting
small‐scale surface storage
units and the underground
pipe network.
1. The urban drainage
trajectories are case‐study
specific and cannot be
calibrated in a classical
way.
2. The approach was not
assessed under long‐term
winter conditions that
might be relevant for a
detailed planning scenario.

5.4.2. Multi‐sectoral and Interdisciplinary
Collaborations for the Development and Evaluation
of Methods
Collaborations included in the 64 selected reviewed
articles cut across different disciplines and sectors. Our
results showed that only about 5% of these articles were
both multi‐sectoral and interdisciplinary (Table 5.4). The
majority adopted an interdisciplinary only approach,
while about 11% were multi‐sectoral only. All the multi‐
sectoral studies fall under the decision analysis category
(Table 5.1). The sectors that occur frequently in the multi‐
sectoral studies included academic/research institutions,
government departments and agencies, non‐govern-
mental organizations, and private firms (Gu et al., 2017;
Carvalho et al., 2019). Sustainability in water governance
could be achieved if each of these sectors adhere to the
decisions resulting from their stakeholder participa-
tory approach, whether bottom‐up, top‐down, vertical,
horizontal or round table format (Gu et al., 2017;
Berggren, 2018). There was limited machine involvements
in the multi‐sectoral collaboration due to its human nature
and the difficulty to predict their actions. The interdis-
ciplinary research on WCS‐nexus assessment cut across
social sciences (socio‐economics, demography), planetary
and earth sciences (climate, hydrology), agriculture sci-
ences (crops, yield, land‐use), and geology (hydrogeol-
ogy, soil) with overlaps in environmental science (climate,
hydrology, demography, soil, land‐use etc.). The articles
containing the lowest level of interdisciplinary collabo-
ration comes from the climate and water resources dis-
ciplines (Feng et al., 2017; Alamdari et al., 2018; Gohar
et al., 2019). The highest were the articles cutting across
the socio‐economic, agriculture, climate and hydrology
disciplines, which assessed sustainability by applying
Table 5.4 Type of collaboration amongst disciplines and
sectors in reviewed articles (n = 64).
Type of
collaboration Studies
Both multi‐sec- Poff et al., 2016; Mehta et al., 2018; Zischg
toral and et al., 2019
interdisci-
plinary (n = 3)
Interdisci- Fabre et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2016;
plinary only Theodossiou, 2016; Yagbasan, 2016; Yang
(n = 44) et al., 2016; Yigzaw and Hossain, 2016;
Zhang et al., 2016; Feng et al., 2017;
Hong et al., 2017; Khan et al., 2017;
Mohor and Mendiondo, 2017; Rajsekhar
and Gorelick, 2017; Roux et al., 2017;
Rupérez‐Moreno et al., 2017; Serpa et al.,
2017; Shrestha et al., 2017; Ahmadaali
et al., 2018; Ahn et al., 2018; Alameddine
et al., 2018; Amin et al., 2018;
Cardozo et al., 2018; Donk et al., 2018;
Emami and Koch, 2018; Hernández‐
Bedolla et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2018;
Mahabadi et al., 2018; Ou et al., 2018;
Plisnier et al., 2018; Ranzani et al.,
2018; Robert et al., 2018; Salerno
et al., 2018; Shrestha et al., 2019;
Sishodia et al., 2018; Tanachaichoksirikun
et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018; Yan et al.,
2018; Zhang et al., 2018; Gohar et al.,
2019; Huang et al., 2019; Iqbal et al.,
2019; Jorda‐Capdevila et al., 2019; Novoa
et al., 2019; Pandey et al., 2019; Perez
et al., 2019
Multi‐sectoral Uppanunchai et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017;
only (n = 7) Berggren, 2018; Bolson et al., 2018;
Mycoo, 2018; Yasmin et al., 2018;
Carvalho et al., 2019
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 85
WEAP, SWAT, InVEST, AQUATOOL, VIC and MIKE
models (Jiang et al., 2016; Yigzaw and Hossain, 2016;
Rajsekhar and Gorelick, 2017; Ahmadaali et al., 2018;
Hernández‐Bedolla et al., 2018; Sishodia et al., 2018;
Shrestha et al., 2019). The low volume of multi‐sectoral
studies, compared to interdisciplinary studies, might
be attributed to the cost involved, willingness of stake-
holders and time required from the stakeholders involved
(Lanier et al., 2018; Mehta et al., 2018).
5.4.3. Market‐based solutions
Only one article, which was a study conducted by
Mycoo (2018), was directly linked to the SDGs. The
SDGs were adopted in 2015 by Heads of States and
Governments in an attempt to address some of the issues
that were not adequately addressed in the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) with a vision of eradi-
cating poverty and achieving sustainable development
globally by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Even though
the MDGs did not explicitly include water, there has
since been an increase in the awareness of water depen-
dency, use, and its relevance for human and environ-
mental health (Kresmann et al., 2018). As a result, two
of the 17 SGDs that replaced the MDGs, are directly
linked to water (United Nations, 2015). Mycoo (2018)
adopted the multi‐disciplinary approach by bringing
together information from various professionals from
different sectors and disciplines through interviews. The
author integrated three aspects related to water sustain-
ability, namely policies, practices, and tools to provide
solutions for water insecurity. The study was conducted
in the Caribbean Small Islands Developing States. Both
qualitative and quantitative analyses were adopted to link
the information to SDG 6 and SDG 13. Climate actions
(SDG 13) was an inseparable component that was needed
in attaining water sustainability. Comprehensive polices,
tools and practices for efficient water governance that
covers most of the findings for SDG 6 were identified in
the study. Mycoo (2018) concluded that these tools are
fundamental in achieving good water governance in rela-
tion to SDGs 6 and 13, as presented in Table 5.5.
A number of models have been used to address the
approaches listed under SDG 6 in Table 5.5. Some
of these models were specifically developed for the
IWRM approach. They include the AQUATOOL model
(Rupérez‐Moreno et al., 2017; Hernández‐Bedolla
et al., 2018); Water Evaluation and Planning model
(Ahmadaali et al., 2018; Alameddine et al., 2018; Amin
et al., 2018; Mehta et al., 2018), the Mike Basin model
(Sishodia et al., 2018), MODSIM‐DSS (Emami and
Koch, 2018), and the hydropower management model
(Ranzani et al., 2018). According to Mattos et al.
(2019), an integrated spatial planning and environmental
Table 5.5 Tools and approaches identified for achieving
sustainable water management in relation to SDGs 6 and 13.
SDG 6: Clean Water and
SDG 13: Climate Action Sanitation
Drones and remote sensing Adaptive water management
technology approaches
Geographic Information Integrated sustainable
System (GIS) technology watershed and coastal zone
management
Integrated database Integrated spatial planning and
environmental management
Bottom‐up, horizontal and Integrated Water Resources
multi‐stakeholder Management (IWRM)
approach
Social media and mobile
apps for information
transmission
management approach was used to determine the
cause of environmental degradation in two Brazilian
watersheds using remote sensing and GIS technology
(Hurlimann and Wilson, 2018). Studies like Poff et al.
(2016), Uppanunchai et al. (2018), Gu et al. (2017),
Berggren (2018), Bolson et al. (2018) and Mehta et al.
(2018) used a multi‐stakeholder approach. Despite the
availability of these tools to assess water sustainability,
one major challenge hindering the achievement of sus-
tainable water resource management (SDG 6) is the
political will and implementation of policies based on
findings from related studies (Mycoo, 2018).
5.5. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE AND SCALE
OF ANALYSIS
A geographical representation of WCS‐nexus arti-
cles (n=64), excluding reviews and conceptual articles
showed that 50% of the studies were conducted in Asia
(Figure 4). This might be attributed to the rising need
for sustainable water resources in Asia, hence drawing
the attention of the research community to conduct
research that could provide solutions. For example,
China, one of the most populated countries in the world
(UN ESA, 2017), contributed 15% of the Asian arti-
cles. The lowest contribution was from Africa with just
four articles (6%). Three of the four articles were from
southern Africa (le Roux et al., 2017; Plisnier et al. 2018;
Popoola et al., 2018). This further confirms the assertion
that research on WCS‐nexus is mostly carried out in loca-
tions where water scarcity is currently a problem or could
be a potential problem (Garrote, 2017; Gu et al., 2017;
Alamdari et al., 2018; Keys and Falkenmark, 2018;
Sishodia et al., 2018). Figure 5.4 also presents the scale
at which the WCS‐nexus assessment was conducted. The
 86 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
City
Basin/catchment
Scale and Locations of WCS-nexus articles
National
Regional
Global
Asia
Europe
Africa
South America
North America
0 10
Figure 5.4 Scale and locations of WCS‐nexus research.
smallest scale was at the basin or catchment level while
the largest scale was on a global level. One major data
requirement of most of the hydrological and ecosystem
models is the digital elevation model (DEM), which is
used to develop the flow channels in the models used
for water resources assessment (Kiss, 2004; Shahzad and
Gloaguen, 2011; Amin et al., 2018). River basins are usu-
ally demarcated based on DEM, which explains the high
representation of basin scale assessments as reflected in
the use of the models presented in Figure 5.3. The trans-
boundary nature of water resources due to its geomor-
phology and storage basins, makes the achievement of
sustainability in water governance difficult (Shahzad and
Gloaguen, 2011; Carter et al., 2018). The limitation of
administrative powers, for example, over the upstream
water resources in another country, affects the effective-
ness of water use policy with the aim of preserving the
resource for future use (Rajsekhar and Gorelick, 2017;
Carter et al., 2018).
5.6. SUMMARY
This study provided a systematic review of the
approaches and tools that explore the interlinkages bet-
ween water and climate change in order to address the
sustainability of water resources referred to as the water–
climate–sustainability (WCS) nexus. It sets out to build
a knowledge base on existing approaches and tools used
to assess WCS‐nexus in order to develop methods that
are more suitable. A total of 139 peer‐reviewed articles
Scale
Continent
20 30 40 50
Percentage (%)
were selected from the Scopus database using the key-
words “water,” “climate,” “sustainability,” and “nexus” in
the abstract, title, and keywords section of articles pub-
lished between January 2016 to January 2019. Based on
a three‐level selection criteria, 77 articles were sampled
for the systematic review and grouped under three cate-
gories, namely overviews and reviews on nexus concepts
(13), decision analysis studies (13) and impact studies
(51). A second round of coding excluded overviews and
review articles to identify articles with distinct features
of WCS‐nexus assessment. Our findings show that WCS‐
nexus assessment has shifted from its original engineering
route to an interdisciplinary and multi‐sectoral field with
the highest contribution from environmental science,
agricultural and biological sciences, earth and planetary
sciences, and social science disciplines. Based on the trend
of annual publication between 2016 and 2018 there is a
consistent increasing trend of more publications coming
from the social sciences, and agricultural and biological
sciences. This indicates that the WCS‐nexus is broadening
its scope by including the socio‐economic aspect, espe-
cially in the agriculture sector.
The WCS‐nexus assessment aligns with the concept of
the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM).
Our conceptual reviews showed that multi‐sectoral and
interdisciplinary approaches and tools are paramount
in the quest to achieve sustainability of water resources.
Findings from the study also indicated that the most
employed approach for decision analysis were either
stakeholder participation or surveys (questionnaire
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 87
administration and focus group discussions). However,
stakeholder participation was the more common approach
amongst the multi‐sectoral studies. Interdisciplinary types
of collaboration were mostly used in the impact studies
category, which amounted to 69% (n = 64) of the studies.
In descending order, statistical analysis, SWAT, InVEST,
WEAP, MODFLOW and AQUATOOL were the most
used tools in interdisciplinary research. Only about 5%
of the studies combined both multi‐sectoral and inter-
disciplinary approaches and tools to assess sustainability
and two out of the three articles in this group stated that
the combined approach was new, novel, and innovative
in sustainability assessments. This implies that the gap in
knowledge in the WCS‐nexus approaches and tools could
be bridged by combining the decision analysis (multi‐sec-
toral) and impact studies (interdisciplinary) approaches,
especially since each approach has been identified with
one or more limitations. Of note, only 11% (n = 64) of
the articles proposed a new and novel approach for WCS‐
nexus studies. Finally, we identified that water sustain-
ability research occurs mostly in locations with either
water scarcity problems or has the potential to develop
water scarcity. The scale of research was conducted
mostly at the basin, watershed, or catchment level, hence
making WCS‐nexus studies a transboundary issue that
will require more regional policies and agreements in its
assessments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to the book chapter editors and anon-
ymous reviewers that helped shape this work into its
current state. Additionally, we thank Elsevier for access
to the Scopus database for sampling and acquiring arti-
cles for this work.
REFERENCES
Abunnasr, Y., Hamin, E.M., and Brabec, E. (2015), Windows
of opportunity: Addressing climate uncertainty through
adaptation plan implementation, J. Environ. Plan. Manag.,
58, 135–155.
Adamowski, J., Zyla, C., Cuenca, E. et al. (2013), Integrated and
Adaptive Water Resources Planning, Management, and Gover-
nance. Water Resources Publications, LLC, Colorado.
Adego, T., Simane, B., and Woldie, G.A. (2018), Sustainability,
institutional arrangement and challenges of community
based climate smart practices in northwest Ethiopia. Agric.
Food Secur., 7, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066‐018‐0206‐0.
Aeschbach‐Hertig, W. and Gleeson, T. (2012), Regional strat-
egies for the accelerating global problem of groundwater
depletion. Nat. Geosci., 5(12), 853–861.
Ahmadaali, J., Barani, G,A., Qaderi, K., and Hessari, B. (2018),
Analysis of the Effects of Water Management Strategies and
Climate Change on the Environmental and Agricultural
Sustainability of Urmia Lake Basin, Iran. Water, 10, 160.
doi:10.3390/w10020160.
Alamdaria, N., Sample, D.J., Liu, J., and Ross, A. (2018),
Assessing climate change impacts on the reliability of rain-
water harvesting systems. Resour., Conserv. Recycl., 132, 178–
189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.013.
Alameddine, I., Fayyad, A., Najm, M.A., and El‐Fadel, M.
(2018), Sustainability of Basin Level Development under a
Changing Climate. Int. J. Sus. Dev. Plan., 13(3), 394–405. doi:
10.2495/SDP‐V13‐N3‐394‐405.
Alcamo, J., Floerke, M., and Maerker, M. (2007), Future long‐
term changes in global water resources driven by socioeco-
nomic and climatic changes. Hydrol. Sci., 52(2), 247–275.
Alvarez‐Garreton, C., Ryu, D., Western, A.W. et al. (2016), Dual
assimilation of satellite soil moisture to improve streamflow
prediction in data‐scarce catchments. Water Resour. Res., 52,
5357–5375.
Amin, A., Iqbal, J., Asghar, A., and Ribbe, L. (2018), Analysis
of Current and Future Water Demands in the Upper Indus
Basin under IPCC Climate and Socio‐Economic Scenarios
Using a Hydro‐Economic WEAP Model. Water, 10, 537.
doi:10.3390/w10050537.
An, L. (2012), Modeling human decisions in coupled human
and natural systems: review of agent‐based models. Ecol.
Model., 229, 25–36.
Andreu, J., Capilla, J., and Sanchís, E. (1996), AQUATOOL, a gen-
eralized decision‐support system for water‐resources planning
and operational management. J. Hydrol., 177, 269–291
AQUAVEO (2010), Groundwater Modeling System (GMS). Avail-
able at https://www.aquaveo.com/software/gms‐groundwater‐
modeling‐system‐introduction
Arfanuzzaman, M. and Abu Syed, M. (2018), Water demand
and ecosystem nexus in the transboundary river basin: a zero‐
sum game. Environ Dev Sustain., 20, 963–974.
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., and Williams,
J.R. (1998), Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment
part I: Model development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 34,
73–89.
Atampugre, G., Botchway, D.‐V. N. Y. M., Esia‐Donkoh, K.
and Kendie, S. (2016), Ecological modernization and water
resource management: a critique of institutional transi-
tions in Ghana. Geo Journal, 81, 367–378. doi:10.1007/
s10708‐015‐9623‐9.
Barnett, T. P., Adam, J.C., and Lettenmaier, D.P. (2005), Poten-
tial impacts of a warming climate on water availability in
snow‐dominated regions. Nature, 438, 303–309.
Berger T., Birner, R., Díaz, J. et al. (2006), Capturing the com-
plexity of water uses and water users within a multi‐agent
framework. In: E. Craswell, M. Bonnell, D. Bossio et al.
(eds.), Integrated Assessment of Water Resources and Global
Change. Springer, Dordrecht.
Berggren, J. (2018), Utilizing sustainability criteria to evaluate
river basin decision‐making: the case of the Colorado River
Basin. Reg. Environ. Chang., 18, 1621–1632.
Biggs, E. M., Bruce, E., Boruff, B. et al. (2015), Sustainable
development and the water–energy–food nexus: a perspective
on livelihoods. Environ Sci. & Policy, 54, 389–397.
Bormann, H., Steinbrecher, J., Althoff, I. et al. (2016), Rec-
ommendations for capacity development in water resources
88 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
engineering and environmental management in Latin
America. Water Resour. Manag., 30(10), 3409–3426.
Bolson, J., Sukop, M.C., Arabi, M. et al. (2018), A stakeholder‐
science based approach using the national urban water inno-
vation network as a test bed for understanding urban Water
sustainability challenges in the U.S. Water Resour. Res., 54,
3453–3471. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR021191.
Brunner, P. (2017), Integrated groundwater management: Con-
cepts, approaches and challenges. Ground Water 55(5), 487–
488.
Burby, R.J. (1999), Unleashing the power of planning to cre-
ate disaster‐resistant communities. (cover story). J. Am. Plan.
Assoc., 65, 247–258.
Buxton, M., Haynes, R., Mercer, D., and Butt, A. (2011), Vul-
nerability to bushfire risk at Melbourne’s urban fringe: The
failure of regulatory land use planning. Geogr. Res., 49, 1–12.
Carter, J. G., Cavan, G. Connelly, A. et al. (2015), Climate
change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation.
Prog. Plan., 95, 1–66.
Carter, J. G., Handley, J. Butlin, T., and Gill, S. (2018), Adapt-
ing cities to climate change – exploring the flood risk
management role of green infrastructure landscapes. J.
Environ. Plan Manag., 61(9), 1535–1552. doi:10.1080/09640
568.2017.1355777.
Carvalho L., Mackay, E.B., Cardoso, A.C. et al. (2019), Pro-
tecting and restoring Europe’s waters: An analysis of the
future development needs of the Water Framework Directive.
Sci. Total Environ., 658, 1228–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.12.255.
Chen, J. (2015), Coupled human and natural systems. BioSci-
ence, 65, 539–540.
Chen, J., Shi, H. Sivakumar, B., and Peart, M.R. (2016),
Population, water, food, energy and dams. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., 56, 18–28.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J. et al. (2009), Ecosystem
services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers Ecol. &
Environ., 7(1), 21–28.
De Filippis, G., Foglia, L. Giudici, M. et al. (2016), Seawater
intrusion in karstic, coastal aquifers: current challenges and
future scenarios in the Taranto area (southern Italy). Sci.
Total Environ., 573, 1340–1351.
Dobrovolski, R. and Rattis, L. (2015), Water collapse in Brazil:
the danger of relying on what you neglect. Nat. Conservação,
13, 80–83.
El Chami, D. and El Moujabber, M. (2016), Drought, climate
change and sustainability of water in agriculture: A roadmap
towards the NWRS2. S. Afr. J. Sci., 112(9/10). http://dx.doi.
org/10.17159/ sajs.2016/20150457.
Emami, F. and Koch, M. (2018), Sustainability Assessment of
the Water Management System for the Boukan Dam, Iran,
Using CORDEX‐ South Asia Climate Projections. Water, 10,
1723. doi:10.3390/w10121723.
Falkenmark, M. and Molden, D. (2008), Wake up to realities
of river basin closure. Int. J. Water Resour. D., 24, 201–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620701723570.
Feng, A., Li, Y., Gao, J. et al. (2017), The determinants of
streamflow variability and variation in Three‐River Source
of China: climate change or ecological restoration? Environ.
Earth Sci., 76, 696. doi:10.1007/s12665‐017‐7026‐6.
Feng, X., Liu, Q., Yin, L. et al. (2018), Linking water research
with the sustainability of the human–natural system. Curr.
Opin. Env. Sust., 33, 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2018.05.012.
Few, R., Brown, K., and Tompkins, E.L. (2007), Climate change
and coastal management decisions: Insights from Christ-
church Bay, UK. Coast. Manag., 35, 255–270.
Friesen, J., Sinobas, L.R., Foglia, L. and Ludwig, R. (2017),
Environmental and socio‐economic methodologies and solu-
tions towards integrated water resources management. Sci.
Total Environ., 581–582, 906–908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.12.051.
Garrote, L. (2017), Managing Water Resources to Adapt to Cli-
mate Change: Facing Uncertainty and Scarcity in a Changing
Context. Water Resour. Manag., 31, 2951–2963. doi:10.1007/
s11269‐017‐1714‐6.
Gassman, P.W., Reyes, M.R., Green, C.H., and Arnold,
J.G. (2007), The soil and water assessment tool: historical
development, applications, and future research directions.
TASABE, 50, 1211–1250.
Gohar, A.A., Cashman, A., and Ward, F.A. (2019), Managing
food and water security in Small Island States: New evidence
from economic modelling of climate stressed groundwater
resources. J Hydrol., 569, 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2018.12.008.
Greiving, S. and Fleischhauer, M. (2012), National climate
change adaptation strategies of European states from a
spatial planning and development perspective. Eur. Plan.
Stud., 20, 27–48.
Gu, S., Jenkins, A., Gao, S‐J. et al. (2017), Ensuring water
resource security in China; the need for advances in evi-
dence‐based policy to support sustainable management.
Environ. Sci. Policy, 75, 65–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2017.05.008.
Hajkowicz, S. and Collins, K. (2007), A review of multiple cri-
teria analysis for water resource planning and management.
Water Resourc. Manag., 21, 1553–1566.
Henche, M., Murillo, J.M., and Castaño, S. (2002), Optimi-
zación del uso de los recursos hídricos del sector Sierra de
Baza (Granada, cuenca del Guadalquivir, España) mediante
el empleo de un modelo. Goel. Min., J., 113, 185–198.
Henriques, C., Holman, I.P., and Audsley, E. (2008), An inter-
active multi‐scale integrated assessment of future regional
water availability for agricultural irrigation in east Anglia and
north West England. Climatic Chang., 90, 89–111.
Hernández‐Bedolla, J., Solera, A., Paredes‐Arquiola, J. et al.
(2017), The Assessment of Sustainability Indexes and Climate
Change Impacts on Integrated Water Resource Management.
Water, 9, 213. doi:10.3390/w9030213.
Hilden, M. and Rosentrom, U. (2008), The use of indicators for
sustainable development. Sustain. Dev., 16(4), 237–240.
Hoch, J.E. and Kozlowski, S.W. (2014), Leading virtual teams:
hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team
leadership. J Appl. Psychol., 99(3), 390–403. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0030264.
Hong, S., Xia, J., Chen, J. et al. (2017), Multi‐object approach
and its application to adaptive water management under
climate change. J. Geogr. Sci., 27(3), 259–274. doi:10.1007/
s11442‐017‐1375‐7.
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 89
Hurlimann, A. and Wilson, E. (2018), Sustainable Urban Water
Management under a Changing Climate: The Role of Spatial
Planning. Water, 10, 546. doi:10.3390/w10050546.
Hurlimann, A.C. and March, A.P. (2012), The role of spatial
planning in adapting to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip.
Rev. Clim. Chang., 3, 477–488.
Hurlimann, A., Barnett, J.R., Fincher, P. et al. (2014), Urban
planning and sustainable adaptation to sea‐level rise. Landsc.
Urban Plan., 126, 84–93.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014), Cli-
mate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:
Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, et al. (eds.),
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, NY.
Iqbal, M.S., Islam, M.M. and Hofstra, N. (2019), The impact
of socio‐economic development and climate change on E.
coli loads and concentrations in Kabul River, Pakistan. Sci.
Total Environ., 650, 1935–1943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.09.347.
Jakeman, A., Barreteau, O., Hunt, R.J. et al. (2016), Integrated
Groundwater Management. Springer, Dordrecht.
Jiang, C., Li, D., Wang, D., and Zhang, L. (2016), Quantifica-
tion and assessment of changes in ecosystem service in the
Three‐River Headwaters Region, China as a result of climate
variability and land cover change. Ecolog. Indicat., 66, 199–
211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.051.
Keys, P.W. and Falkenmark, M. (2018), Green water and
African sustainability. Food Security, 10, 537–548. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12571‐018‐0790‐7.
Kiss, R. (2004), Determination of drainage network in digital
elevation models, Utilities and limitations. J. Hungarian Geo-
mathematics, 2, 16–29.
Kresmann, S., Leggewie, C., Teichgräber, B., and Schmidt, T.C.
(2018), Editorial: VSI “Inter‐ and Transdiciplinary Water
Research”. Sci. Total Environ., 636, 1517–1519. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.302.
Lanier, A.L., Drabik, J.R., Heikkila, T. et al. (2018), Facilitating
Integration in Interdisciplinary Research: Lessons from a
South Florida Water, Sustainability, and Climate Project.
Environ. Manag., 62, 1025–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00267‐018‐1099‐1.
Lu, X., Lu, Y., Chen, D. et al. (2018), Major threats of pollution
and climate change to global coastal ecosystems and enhanced
management for sustainability. Environ. Pollut., 239, 670e680.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.016.
Lu, X., Lu, Y., Chen, D. et al. (2019), Climate change induced
eutrophication of cold‐water lake in an ecologically fragile
nature reserve. J. Environ. Sci., 75, 359 – 369. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.05.018.
Macintosh, A. (2012), Coastal Adaptation Planning: A Case
Study on Victoria, Australia. ANU Centre for Climate Law
and Policy, Canberra, Australia.
Madani, K. (2014), Water management in Iran: what is caus-
ing the looming crisis? J. Environ. Stud. Sci., 4(4), 315–328.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412‐014‐0182‐z.
Madani, K. and Lund, J.R. (2011), A Monte‐Carlo game the-
oretic approach for multi‐criteria decision making under
uncertainty. Adv. Water Resour., 34, 607–616.
Mahabadi, S.A., Bavani, A.R.M., and Bgheri, A. (2018), Improving
adaptive capacity of social‐ecological system of Tashk‐
Bakhtegan Lake basin to climate change effects – A methodology
based on Post‐Modern Portfolio Theory. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol.,
18, 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2018.11.002.
Maia, R. and Schumann, A.H. (2007), DSS application to the
development of water management strategies in Ribeiras do
Algarve River basin. Water Resour. Manag., 21(5), 897–907.
Major, C. and Lenton, R.L. (1979), Applied water resource sys-
tems planning. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Maliva, R. (2014), Economics of managed aquifer recharge.
Water, 6, 1257–1279.
Mattos, J.B., Silva, K.B., Silva, R.J. et al. (2019), Natural factors
or environmental neglect? Understanding the dilemma of a
water crisis in a scenario of water plenty. Land Use Policy,
82, 509–517.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005), Ecosystems
and human well‐being: Synthesis. Ecosystems (Vol. 5). Island
Press, Washington DC.
Mehta, V.K., Young, C., Bresney, S.R. et al. (2018), How can
we support the development of robust groundwater sustain-
ability plans? California Agric., 72(1), 54–64. https://doi.
org/10.3733/ca.2018a0005.
Meko, D.M., Woodhouse, C.A., Baisan, C.A. et al. (2007),
Medieval drought in the upper Colorado River Basin. Geophy.
Res. Lett., 34, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029988.
Mongeon, P. and Paul‐Hus, A. (2016), The journal coverage of
web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis. Sciento-
metrics, 106, 213–228
Moradkhani, H., Sorooshian, S., Gupta, H.V., and Houser,
P.R. (2005), Dual state‐ parameter estimation of hydrolog-
ical models using ensemble Kalman filter. Advanced Water
Resour., 28, 135–147.
Morckel, V. (2017), Why the Flint, Michigan, USA water crisis
is an urban planning failure. Cities, 62, 23–27. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.002.
Morote, Á.‐F., Olcina, J., and Rico, A.‐M. (2017), Challenges
and Proposals for Socio‐Ecological Sustainability of the
Tagus–Segura Aqueduct (Spain) under Climate Change. Sus-
tainability, 9, 2058. doi:10.3390/su9112058.
Murillo, J. and Navarro, J. (2008), Empleo de modelos de análi-
sis global de recursos hídricos como primera actuación a
emprender en propuestas de gestión que contemplen opera-
ciones de recarga. Goel. Min. J., 119, 247–272.
Mycoo, M.A. (2018), Achieving SDG 6: water resources sus-
tainability in Caribbean Small Island Developing States
through improved water governance. Natur. Resour. Forum,
42, 54–68. doi:10.1111/1477‐8947.12141.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, R., and Williams, J.R.
(2011), Soil and Water Assessment Tool theoretical documen-
tation: Version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, 1–24.
Nejadhashemi, A., Wardynski, B., and Munoz, J. (2011), Evalu-
ating the impacts of landuse changes on hydrologic responses
in the agricultural regions of Michigan and Wisconsin.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 8(2), 3421–68.
Nkomozepi, T. and Chung, S.O. (2012), Assessing the trends
and uncertainty of maize net irrigation water requirement
estimated from climate change projections for Zimbabwe.
Agric. Water Manag., 111, 60–67.
90 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Ololade, O.O. (2018), Understanding the nexus between energy
and water: A basis for human survival in South Africa. Dev.
Southern Africa, 35(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03768
35X.2018.1426445.
Overpeck, J. and Udall, B. (2010), Dry times ahead. Science,
328, 1642–1643. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1186591.
Pahl‐Wostl, C., Jeffrey, P., Isendahl, N., and Brugnach, M.
(2011), Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm:
Progressing from Aspiration to Practice. Water Resour.
Manag., 25(3), 837–856.
Pandey, V.P., Dhaubanjar, S., Bharati, L., and Thapa, B.R.
(2019), Hydrological response of Chamelia watershed in
Mahakali Basin to climate change. Sci. Total Environ., 650,
365‐383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.053.
Picketts, I.M., Déry, S.J., and Curry, J.A. (2013), Incorporating
climate change adaptation into local plans. J. Environ. Plan.
Manag., 57, 984–1002.
Pires, A., Morato, J., Peixoto, H. et al. (2017), Sustainability
Assessment of indicators for integrated water resources
management. Sci. Total Environ., 578, 139–147. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.217.
Plisnier, P.‐D., Nshombo, M., Mgana, H., and Ntakimazi,
G. (2018), Monitoring climate change and anthropogenic
pressure at Lake Tanganyika. J. Great Lakes Res., 44, 1194–
1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2018.05.019.
Poff, N.L., Brown, C.M., Grantham, T.E. et al. (2016), Sustain-
able water management under future uncertainty with eco‐
engineering decision scaling. Natur. Clim. Chang., 6, 25–34.
doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2765.
Popoola, O.O., Monde, N., and Yusuf, S.F.G. (2018), Percep-
tions of climate change impacts and adaptation measures
used by crop smallholder farmers in Amathole district munic-
ipality, Eastern Cape province, South Africa. GeoJournal, 83,
1205–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708‐017‐9829‐0.
Purkey, D.R., Huber‐Lee, A., Yates, D.N. et al. (2007), Inte-
grating a climate change assessment tool into stakeholder
driven water management decision‐making processes in
California. Water Resour. Manag., 21(1), 315–329.
Rajsekhar, D. and Gorelick, S.M. (2017), Increasing drought
in Jordan: Climate change and cascading Syrian land‐use
impacts on reducing transboundary flow. Sci. Adv., 3(8),
e1700581. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700581.
Ranzani, A., Bonato, M., Patro, E.R. et al. (2018), Hydropower
Future: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Between Climate Change, Renewable Deploy-
ment, Carbon and Fuel Prices. Water, 10, 1197. doi:10.3390/
w10091197.
Raskin, P., Hansen, E., and Zhu, Z. (1992), Simulation of water
supply and demand in the Aral Sea. Region, 17(2), 55–67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508069208686127.
Raziei, T., Saghafian, B., Paulo, A. et al. (2009), Spatial patterns
and temporal variability of drought in Western Iran. Water
Resour. Manag., 23, 439–455.
Rizvi, Z., Adamowski, J., and Patrick, R.J. (2013), First Nation
capacity in Québec to practice integrated water resources
management. Int. J. Water, 7(3), 161–190.
Rodriguez, J., Ustin, S., Sandoval‐Solis, S., and O’Geen, A.T.
(2016), Food, water, and fault lines: remote sensing oppor-
tunities for earthquake‐response management of agricultural
water. Sci. Total Environ., 565, 1020–1027. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.146.
le Roux, B., van der Laan, M., Vahrmeijer, T. et al. (2017),
Establishing and testing a catchment water footprint frame-
work to inform sustainable irrigation water use for an aquifer
under stress. Sci. Total Environ., 599–600, 1119–1129. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.170.
Rupérez‐Moreno, C., Pérez‐Sánchez, J., Senent‐Aparicio, J.
et al. (2017), Cost‐Benefit Analysis of the Managed Aquifer
Recharge System for Irrigation under Climate Change
Conditions in Southern Spain. Water, 9, 343. doi:10.3390/
w9050343.
Salerno, F., Gaetano, V., and Gianni, T. (2018), Urbaniza-
tion and climate change impacts on surface water quality:
Enhancing the resilience by reducing impervious sur-
faces. Water Res., 144, 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.07.058.
Seager, R., Ting, M., Li, C. et al. (2013), Projections of declining
surface‐water availability for the southwestern United States.
Nat. Clim. Chang., 3, 482–486.
SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute) (2019), Water Eval-
uation and Planning (WEAP). Available at https://www.
weap21.org/.
Seneviratne, S.I., Corti, T., Davin, E.L. et al. (2010), Investi-
gating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing cli-
mate: a review. Earth Sci Rev., 99, 125–161.
Shahzad, F. and Gloaguen, R. (2011), TecDEM: A MATLAB
based toolbox for tectonic geomorphology, Part 1: Drainage
network preprocessing and stream profile analysis. Comput.
Geosci, 37(2), 250–260. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2010.06.008.
Sharp, R., Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T. et al. (2016), InVEST +VER-
SION+ User’s Guide. California and Minnesota: The Natural
Capital Project.
Shi, P., Ma, X., Hou, Y. et al. (2013), Effects of land‐use and
climate change on hydrological processes in the Upstream of
Huai River, China. Water Resour. Manag., 27(5), 1263–1278.
Shrestha, S., Dwivedi, P., McKay, S.K., and Radcliffe, D.
(2019), Assessing the Potential Impact of Rising Production
of Industrial Wood Pellets on Streamflow in the Presence of
Projected Changes in Land Use and Climate: A Case Study
from the Oconee River Basin in Georgia, United States.
Water, 11, 142. doi:10.3390/w11010142.
Sishodia, R.P., Shukla, S., Wani, S.P. et al. (2018), Future irri-
gation expansion outweigh groundwater recharge gains from
climate change in semi‐arid India. Sci. Total Environ., 635,
725–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.130.
Skjerven, A. and Reitan, J. (2017), Design for a Sustainable
Culture: Perspectives, Practices and Education. Routledge,
Oxon and New York, NY.
Storbjörk, S. and Hjerpe, M. (2014), Sometimes climate
adaptation is politically correct: A case study of planners
and politicians negotiating climate adaptation in waterfront
spatial planning. Eur. Plan. Stud., 22, 2268–2286.
Sung, J. H., Chung, E.‐S., and Shahid, S. (2018), Reliability–
Resiliency–Vulnerability Approach for Drought Analysis in
South Korea Using 28 GCMs. Sust., 10, 3043. doi:10.3390/
su10093043.
Tallis, H., and Polasky, S. (2011), Assessing multiple ecosystem
services: an integrated tool for the real world. In: P. Kareiva,
H. Tallis, T.H. Ricketts et al. (eds.), Natural capital. Theory
and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford Univer-
sity Press, New York, NY.
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 91

Thapa, B.R., Ishidaira, H., Pandey, V.P., and Shakya, N.M.
(2017), A multi‐model approach for analyzing water balance
dynamics in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. J Hydrol.: Reg. Stud.,
9, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2016.12.080.
Tsakiris, G. and Spiliotis, M. (2011), Planning against long
Term Water scarcity: a fuzzy Multicriteria approach. Water
Resourc. Manag., 25(4), 1103–1129.
UN ESA (United Nations, Department of Economic and
Social Affairs) (2017), World Population Prospects: The 2017
Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. United Nations
(UN), Department of Economic and Social Affairs (ESA),
Population Division. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248.
United Nations (2015), Transforming our world: the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted
by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. A RES/70/1.
Uppanunchai, A., Chitmanat, C. and Lebel, L. (2018), Main-
streaming climate change adaptation into inland aquaculture
policies in Thailand. Clim. Policy, 18:1, 86–98. doi:10.1080/1
4693062.2016.1242055.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) (2010), MODFLOW and
related programs. Available at https://water.usgs.gov/ogw/
modflow/.
Vadiati, M., Adamowski, J., and Beynaghi, A. (2018), A brief
overview of trends in groundwater research: Progress towards
sustainability? J. Environ. Manag., 223, 849–851.
Vicente, D. J., Rodríguez‐Sinobas, L., Garroe, L., and Sán-
chez, R. (2016), Application of the system of environmental
economic accounting for water SEEAW to the Spanish part of
the Duero basin: lessons learned. Sci. Total Environ. 563–564,
611–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.078.
Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O. et al. (2010),
Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity.
Nature, 467, 555–561.
Walton, W.C. and McLane, C.F. (2013), Aspects of ground-
water supply sustainable yield. Ground Water, 51(2), 158–160.
Wang, G., Yang, H., Wang, L. et al. (2014), Using the SWAT
model to assess impacts of landuse changes on runoff gen-
eration in headwaters. Hydrol. Process., 28(3), 1032–42.
doi:10.1002/hyp.9645.
Wang, L., Yang, X., and Zhao, R. (2018), Assessing impact
of climate change on the wheat production in the Yellow
River Basin, China. Semin‐Ciênc. Agrár., 39(6), 2361–2374.
doi:10.5433/1679‐0359.2018v39n6p2361.
Watto, M.A., Mugera, A.W., Kingwell, R., and Saqab, M.M.
(2018), Re‐thinking the unimpeded tube‐well growth under
the depleting groundwater resources in the Punjab, Paki-
stan. Hydrogeol. J., 26, 2411–2425. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10040‐018‐1771‐9.
Wilson, E. (2006), Adapting to climate change at the local level:
The spatial planning response. Local Environ., 11, 609–625.
World Bank Group (2016), Earth Observation for Water
Resources Management: current use and future opportunities
for the water sector. World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.
Wu, F., Zhan, J., Chen, J. et al. (2015), Water Yield Variation
due to Forestry Change in the Headwater Area of Heihe
River Basin, Northwest China. Adv Meteorol. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1155/2015/786764.
Yasmin, T., Farrelly, M.A, and Rogers, B.C. (2018), Evolu-
tion of water governance in Bangladesh: An urban per-
spective. World Dev. 109, 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2018.05.003.
Yigzaw, W. and Hossain, F. (2016), Water sustainability of large
cities in the United States from the perspectives of population
increase, anthropogenic activities, and climate change. Earth’s
Future, 4, 603–617. doi:10.1002/2016EF000393.
Zischg, J., Rogers, B., Gunn, A. et al. (2019), Future trajec-
tories of urban drainage systems: A simple exploratory mod-
eling approach for assessing socio‐technical transitions. Sci.
Total Environ., 651, 1709–1719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.10.061.

APPENDIX

Articles used in the systematic review

Year Authors Title Journal
1 2016 Atampugre, G., Botchway, Ecological modernization and water resource Geo Journal
D.‐V. N. Y. M., Esia‐ management: a critique of institutional
Donkoh, K. and Kendie, S. transitions in Ghana
2 2016 Fabre, J., Ruelland, D., Sustainability of water uses in managed Hydrology and Earth
Dezetter, A., and hydrosystems: human‐ and climate‐induced System Sciences
Grouillet, B. changes for the mid‐21st century
3 2016 Jiang, C., Li, D., Wang, D. and Quantification and assessment of changes in Ecological Indicators
Zhang, L. ecosystem service in the Three‐River Headwaters
Region, China as a result of climate variability
and land cover change
4 2016 Poff, N. L., Brown, C. M., Sustainable water management under future Nature Climate
Grantham, T. E., Matthews, uncertainty with eco‐engineering decision Change
J. H., Palmer, M. A., Spence, scaling
C. M., . . ..., Baeza, A.
5 2016 Theodossiou, N. Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on the Environmental
Sustainability of Groundwater Aquifers. Process
Application in Moudania Aquifer in N. Greece

(Continued )
92 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Year Authors Title Journal

6 2016 Yagbasan, O. Impacts of climate change on groundwater Geodinamica Acta
recharge in Küçük Menderes River Basin in
Western Turkey
7 2016 Yang, X.‐H., Sun, B.‐Y., Zhang, Hierarchy evaluation of water resources Natural Hazards
J., Li, M.‐S., He, J., Wei, vulnerability under climate change in Beijing,
Y.‐M. and Li, Y.‐Q. China
8 2016 Yigzaw, W. and Hossain, F. Water sustainability of large cities in the United Earth’s Future
States from the perspectives of population
increase, anthropogenic activities, and climate
change
9 2016 Zhang, L., Nan, Z., Xu, Y., and Hydrological Impacts of Land Use Change and PLoS ONE
Li, S. Climate Variability in the Headwater Region of
the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China
10 2017 Feng, A., Li, Y., Gao, J., Wu, S. The determinants of streamflow variability and Environmental Earth
and Feng A. variation in Three‐River Source of China: climate Science
change or ecological restoration?
11 2017 Friesen, J., Sinobas, L. R., Environmental and socio‐economic methodologies Science of the Total
Foglia, L. and Ludwig, R. and solutions Environment
towards integrated water resources management
12 2017 Garrote, L. Managing Water Resources to Adapt to Climate Water Resource
Change: Facing Uncertainty and Scarcity in a Management
Changing Context
13 2017 Gu, S., Jenkins, A., Gao, S‐J., Ensuring water resource security in China; the Environmental
Lu, Y., Li H., Li Y., . . .. . .. need for advances in evidence‐based policy to Science and Policy
Jobson, A. support sustainable management
14 2017 Hernández‐Bedolla, J., Solera, The Assessment of Sustainability Indexes and Water
A., Paredes‐Arquiola, J., Climate Change Impacts on Integrated Water
Pedro‐Monzonís, M., Resource Management
Andreu, J. and Sánchez‐
Quispe, S. T.
15 2017 Hong, S., Xia, J., Chen, J., Multi‐object approach and its application to Journal of
Wan, L., Ning, L. And adaptive water management under climate Geographical
Shi, W. change Sciences
16 2017 Khan, A. U., Jiang, J., Wang, P. Influence of watershed topographic and socio‐ Environmental
and Zheng, Y. economic attributes on the climate sensitivity of Research Letters
global river water quality
17 2017 Mohor, G. S. and Economic indicators of hydrologic drought Ecological Economics
Mendiondo, E. M. insurance under water demand and climate
change scenarios in a Brazilian context
18 2017 Morote, Á.‐F., Olcina, J. and Challenges and Proposals for Socio‐Ecological Sustainability
Rico, A.‐M. Sustainability of the Tagus–Segura Aqueduct
(Spain) under Climate Change
19 2017 Naser, R., El Bakkali, M., Assessment of groundwater quality in the Al‐ E3S Web of
Darwesh, N., El Kharrim, K. Burayhi and Hedran sub‐basin, Taiz, Yemen – A Conferences
and Belghyti, D. GIS approach
20 2017 Rajsekhar, D. and Increasing drought in Jordan: Climate change and Science Advances
Gorelick, S. M. cascading Syrian land‐use impacts on reducing
transboundary flow
21 2017 Roux, B. l., Laan, M. v. d., Establishing and testing a catchment water Science of the Total
Vahrmeijer, T., Bristow, K. L. footprint framework to inform sustainable Environment
and Annandale, J. G. irrigation water use for an aquifer under stress
22 2017 Rowan, A. V., Quincey, D. J., The sustainability of water resources in High The Himalayan
Gibson, M. J., Glasser, N. F., Mountain Asia in the context of recent and future Cryosphere: Past
Westoby, M. J., Irvine‐Fynn, glacier change and Present
T. D. L., Porter, P. R. and
Hambrey, M. J.
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 93

Year Authors Title Journal

23 2017 Rupérez‐Moreno, C., Cost‐Benefit Analysis of the Managed Aquifer Water
Pérez‐Sánchez, J., Senent‐ Recharge System for Irrigation under Climate
Aparicio, J., Flores‐Asenjo, P. Change Conditions in Southern Spain
and Paz‐Aparicio, C.
24 2017 Serpa, D., Nunes, J. P., Impacts of climate and land use changes on the Environmental
Keizer J. J. and Abrantes, N. water quality of a small Mediterranean Pollution
catchment with intensive viticulture
25 2017 Shrestha, N. K., Du, X. and Assessing climate change impacts on fresh water Science of the Total
Wang, J. resources of the Athabasca River Basin, Canada Environment
26 2018 Adego, T., Simane, B. and Sustainability, institutional arrangement and Agriculture & Food
Woldie, G. A. challenges of community based climate smart Security
practices in northwest Ethiopia
27 2018 Ahmadaali, J., Barani, G‐A., Analysis of the Effects of Water Management Water
Qaderi, K. and Hessari, B. Strategies and Climate Change on the
Environmental and Agricultural Sustainability of
Urmia Lake
Basin, Iran
28 2018 Ahn, J. M., Yang, D. S., Assessing the Coordinated Operation of Water
Jung, K. Y. and Shin, D. S. Reservoirs and Weirs for Sustainable Water
Management in the Geum River Basin under
Climate Change
29 2018 Alamdaria, N., Sample, D. J., Assessing climate change impacts on the reliability Resources,
Liu, J. and Ross. A. of rainwater harvesting Conservation &
systems Recycling
30 2018 Alameddine, I., Fayyad, A., Sustainability of Basin Level Development under a Int. J. of Sus.
Najm, M. A., and Changing Climate Development and
El‐Fadel, M. Planning
31 2018 Amin, A., Iqbal, J., Asghar, A. Analysis of Current and Future Water Demands in Water
and Ribbe, L. the Upper Indus Basin under IPCC Climate
and Socio‐Economic Scenarios Using a Hydro‐
Economic WEAP Model
32 2018 Berggren, J. Utilizing sustainability criteria to evaluate river Regional
basin decision‐making: the case of the Colorado Environmental
River Basin Change
33 2018 Bolson, J., Sukop, M. C., A stakeholder‐science based approach using the Water Resources
Arabi, M., Pivo, G. and national urban water innovation network as a Research
Lanier, A. test bed for understanding urban Water
sustainability challenges in the U.S.
34 2018 Cardozo, N. P., Bordonal, R. Sustainable intensification of sugarcane production Journal of Cleaner
O. and Scala Jr., N. L. under irrigation systems, considering climate Production
interactions and agricultural efficiency
35 2018 Cassardo, C., Park, S. K., Climate change over the high‐mountain versus Hydrology and Earth
Galli, M. and Sungmin, O. plain areas: System Sciences
Effects on the land surface hydrologic budget in
the Alpine area and northern Italy
36 2018 Dimri, A. P., Kumar, D., Indus River Basin: Future climate and water budget International
Chopra, S., and Journal of
Choudhary, A. Climatology
37 2018 Donk, P., Uytven, E. V. Assessment of the potential implications of a 1.5 Regional
Willems, P. and Taylor, M. A. °C versus higher global temperature rise for the Environmental
Afobaka hydropower scheme in Suriname Change
38 2018 Emami, F. and Koch, M. Sustainability Assessment of the Water Water
Management System for the Boukan Dam, Iran,
Using CORDEX‐ South Asia Climate Projections

(Continued )
94 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Year Authors Title Journal

39 2018 Feng, X., Liu, Q., Yin, L., Fu, B. Linking water research with the sustainability of Current Opinion in
and Chen, Y. the human–natural system. Environmental
Sustainability
40 2018 Hurlimann, A. and Wilson, E. Sustainable Urban Water Management under a Water
Changing Climate: The Role of Spatial Planning
41 2018 Keys, P. W. and Green water and African sustainability Food Security
Falkenmark, M.
42 2018 Kim, S., Devineni, N., Lall, U. Sustainable Development of Water Resources: Sustainability
and Kim, H. S. Spatio‐Temporal Analysis of Water Stress in South
Korea
43 2018 Kresmann, S., Leggewie, C., Editorial: VSI “Inter‐ and Transdiciplinary Water Science of the Total
Teichgräber, B. and Schmidt, Research” Environment
T. C.
44 2018 Lanier, A. L., Drabik, J. R., Facilitating Integration in Interdisciplinary Environmental
Heikkila, T., Bolson, J., Research: Lessons from a South Florida Water, Management
Sukop, M. C., Watkins, D. Sustainability, and Climate Project
W., . . .. . ..., Letson, D.
45 2018 Lu, Y., Yuan, J., Lu, X., Su, C., Major threats of pollution and climate change to Environmental
Zhang, Y. Wang, C., . . ..., global coastal ecosystems and enhanced Pollution
Sweijd, N. management for sustainability
46 2018 Mahabadi, S. A., Bavani, A. R. Improving adaptive capacity of social‐ecological Ecohydrology &
M. and Bgheri, A. system of Tashk‐Bakhtegan Lake basin to climate Hydrobiology
change effects – A methodology based on Post‐
Modern Portfolio Theory
47 2018 Mehta, V. K., Young, C., How can we support the development of robust California Agriculture
Bresney, S. R., Spivak, D. S. groundwater sustainability plans?
and Winter, J. M.
48 2018 Mycoo, M. A. Achieving SDG 6: water resources sustainability in Natural Resources
Caribbean Small Island Developing States Forum
through improved water governance
49 2018 Ou, G., Munoz‐Arriola, F., Climate change implications for irrigation and Climatic Change
Uden, D. R., Martin, D., groundwater
Allen, C. R. and Shank, N. in the Republican River Basin, USA
50 2018 Plisnier, P.‐D., Nshombo, M., Monitoring climate change and anthropogenic Journal of Great
Mgana, H. and pressure at Lake Tanganyika Lakes Research
Ntakimazi, G.
51 2018 Popoola, O. O., Monde N. Perceptions of climate change impacts and Geo Journal
and Yusuf, S. F. G. adaptation measures used by crop smallholder
farmers in Amathole district municipality, Eastern
Cape province, South Africa
52 2018 Ranzani, A., Bonato, M., Patro, Hydropower Future: Between Climate Change, Water
E. R., Gaudard, L. Renewable Deployment, Carbon and Fuel Prices
and Michele, C. D.
53 2018 Robert, M., Bergez, J.‐E. and A stochastic dynamic programming approach to European Journal
Thomas, A. analyze adaptation to climate change – of Operational
Application to groundwater irrigation in India Research
54 2018 Salerno, F., Gaetano, V. and Urbanization and climate change impacts on Water Research
Gianni, T. surface water quality: Enhancing the resilience
by reducing impervious surfaces
55 2018 Sishodia, R. P., Shukla, S., Future irrigation expansion outweigh groundwater Science of the Total
Wani, S. P., Graham, W. D. recharge gains from climate change in semi‐arid Environment
and Jones, J. W. India
56 2018 Sung, J. H., Chung, ID E.‐S. Reliability–Resiliency–Vulnerability Approach for Sustainability
and Shahid, S. Drought Analysis in South Korea Using 28 GCMs
57 2018 Tanachaichoksirikun, P., Impact of climate change on the groundwater MATEC Web of
Seeboonruang, U., and sustainability in the lower Chao Phraya basin, Conferences
Saraphirom, P. Thailand
 APPROACHES AND TOOLS TO ASSESS WATER‐CLIMATE‐SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS 95

Year Authors Title Journal

58 2018 Uppanunchai, A. Chitmanat, Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into Climate Policy
C. and Lebel, L. inland aquaculture policies in Thailand
59 2018 Vadiati, M., Adamowski, J. and A brief overview of trends in groundwater Journal of
Beynaghi, A. research: Progress towards sustainability? Environmental
Management
60 2018 Wang, L., Yang, X. and Zhao, Assessing impact of climate change on the wheat Semina: Ciências
R. production in the Yellow River Basin, China Agrárias
61 2018 Watto, M. A., Mugera, A. W., Re‐thinking the unimpeded tube‐well growth Hydrogeology
Kingwell, R. and Saqab, M. under the depleting Journal
M. groundwater resources in the Punjab, Pakistan
62 2018 Yan, T., Bai, J., Yi, A. L. Z. and SWAT‐Simulated Streamflow Responses to Climate Sustainability
Shen, Z. Variability and Human Activities in the Miyun
Reservoir Basin by Considering
Streamflow Components
63 2018 Yasmin, T., Farrelly, M. A. and Evolution of water governance in Bangladesh: An World Development
Rogers, B. C. urban perspective
64 2018 Zhang, J., Bai, M., Zhou, S. Agricultural Water Use Sustainability Assessment Water
and Zhao, M. in the Tarim River Basin under Climatic Risks
65 2019 Carvalho et al. Protecting and restoring Europe’s waters: An Science of the Total
analysis of the future development needs of the Environment
Water Framework Directive
66 2019 Gohar, A. A., Cashman, A. and Managing food and water security in Small Island Journal of Hydrology
Ward, F. A. States: New evidence from
economic modelling of climate stressed
groundwater resources
67 2019 Huang, L., Liao, F. H., Lohse, Land conservation can mitigate freshwater Science of the Total
K. A., Larson, D. M., ecosystem services Environment
Fragkias M., Lybecker, D. L. degradation due to climate change in a semiarid
and Baxter, C. V. catchment: The case of the Portneuf River
catchment, Idaho, USA
68 2019 Iqbal, M. S., Islam M. M. M. The impact of socio‐economic development and Science of the Total
and Hofstra, N. climate change on E. coli loads and Environment
concentrations in Kabul River, Pakistan
69 2019 Jorda‐Capdevila, D., Gampe, Impact and mitigation of global change on Science of the Total
D., García, V. H., Ludwig, R., freshwater‐related ecosystem Environment
Sabater, S., Vergoñós, L. and services in Southern Europe
Acuña, V.
70 2019 Lu, X., Lu, Y., Chen, D., Su, C., Climate change induced eutrophication of cold‐ Journal of
Song, S., Wang, T., . . .. . .., water lake in an ecologically fragile nature Environmental
Khan, K. reserve Sciences
71 2019 Mattos, J. B., Silva, K. B., Silva, Natural factors or environmental neglect? Land Use Policy
R. J., Almeida, T. H. M., Understanding the dilemma of a water crisis in a
Póvoas, H. S. S., Silva, P. V., scenario of water plenty
Matos, I. S.
72 2019 Nilawar, A. P. and Waikar, M. Impacts of climate change on streamflow and Science of the Total
L. sediment concentration under RCP 4.5 and 8.5: Environment
A case study in Purna river basin, India
73 2019 Novoa, V., Ahumada‐Rudolph, Sustainability assessment of the agricultural water Ecological Indicators
R., Rojas, O., Munizaga, J., footprint in the Cachapoal River basin, Chile
Sáez, K. and
Arumíe, J. L.
74 2019 Pandey, V. P., Dhaubanjar, S., Hydrological response of Chamelia watershed in Science of the Total
Bharati, L. and Thapa B. R. Mahakali Basin to climate change Environment

(Continued )
96 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Year Authors Title Journal

75 2019 Pérez, A. J., Hurtado‐Patiño, J., Assessing sub‐regional water scarcity using the Ecological Indicators
Herrera, H. M., Carvajal, A. groundwater footprint
F., Pérez, M. L., Gonzalez‐
Rojas, E. and
Pérez‐García, J.
76 2019 Shrestha, S., Dwivedi, P., Assessing the Potential Impact of Rising Production Water
McKay, S. K. and of Industrial Wood Pellets on Streamflow in the
Radcliffe, D. Presence of Projected Changes in Land Use and
Climate: A Case Study from the Oconee River
Basin in Georgia, United States
77 2019 Zischg, J., Rogers, B., Gunn, Future trajectories of urban drainage systems: A Science of the Total
A., Rauch, W. and simple exploratory modeling approach for Environment
Sitzenfrei, R. assessing socio‐technical transitions
 6
Rejuvenation of Springs in the Himalayan Region
Himanshu Kulkarni1*, Jayesh Desai1, and Mohammad Imran Siddique1

ABSTRACT

Spring water continues to remain the lifeline of the Himalayan population. Nearly one‐third of the population
depends completely on spring water for its domestic needs and often for meeting livelihood requirements.
Himalayan springs are depleting and despite their significance, there is very little attention towards it. A majority
of springs are drying up due to a variety of factors working in tandem, affecting the lives and livelihoods of the
people dependent on springs. Rejuvenation of springs could offer a climate‐resilient solution for livelihoods and
ecosystems in hills and mountain regions in the Himalaya, enhance water access, and contribute to achieve one
or more of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An aquifer‐based, springshed management approach
holds much promise in the revival of springs. The approach, based on many experiences, combines science, part-
nerships, and community participation in spring revival. It holds promise across the region and is creating policy
traction on spring water.

6.1. INTRODUCTION
The lion’s share of the world’s groundwater flux ends
up in streams or springs (Margat and Van der Gun,
2013). Rejuvenation of springs could offer a climate‐
resilient solution for livelihoods and ecosystems in hills
and mountain regions in the Himalaya. Furthermore, it
helps enhance access to water and therefore contributes
in achieving one or more Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). This, despite the fact that the large focus on water
resources development in countries like India has been on
damming rivers to create large storages for water supplies.
The pursuit of large projects may be rooted in the concept
of tapping river runoff by constructing small and large
dams, given the seasonal, skewed nature of monsoonal
(seasonal) precipitation in large regions of the country.
However, one must not forget that tapping springs and
utilising them for various purposes is an ancient practice.
It is therefore not difficult to imagine how villages and
1
Advanced Center for Water Resources Development and
Management (ACWADAM), Karve nagar, Pune, India
*Corresponding author
towns must have sprung up around spring locations, par-
ticularly in the mountains, where springs form perhaps
the most reliable sources of water throughout the year.
Springs and spring water have held people’s attention
for a long time. Whether it was the pristineness of spring
water or the spiritual halo of water springing from the
earth, spring water has caught human imagination
in innumerable ways. Spring water was used for basic
survival, medicinal purposes, and for man’s entertain-
ment and pleasure (George, 2001). In the late 1800s, many
medicinal or health spas sprang up in east Texas around
the more mineralised springs which were believed to be
beneficial in curing various skin ailments; or the case of
the large springs called Ayun Musa at the north‐western
edge of the Sinai Desert that supplied water at the first
stopover of the Israelites after "crossing the sea" on their
march toward the promised land (Chapelle, 2000). Closer
home, whether in India, Nepal, or Bhutan the sources of
many small and large rivers are in the form of springs
that are associated with a place of worship. Even in the
interior tribal regions of India, people continue to revere
springs since many centuries. One observes such rever-
ence and worship of natural springs across a variety of

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

97
98 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
ethnic and religious beliefs in large regions of the Indo–
Nepal–Bhutan Himalayas.
Springs are essential sources of freshwater that support
life and livelihoods, particularly in the Himalayas. They
also form a vital component of various ecosystems. Springs
form key elements of groundwater related ecosystems, the
other ones being terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial fauna,
rivers, estuaries, and marine systems (Margat and Van
der Gun, 2013). In non‐mountainous ecosystems, springs
have also been an integral part of the lagoonal environ-
ment (Sena and Condessa de Melo, 2013). LaMoreaux
and Tanner (2001) provide a rich narrative about the his-
torical development of perspectives around spring water
from across the world, while stating that spring waters are
botted in a great variety of ways to highlight the unique
character of each spring.
Human civilisations in the Himalayan mountains must
have flourished in and around springs. Sadly, the narra-
tive on Himalayan waters until quite recently, was domi-
nated by glaciers, snow‐melt and the mighty Himalayan
rivers. However, both rural and urban populations inhab-
iting these mountains depend largely upon spring water.
Springs are the main source of water supply for millions
living in the Himalayan Region (Chapagain, 2017; Negi
and Joshi, 2004; Shrestha et al., 2018). The Himalayas
are home not only to millions of people but are also a
geologically and ecologically diverse system. The middle
ranges across the region, popularly called the Mid‐Hills,
are dotted by habitations, usually along the slopes or
on the tops of ridges that often rise to soaring altitudes.
Many such habitations are in the form of scattered ham-
lets or villages and thus get little or no access to rivers
flowing along the valley floors, often hundreds and even
thousands of metres below. Therefore, the only source
of water for such habitations is in the form of numerous
springs found along the slopes and sometimes even on the
top of high ridges.
A large proportion of the Indian Himalayan population
depends on spring water also for their livelihoods,
whether for livestock or in agriculture. Almost 64% of the
cultivable area in the Himalayas is fed by natural springs
that often constitute the only source of irrigation in the
region (NITI Aayog, 2018a). The resident population of
the Indian Himalayan Region in particular is 50 million
(Census of India, 2011) with an annual tourist footfall
of 100 million (NITI Aayog, 2018a). Hence, for every
Himalayan resident, there are two tourists visiting the
region every year. The large demand for water in the
Himalayan region is also a consequence of this large
tourist footprint that forms another dimension that has
relevance to the demand for spring water.
Springs in the Himalayan region are coming under
serious threat. A majority of springs have begun to show
decline in discharge over the last few decades, due to
various factors such as changes in land use/land cover and
changes in climate, eventually affecting the lives and live-
lihoods of millions of people dependent on these springs.
Based on estimates from many pilot studies in this region,
nearly 60% of low‐discharge springs that provided water
to small habitations in the Himalayan region have shown
a clear decline (NITI Aayog, 2018a). Changing climatic
conditions and rapid changes in land use/land cover will
mean that a large part of the Himalayan population will
become vulnerable to basic water scarcity – meeting their
small but daily needs for drinking water – as the depen-
dency on spring water rises on one hand while spring dis-
charges deplete on the other. At least tens of thousands
of villages are currently facing acute water shortage for
drinking and other domestic purposes on account of
depleting spring discharges.
While the depletion in spring water is rising, it is not
surprising to find that the quality of spring water has
also deteriorated. Geogenic and anthropogenic factors
are held responsible for spring water contamination.
Microbial content, sulphates, and nitrates are the most
common contaminants originating from anthropogenic
sources due to poor sanitation systems. On the other
hand, contaminants like fluoride, arsenic, and iron tend
to originate from geogenic sources. Studies have indicated
that application of chemical fertilisers and poor land
conditions caused due to human activities are some of
the major factors influencing the water quality of springs
(Joshi and Kothyari, 2003).
Springs being the vital source of water in the mountains
did not receive due attention in the past leading to an ever‐
widening gap in the understanding of spring hydrogeol-
ogy and the factors leading to their declining discharges.
Groundwater assessments by State and Central agencies,
particularly in India, have only recently commenced
focussing on spring water and begun acknowledging the
fact that spring water is groundwater (GEC, 2015). The
neglect of springs by the larger discussions on rivers and
watersheds has left gaps in both practice and policy in
developing any strategic response to the alarming issue of
spring water depletion until about a decade ago.
The physiography, geology, and the structural setting
of the Himalayan mountain systems exhibit great
diversity. The topography and underlying geology are
often incongruent due to the tectonic elements of the
Himalayan orogeny. Conventional approaches of water-
shed management mainly focus on engineering structures
to reduce runoff, considering the surface hydrology (a
ridge to valley approach of looking at watersheds and
the natural resources in such watersheds) and not always
accounting for subsurface hydrogeological conditions,
which govern the aquifer setting and consequently the
behaviour of springs in space and time. The revival of
springs, based on a classical approach of using watershed
 REJUVENATION OF SPRINGS IN THE HIMALAYAN REGION
management, needs to be reviewed keeping in mind not
only the complex geology of the region but the diverse
system of rock types and structure even at seemingly
local scales. Hence, systematic mapping at the local scale
that integrates hydrogeology, measurement of spring
discharge and spring water quality alongside under-
standing social aspects becomes imperative for appro-
priate conservation and protection approaches (Shrestha
et al., 2018). Springs have provided water to the moun-
tain communities for centuries and the revival of this tra-
ditional source of water is extremely important for the
region’s sustainable growth. Therefore, it is significant
to understand the drying up of springs and the evolu-
tion of spring water revival approaches that enable the
integration of participatory science and local water gov-
ernance as a potential means of large‐scale spring revival
in the Himalayan Region.
6.2. THE DRYING UP OF SPRINGS
Spring water is considered clean and holy due to the
natural filtering that occurs during infiltration and during
its movement through shallow and deep aquifers, as the
case may be. Nearly 4/5th of the Himalayan population
is directly involved in agriculture. While this may actually
seem a conservative estimate, it highlights the degree of
vulnerability to spring water depletion in the Himalayan
Region, particularly given the high degree of dependency
on spring water.
Springs are the major, if not the only, source of agri-
cultural and domestic water for many rural commu-
nities in mountainous regions, the Himalayas being no
exception (Bartarya, 1991; Negi and Joshi 2004; Pandit
et al., 2007; Vashisht and Sharma 2007; NDF, 2014). It
is observed that a large part of the land that is irrigated
in the Himalayan Region is fed by natural springs. The
very springs on which there is such large‐scale depen-
dency in the Himalayan region, are drying up. Valdiya
and Bartarya (1989) reported a 40% reduction in spring
discharge over a 35‐year period (1951 to 1986) in the
Kumaun Himalaya region, attributed mainly to changes
in land‐use patterns and vegetation. They identified that
75% of the springs have gone dry and the average stream
discharge has declined by about 40%.
Studies dating even as far back as the 1980s have shown
evidence of springs becoming seasonal or drying up com-
pletely (Bisht and Srivastava, 1995; Negi and Joshi, 2004;
Sahin and Hall, 1996; Singh and Rawat, 1985; Valdiya
and Bartarya, 1991). Population rise, changing pat-
terns of precipitation, deforestation leading to increased
erosion of land‐surfaces, forest fires, and rapidly growing
built‐up areas are observed to seriously affect the catch-
ments of many springs. Consequently, a limited amount
of rainwater infiltrates into the sub‐surface to recharge
99
the groundwater, thereby creating a hydrological imbal-
ance. Changes in land use pattern, intense grazing and cli-
mate change has affected the discharge and water quality
of the springs in the Himalayas (Ghimire et al., 2012;
Joshi et al., 2014; Rautela and Karki 2015). The status of
land use/land cover is an important indicator of human
interaction with the environment. Over the last decade,
immense changes in the land use pattern has taken place
across major parts of the Himalayan landscape, even
prompting India’s NITI Aayog (2018b) to forewarn us
about the drying up of water sources and depletion of
soil fertility as settled agricultural intensification begins
to potentially replace the traditional practice of shifting
cultivation.
Climate change on the other hand, will result in changes
not only in temperature but also in the other elements of
hydrologic cycle such as precipitation, evaporation, and
runoff (Gleick, 1987; Eheart and Tornil, 1999; Loa´iciga
et al., 2000). The Himalayas are experiencing a rapid cli-
mate change, which is likely to impact livelihoods, eco-
systems, biodiversity, and human well‐being (Chaudhary
and Bawa, 2011). This climate change phenomenon
is also making a huge impact on rainfall pattern and
thereby affecting its existing variability. However, as in
many other parts of the world, there is a lack of spa-
tially disaggregated meteorological data in this region
(Tambe et al., 2012). Thus, a spatially granular rainfall
data would be required to understand the effect of pre-
cipitation changes on spring discharges, especially over
the longer run.
Studies based on both people’s perception and actual
measurements point to a correlation between the changes
in climate and depletion of spring discharges (Macchi
et al., 2014; Pandey et al., 2018). ICIMOD (2015) reported
that, in the Nepal mid‐hill region, a combination of bio-
physical (e.g. climate variability, changes in land use/
land cover) and socioeconomic (e.g. spring maintenance)
factors were responsible for the drying up of springs. In
many of our own study locations, we have observed that
annual precipitation keeps changing from year to year.
However, based on narratives by communities across the
Himalayan region, one is able to surmise that variability in
patterns of rainfall has also increased. Localised intense
precipitation has become more common according to what
communities across the Himalayan Region report. For
instance, rainfall has decreased in the Indian Himalayas
lying in Uttarakhand State during the last century, as a
sudden shift in the 1960s (Basistha et al., 2009). Extreme
events, in particular causing drought conditions in some
places while floods in the others, are also reported and
observed commonly. However, to arrive at clear conclu-
sions on how climate is really affecting springs, a strong
database on climate parameters and spring discharge at
better resolution is desired.
100 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Diagnostics on spring discharge have clearly stated
that spring discharge is a function of both the rainfall
pattern and the recharge area characteristics (Negi and
Joshi, 1996; Negi et al., 2001; Rai et al., 1998). At the
same time, the spring discharge showed strong correlation
with the characteristics of the aquifers that feed many of
these springs (Tambe et al., 2012). Even as far back as
the 1920s, the classification of springs was based on the
magnitude of flow that was classified into order, the first
order having the highest average discharge and the eighth
order with the lowest average discharge (Meinzer, 1927).
Pitts and Alfaro (2001) aptly summarise three common
criteria shared by all springs:
•• Presence of a water bearing unit or aquifer.
•• Capacity of the aquifer to receive (recharge), store,
transmit and yield (discharge) water relative to the
geologic units adjacent to the aquifer.
•• The size and character of the recharge zone.
A conceptual hydrograph (see Figure 6.1) shows how
spring water discharge depletes over the longer run and
how, on an annual basis the discharge of a spring affects
water availability. Depletion of spring discharges has
two consequences. Firstly, depletion in spring discharge
implies depleting aquifer stocks, which in turn, affects the
lives and livelihoods of people who depend on the spring.
Hence, the revival of this traditional source of water is
extremely important for restoring water supplies from the
aquifer. Secondly, springs have enormous ecological sig-
nificance. Hydrologically, springs constitute the base flow
in rivers in the region. In the absence of concrete data, it
is difficult to state exactly the percentage of contribution
20
Spring Discharge (Quantity of water)
15
10
1 Year
5 Indicative groundwater storage
2.5
0
Figure 6.1 Long‐term decline in spring discharge is indicative of depleting aquifer storage due to many factors;
restoration of spring discharge implies recharging the aquifer that has undergone depletion. Source: Based on
Kulkarni, H. (2005). Groundwater overdraft: a physical perspective. In: COMMAN 2005. Community Management
of Groundwater Resources in Rural India – Research Report, R. Calow and D. Macdonald (eds), British Geological
Survey Commissioned Report CR/05/36N, pp. 1–13.
to river flow by springs. Published evidence for six Asian
Rivers (Savoskul and Smakhtin, 2013) and more specif-
ically for the Ganga River Basin (Siderius et al., 2013)
reveal a 5% glacial melt contribution. On the other hand,
a nearly 20% base flow (groundwater) contribution
(Mukherjee et al., 2018) to the Ganga further enhances
the significance of spring water in the maintenance of a
river ecosystem. Our own estimates based on an average
sample density of one spring for every 20 hectares, for
the Indian Himalayan Region, yields a gross estimate of
about 3 million springs. Even assuming a very conser-
vative mean discharge of 5 litres per minute, the poten-
tial contribution of spring flow (potential base flow to
the Himalayan rivers) is at least of the order of 8 billion
cubic metres (BCM), not a small value by any standards.
Reviving and restoring springs, therefore, has huge
benefits to the lives and livelihoods of Himalayan people
and to the Himalayan ecosystems. Usually springs are
tapped in some form – pipe, a shallow well or a spring‐
tank – and the water is either accessed at the point of
discharge or is piped to a settlement some distance away.
In many instances, springs are located downstream of a
settlement from where people fetch water in buckets or
jars. Depletion in spring discharge has posed a serious
question to the access and distribution of spring water.
With rapidly growing townships and cities in the
Himalayan mountains, there is an increasing demo-
graphic pressure on water resources in the region which
has serious implications in terms of distressing the water
balance while the growing demand is far more exceeding
the available supplies. In this light, it becomes important
to revive springs by recharging the aquifers that support
Changes in land-use, land-cover, climate, natural hazards
groundwater strorage
Depletion in
Time
 REJUVENATION OF SPRINGS IN THE HIMALAYAN REGION 101

them and restore the catchment areas that form the
recharge zones to such Himalayan aquifers.
6.3. SPRINGSHED MANAGEMENT:
A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
TO REVIVING HIMALAYAN SPRINGS
6.3.1. Understanding the Resource (Aquifer)
The Himalayas exhibit a great diversity in physiog-
raphy, geology, and structural setting. The topography
and its underlying geology are often incongruent. The
Himalayan region offers a hydrogeological setting that is
not only a unique derivative of the tectonic history of
the region but is also quite typical in its constitution of
a diverse set of aquifer settings giving rise to a unique
typology of springs. Overlap and association of differ-
ent litho‐units or rock strata lead to the development
of composite aquifers. Continuity or discontinuity of
porosities and permeabilities in different suites of rock
formations define aquifer geometry in the Himalayas.
The degree and extent of “hydraulic continuity” – both
laterally and vertically – is often a consequence of the
deformational features present in rock formations such
as folding, faulting, and fracture zones in an area. The
extent of the aquifers, their geometry, their hydrogeo-
logical properties, viz. storativity and transmissivity show
great variation across the diverse landscapes present in
the mountains, giving rise to great diversity in spring sys-
tems therein. Spring discharges also vary considerably
depending upon the porosity and permeability of the
rock formations that constitute aquifers. Spring water
characteristics are also governed by variability in precipi-
tation, land use/land cover and altitudinal effects.
Kirk Bryan’s (1919) early classification of springs is
clearly based on the distinction between springs resulting
due to gravitational forces or due to shallow water (sub-
ject to seasonal fluctuations) and springs resulting from
non‐gravitational forces or deep‐seated waters that are not
necessarily subject to seasonal fluctuations. Mahamuni
and Kulkarni (2012) and Tambe et al. (2012) have used a
five‐fold classification of springs in the Indian Himalayas
to understand the aquifer‐spring linkage in attempts to
restore springs in the region. Loss of aquifer continuity
along mountain slopes or along fault and fracture planes,
leads to the formation of springs. Such discontinuities
are because a groundwater‐bearing feature abuts the land
surface or topography, giving rise to a typology of the
(five), broad spring types (see Table 6.1).
The Himalayan aquifer setting in India (based on India’s
aquifer typology defined by Kulkarni, 2005) is home to
nearly 60,000 rural and urban habitations. Out of the
six aquifer settings identified for India (Kulkarni, 2005;
Kulkarni et al., 2015) the mountain (Himalayan) hydro-
geological setting is the most “urbanising” setting wherein
the proportion of urban to rural habitations is the largest
amongst all the aquifer settings of India (see Figure 6.2).
With nearly 500 growing townships and 8 to 10 cities,
rapidly increasing demographic pressures are already
stretching water supplies to their very limits (Siddique
et al., 2019). Such pressures have serious implications in
terms of upsetting the water balance wherein a growing
demand is far outstripping available supplies, all these
changes happening in the larger umbrella of climatic
changes. Community involvement in the management of
water in general and springs in particular holds promise
in mitigating the problems arising from such pressures.
The role of a community in the context of spring rejuve-
nation holds a lot of significance.
The science of hydrogeology that governs the occur-
rence and movement of water in aquifers is not as well
understood or applied in spring water management as

Table 6.1 A summary of features that lead to the most common typology of spring systems in the Himalayas.
The key feature of discontinuity
Spring type Short description, including its unique features or abutment with topography
Depression spring Found in topographic depressions where the water table of an Water table
unconfined aquifer intersects the ground surface. Usually local
aquifer systems.
Fracture spring Found where a fractured rock formation carrying groundwater Fracture(s)
intersects the groundwater surface and the spring water emerges
from one or more of such fractures. Local to regional aquifer
systems.
Contact spring Found at the interface of high permeability rock and the underlying Contact between rock formations
low permeability rock. Local to regional aquifer systems.
Karstic spring Formed when a labyrinth of interconnected cavities and openings Karst features
carrying groundwater in carbonate rocks is exposed on the ground.
Generally regional aquifer systems.
Fault spring Formed when a deep‐seated fault brings groundwater to the surface, Fault
often under artesian pressures. Usually deep‐seated aquifer systems.
102 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Weighted Degree of Urbanisation
1.6000
1.4000
Weighted Degree of Urbanisation (×10 ^ 8)
1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
Figure 6.2 Weighted degree of urbanisation for different aquifer settings in India (Aquifer settings after
Kulkarni, 2005). Note: The Himalayan aquifer setting shows the highest degree of urbanisation. Source: Based on
Kulkarni, H. (2005).
it is in other aspects of groundwater management, espe-
cially in the plains. It has been difficult for many to gauge
the concept of aquifers in the Himalayan mountains –
­perhaps due to the large‐scale presumption that aquifers
are found only when groundwater storage is large, i.e. in
large aquifers underlying low‐lying regions. Even a single
low discharge spring that yields 10 liters of water per
minute as a near‐constant perennial average implies some
5200 m3 of discharge every year. Hence, groundwater
storage in the underlying aquifer feeding such springs is
likely to be in excess of 5200 m3. While the storages in
such aquifers may not be as big as that available in exten-
sive and thick aquifers found in the plains or low‐lying
regions, they remain crucial for the large‐scale depen-
dency of people in mountainous regions on spring, which
are natural groundwater discharges that do not require
artificial mechanisms to extract groundwater from the
aquifers. In other words, springs are perhaps the “green-
est” source of groundwater when compared to engineered
sources such as dug wells, tube wells, and bore holes.
Despite such a strong influence of complex geology
and high degree of variability in aquifer continuity–both
vertical and horizontal, mainstream programmes on
water resources in the region have been less inclusive of
hydrogeology in their design and planning. Many such
programmes have dealt largely with engineering spring
water supply and distribution systems, after water is dis-
charged from the spring. Hence, the focus has been on
working on the source, i.e. the spring, improving access to
spring water and distributing it through piped systems and
Alluvial
Mountain
Volcanic
Crystalline
Sedimentary
very little on the resource i.e. Aquifer. Conservation and
recharge programmes in India usually adopt the approach
of watershed management across India’s wide‐ranging
groundwater typology. Watershed management especially
in the Himalayas is heavily skewed towards surface water
hydrology with little focus on sub‐surface hydrology or
almost no emphasis on hydrogeology. The management
of springs therefore must fulfil understanding of both
surface hydrology and sub‐surface hydrogeology. Even in
the areas with a simpler geological setting, the success of
watershed development programmes depends significantly
upon a sound hydrogeological input, particularly with
regard to strategic augmentation of groundwater recharge
(Kulkarni, 1998; Pakhmode et al., 2003). In the Himalayan
mountain belts, therefore, many projects with classical
watershed management or spring development agendas
run the risk of being limited in their scope as the concept
of mountain aquifers is not necessarily included as part of
the programme design. Springshed management takes into
account all these requisites along with the most important
aspect of socio‐governance around spring water. Since,
springs are a part of complex socio‐technical and informal
governance systems, spring water management cannot be
complete without community participation. Involvement
of the community in development, monitoring and main-
tenance of springs is essential and an achievable task, as
there are cultural and religious beliefs that motivate people
to protect springs (Siddique et al., 2019). Thus, spring-
shed management forms an integrated approach that
includes hydrogeology as the scientific base, along with
 REJUVENATION OF SPRINGS IN THE HIMALAYAN REGION 103
an understanding of the social processes that determine
human behaviour in the context of springs.
6.3.2. Mainstreaming Springshed Management
Approach
The ignorance of spring water in mainstream water
policy and water resources planning led to an ever‐wid-
ening gap in the understanding of spring hydrogeology and
the factors leading to their declining discharge. Various
action research initiatives till date on spring revival have
opened avenues to a fresh articulation about groundwater
resources in the Himalayas. Springshed management,
which involves both science and community‐based mech-
anism for spring revival, have formed both an avenue for
undertaking research and for spring revival approaches
in the region. Springshed management involves demys-
tification of the science of hydrogeology and ground-
water‐related research that prompts decisions based
on the primary principles of common pool resource
management. The concept of springshed management
has not only evinced local and national interest but has
also evidenced success in many spring revival programmes
in several parts of the Himalayan region.
Demystifying the science of hydrogeology alongside
community participation to address the hydrological,
social, and ecological issues around springwater has
been the core component of many such programmes.
Successful design, planning, and execution of spring
water management and conservation efforts lies in
integration and collaboration (NITI Aayog, 2018a).
Inclusion of hydrogeological concepts and techniques
into the existing approaches on water conservations
activities in the mountains is necessary to bring about
such transformation. While doing so, it is also important
to consider the vital role played by community volunteers
and communities themselves, by contributing to the gen-
eration of data, building knowledge and understanding
on springs, in catalysing decisions around principles of
aquifers as common pool resources and in actions on
water management for implementing equitable and sus-
tainable solutions around springwater management.
Springs are sources of water that support both liveli-
hoods and ecosystems. Recognising them as a resource
is equally important, as is the importance of accept-
ing them as sources of water supply. The conceptual
understanding of mountain aquifers improves the
understanding of spring water as natural systems. A
combination of watersheds and the underlying aquifers
provides us with the understanding of “springsheds,”
a concept that has significant implications not only in
developing a conservation approach to mountain water
but also in attributing a status of common pool nature
to spring water. Aquifers in this region often extend from
one valley to the next valley depending on the geological
setting. Spring revival programmes need to factor this
concept into approaches and activities that define imple-
mentation of such programmes. In short, a “valley‐to‐
valley” approach (instead of a classical ridge‐to‐valley
approach) integrating hydrogeology and socio‐­ecological
aspects is known as springshed management (RDD,
2014, Shrestha et al., 2018, NITI Aayog, 2018a).
Most approaches and initiatives may have varied across
the region but have followed a common template of
combining elements of science–technology, community
participation, and governance through formal institutions
at various levels (NITI Aayog, 2018a). Table 6.2 provides
a list of some such key initiatives, which clearly exhibit the
range of locations and institutions involved in the process
of spring water management. It also highlights the impor-
tance of participation and collaborations through partner-
ships, a crucial element of springshed management. The
table is only indicative and there are and could be many
more examples. However, most significantly, the approaches
below have specifically been able to infuse local hydrogeo-
logical inputs in the planning, management, and gover-
nance of spring water resources in the Himalayan region.
Established programmes worked on a 10–20 ha model, just
upslope of a spring – as the recharge area (watershed area)
of the springs – with no regard to the underlying geology and
its control on the movement of groundwater to the spring
in question. The lack of a strategy involving classification
of springs and the absence of due consideration to the
diversity in the location and size of the recharge area of the
spring meant that investments in such initiatives were only
sub‐optimal. A comprehensive, transdisciplinary approach
is the only mechanism through which all the complex
dimensions of reviving, conserving, and protecting springs
can be realised (Siddique et al., 2019).
The initiatives and interventions listed in the table
above have yielded satisfactory results in terms of
improved spring water management in many parts of the
Himalayas. As an outcome of many such initiatives, a
common template on springshed management is evolv-
ing as more experience on spring‐revival is gained. The
Rural Development Department (RDD), Government
of Sikkim started a flagship programme on spring
revival – Dhara Vikas, which initially was a learning‐
by‐doing approach. The Dhara Vikas programme was
an initiative with a multitude of partners, including
Arghyam Trust, Peoples Science Institute (PSI), WWF‐
India, The Mountain Institute‐India, other Government
bodies (RDD and SIRD) and ACWADAM, the latter
providing the hydrogeological inputs. This programme
has been a classical model that attempted to align project
goals to the SDGs of the United Nations.
While many smaller, intensive efforts followed the
Dhara Vikas methodology in different regions of
India, ICIMOD and ACWADAM piloted springshed
management across locations in India and Nepal, and
104 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Table 6.2 Indicative list of initiatives by various institutions on springshed management (Adapted from NITI Aayog, 2018a).
Only key elements of each model have been highlighted to provide an insight into the wide spectrum of approaches and
disciplines that are required to address the problem of spring water depletion in the Himalayas.
S.N. Institution which led the initiative
1 People’s Science Institute (PSI), Dehradun
2 Central Himalayan Rural Action Group
(CHIRAG), Uttarakhand
3 Himmothan, Dehradun along with Tata Trusts,
Nagaland
4 Rural Development Department (RDD), formerly
Rural Management and Development
Department (RM&DD), Government of Sikkim
5 Eleuthrian Christian Society (ECS), Nagaland
with support by Tata Trusts
6 Department of Soil and Water Conservation,
Government of Meghalaya (under Meghalaya
Basin Development Authority – MBDA)
Source: Adapted from NITI Aayog.
developed a more detailed manual for spring water revival
based on all these experiences. The manual uses a six‐step
protocol for reviving springs in the Himalayas. It com-
bines hydrogeology with social sciences and community
action after consultation with a wide spectrum of stake-
holders (Shrestha et al., 2018). Arghyam Trust on the
other hand, has catalysed partnerships and collabora-
tions in taking the methodologies and partners to stim-
ulate and help design State level programmes on springs
in India. The Springs Initiative, as it is aptly called, has
helped improve water security in some 1000 villages and
trained nearly 9000 people from across institutions and
improved health and hygiene of people through spring-
shed management (Arghyam, 2016; NITI Aayog, 2018a).
Many other civil society organisations and government
agencies have been involved in the development of water-
shed programmes and spring recharge programmes
with their own level of capacities. Most of such inter-
ventions have been largely based on the common prin-
ciple of catchment area treatment. Therefore, there is an
ever‐increasing need to further enhance the uptake of
the science of hydrogeology in the existing approach and
capacity building of partner organisations, government,
and non‐government organisations for strengthening
springshed management in the Himalayan Region.
6.3.3. Way Forward: Overcoming Key Challenges
Spring water management in the Himalayan region
must become a holistic and integrated approach,
which encompasses partnerships, scientific inputs, and
community participation. Of course, while enabling a
Broad description of initiative
Springwater management in the Thanakasoga – Luhali Panchayat
area in Sirmour district of Himachal Pradesh through a
comprehensive springshed management approach based on the
concept of Participatory Groundwater Management (PGWM).
Springs revival through para‐hydrogeologist team; Piloting spring
rejuvenation programme in nearly 100 springs in the Kumaon
region of Uttarakhand.
Mission spring revival – scaling up the hydrogeology‐based model.
Rejuvenation of 700 springs through Dhara Vikas & MGNREGS
programmes.
Piloting and demonstrating springshed management for improved
water security in more than 10 locations in Nagaland.
Capacity building initiatives and mapping of 60 000 springs and
plan for spring water management of 5000 springs in 11 districts.
holistic approach, current experience points to a set of
activities that are quite crucial to any spring revival effort
in the Himalayan Region. These activities are:
•• Assessment of the hydrogeologic controls on the
springs (at the micro level) and requiring a granular
data set on a variety of hydrogeological information.
•• Recharge potential of the spring through springshed
development measures (again, at scales of micro or
even smaller watersheds or catchment sizes).
•• Maintenance and protection of springs, their recharge
areas and the catchments for these recharge areas.
•• Effective monitoring of precipitation, spring dis-
charge and water quality during planning, implemen-
tation and impact assessment stages.
•• Active participation of the community at all stages
including the stage of knowledge generation.
•• Application of advanced technologies like isotope
applications in conjunction with a more conventional
hydrogeological approach (as described above).
Isotope studies on springs in Sikkim Himalaya has
brought out the local nature of aquifer systems and the
uniqueness of Himalayan waters in these springs. Stable
isotope studies from Sikkim have shown how spring sam-
ples fall above the global meteoric water line indicating
the influence of Himalayan aquifers and evaporation
enrichment during recharge while electrical conductivity
analysis shows that the aquifers are recharged on a local
level (Dhakal et al., 2014). However, the management of
springs in the Indian Himalayas is a transdisciplinary
process that encompasses three core components of
water management, i.e. understanding the resource,
 REJUVENATION OF SPRINGS IN THE HIMALAYAN REGION 105
efficient management of water supplies, and equitable
access and distribution through demand management.
The process to support these three components thus
requires skills from multiple disciplines like meteorology,
hydrology, hydrogeology, sociology, economics, engi-
neering, ecology, and governance.
Community mobilisation around water sources is often
challenging and difficult in the Himalayan region because
of complex hydrogeological settings and the scattered
nature of habitations. It becomes important, therefore,
to undertake hydrogeological investigations and social
mobilisation in an integrated manner but at far more
granular scales than what is available currently. Skills
around conducting surveys – both hydrogeological and
social – have to be included into programme design so
that communities become part of the process of devel-
oping scientific understanding, taking participatory
decisions, and implementing measures of conservation.
Appropriateness of measures for recharge, apart from
identification of recharge zones also includes sound engi-
neering principles that take into account slope stability
and vulnerability.
The water in the spring emerges from a complex set of
rock formations that are also characterised by different
geometries of water‐bearing openings. The recharge zones
for these springs depend largely on the nature of geology
and consequent aquifer geometry. These recharge zones
or areas can be either small or large, primal, or distal and
sometimes spread across multiple locations. A variety of
land‐use and land‐cover types are located over poten-
tial recharge areas. Hence, any impact or changes on
these recharge areas affect the potential recharge to the
aquifers feeding the springs. Natural recharge areas fall
under a variety of classes, e.g. private lands, community
lands, grazing areas, forests, and many more. In such
cases, the implementation activity in a community land
becomes easier as compared to that on privately‐owned
land. A more specific situation arises when the recharge
area falls under land governed by the forest department.
Implementing recharge measures on such land has its
own set of challenges, including the fundamental query
on which agency can implement recharge measures in for-
ests. The spring recharge programme, therefore, becomes
a trade‐off between potential recharge measures (based
on hydrogeology) and actual recharge measures imple-
mented (based on the challenges on the ground). Our
estimate on the percentage of actual areas over which
recharge measures are implemented to the potential
recharge areas identified, is in the range of 20 to 60%.
The role of the community and a catalyst (often
an officer with the State Government of District
Administration) has been critical in tackling major hur-
dles and challenges. Further, active participation of
community through local level institutionalisation helps
in making the process of implementation easier. Most
spring water management programmes in India today
are a consequence of close collaboration and co‐oper-
ation between a government department (or ministry),
NGOs, community institutions and knowledge partners
including academia. Dhara Vikas (RDD, 2014) was the
trend‐setter for such collaborations, which has been emu-
lated across the region harbouring hope on changing the
threats from competition to principles of co‐operation
and collaboration.
Capacity building and knowledge support are key ele-
ments of any successful springshed management effort.
While these two elements require specialised skills,
programme finance is heavily stacked with implementa-
tion budgets, sometimes only so. A small but strategically
dedicated budget for the knowledge required for imple-
menting the programme on springshed management is
often missing from mainstream programmes. Given the
crisis around spring water across the entire Himalayan
region, up‐scaling of the programmes will require a lot
of resources for implementation and extensive capacity
building of various stakeholders. Considering the large
requirement of resources for implementing a Pan‐
Himalayan programme on springshed management,
resource allocation will be a crucial component of the
entire programme.
A dedicated programme or a policy on spring water
management is missing for all these years, especially
for the Indian Himalayan Region, a case that is prob-
ably relevant for most countries in the larger Himalayan
Region. Rural to urban migration is one of the most
widespread demographic trends that is predominant in
the Himalayan region (Tiwari et al., 2018). This is likely
to further complicate the vision in looking at spring
water. The shift to more centralised water supplies, as
demand in Himalayan cities grows, is likely to increase
the neglect of spring water despite the high dependency
of rural mountain communities on springs. Thus, con-
sidering the scale of the crisis, there is an urgent need to
expand the scope and scale of springshed programmes
in the Himalayan region by upgrading approaches to
address the complex situations that spring water is com-
ing under due to changing socio‐economic conditions
under the footprint of climate change and variability
(NITI Aayog, 2018a).
A comprehensive, multifaceted approach is the only
mechanism through which all the complex dimensions
of reviving, conserving, and protecting springs can be
achieved. The work on the ground, through a variety of
partnerships with significant institutional diversity and
a spectrum of impacts and key lessons, has helped cre-
ate a traction in policy around spring water. Sustaining
spring water management in the Himalayas will require a
systematic approach that will take into account transdis-
ciplinary aspects while addressing multiple dimensions of
spring water depletion.
106 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The chapter draws heavily from ACWADAM’s expe-
rience on including hydrogeological science into the
planning and management of spring water conservation
programmes. We sincerely acknowledge both our partners
on the ground in locations across the Himalayan region
and donors and government departments who have sup-
ported us financially and provided support in the form
of suggestions and discussion. These include People’s
Science Institute (PSI), CHIRAG, Himmothan, Prasari,
LEDeG, Ecosphere, Rural Development Department
(RDD)‐ formerly Rural Management and Development
Department (RM&DD) (Government of Sikkim), The
Mountain Institute (TMI), Eleutheros Christian Society
(ECS), Department of Land Resources(Government of
Nagaland), Soil and Water Conservation Department and
MeBDA, (Government of Meghalaya), Department of
Forests and Peyjal Nigam (Government of Uttarakhand),
Forest Department (Government of Himachal Pradesh),
Watershed Management Division (Government of
Bhutan), Ford Foundation, APPI, Arghyam Trust, GIZ,
KfW, Devopsys, NEIDA, ICIMOD, Helvetas, NITI
Aayog (Government of India), Department of Science
and Technology (Government of India), UNDP, and
SDC‐IHCAP. We are also grateful to our colleagues at
ACWADAM for support in various ways such as help
with data and critical comments on the write‐up.
REFERENCES
Arghyam. (2016). Water security in India’s mountainous regions:
experiences of the Springs Initiative. Arghyam, Bengaluru, 13p.
Bartarya, S.K. (1991). Watershed management strategies in
Central Himalaya: The Gaula river basin, Kumaun, India.
Land Use Policy, 8(3), pp. 177–184.
Basistha, A., Arya, D.S., and Goel, N.K. (2009). Analysis of
historical changes in rainfall in the Indian Himalayas. Intern.
Jour. Climatology, 29, pp. 555 – 572. Available at https://doi.
org/10.1002/joc.1706.
Bisht, N.S. and Srivastava, A.C. (1995). Sustainable
Management and Conservation of Drinking Water Resources
in Himalayas. Indian Forester, 121(7), pp. 608–612.
Bryan, K. (1919). Classification of Springs. The Journal of
Geology, V. 27, pp. 522–561.
Census of India 2011. (2014). Report on Post Enumeration
Survey. Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Govt. of
India, New Delhi,
Chapagain, A.K. (2017). Water Footprint: State of the
Art: What, Why, and How? Encyclopedia of Sustainable
Technology, pp. 153–163.
Chapelle, F. (2000). The Hidden Sea: Groundwater springs
and Wells. National Ground Water Association, Library of
Congress, Catalog Card No. 97–5640, 232p.
Chaudhary, P. and Bawa, K.S. (2011). Local perceptions of cli-
mate change validated by scientific evidence in the Himalayas.
Biology Letters, 7(5), pp. 767–770.
Dhakal, D., Tiwari, A., Tambe, S., Sinha, U.K., and Arrawatia,
M. (2014). Isotope studies to identify the origin and recharge
area of Himalayan springs as a Climate Change Adaptation
Initiative: a case study from Sikkim, Eastern Himalaya.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering. 7,
pp. 135–140.
Eheart, J.W. and Tornil, D.W. (1999), Low‐flow frequency exac-
erbation by irrigation withdrawals in the agricultural midwest
under various climate change scenarios. Water Resources
Research 35(7), pp. 2237– 2246.
George, L.D. (2001). Uses of Spring Water. Springs and bottled
water of the world: ancient history, source, occurrence,
quality and Use, Philip E. LaMoreaux, Judy T. Tanner (eds.).
Springer‐Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 106–118.
Ghimire, C.P., Bruijnzeel, L.A., Lubczynski, M.W., and Bonell,
M. (2012). Rainfall interception by natural and planted for-
ests in the Middle Mountains of Central Nepal. Journal of
Hydrology, 475, pp. 270–280
Gleick, P. (1987). Regional Hydrologic Consequences of
Increases in Atmospheric CO2 and Other Trace Gases.
Climatic Change, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp. 137–160.
(GEC) Groundwater Resource Estimation Methodology. (2015).
Report of the Ground Water Resource Estimation Committee.
Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga
Rejuvenation, Government of India, New Delhi, October
2017, pp. 40.
(ICIMOD) International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development. (2015). Reviving the Drying Springs Reinforcing
Social Development and Economic Growth in the Midhills
of Nepal. Issue Brief, Available at http://lib.icimod.org/
record/30276.
Joshi B.K. and Kothyari B.P. (2003). Chemistry of perennial
springs of Bhetagad watershed: A case study from central
Himalayas, India. Environmental Geology, 44(5), pp. 572–578.
Joshi, A.K., Joshi, P.K., Chauhan, T., and Bairwa, B. (2014).
Integrated approach for understanding spatio‐temporal
changes in forest resource distribution in the Central
Himalaya. Jour. Forestry Res., 25 (2), pp. 281–290.
Kresic, N. (2010). Sustainability and management of
springs (eds.), Groundwater Hydrology of Springs, Ch.1,
Butterworth‐Heinemann (imprint of Elsevier), pp. 1–29.
Kulkarni, H. (1998). Watershed Development and
Management – a movement seeking inputs in earth sciences.
Jour. Geol. Soc. India, v. 52(2), pp. 239–241.
Kulkarni, H. (2005). Groundwater overdraft: a physical per-
spective. In: COMMAN 2005. Community Management of
Groundwater Resources in Rural India – Research Report,
R. Calow and D. Macdonald (eds), British Geological Survey
Commissioned Report CR/05/36N, pp. 1–13.
Kulkarni, H., Shah, M., and Vijay Shankar, P.S. (2015). Shaping
the contours of groundwater governance in India. Journal of
Hydrology: Regional Studies, v.4(A), pp. 172–192, Available
at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2014.11.004.
LaMoreaux, P. and Tanner, J. (2011). Springs and Bottled
Waters of the World Ancient History, Source, Occurrence,
Quality and Use. Springer‐Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
New York. pp. 15–32.
Loa’iciga, H.A., Maidment, D.R., and Valdes, J.B., (2000).
Climate‐change impacts in a regional karst aquifer, Texas,
USA. Journal of Hydrology, 227(1–4), pp. 173–194.
 REJUVENATION OF SPRINGS IN THE HIMALAYAN REGION 107
Macchi, M., Gurung, A.M., Hoermann, B., Choudhury, D.,
(2014). Community perceptions and responses to ­ climate
variability and change in the Himalayas. Climate and
Development, 7(5), pp. 414–425.
Mahamuni, K. and Kulkarni, H. (2012). Groundwater resources
and spring hydrogeology in South Sikkim, with special reference
to climate change. Climate Change in Sikkim: Patterns, Impacts
and Initiatives. M. L. Arrawatia and Sandeep Tambe (eds.).
Information and Public Relations Department, Government of
Sikkim, Gangtok. 2012, Chapter 16, pp. 261–274.
Margat, J. and Gun, J. (2013). Groundwater around the World:
A Geographic Synopsis (1st Edn), CRC Press, Taylor and
Francis Group, Boca Raton. ISBN 9781138000346.
Meinzer, O.E., (1927). Large springs in the United States.
Geological Survey Water‐supply paper 557. Washington:
Government Printing Office.
Mukherjee A, Bhanja S.N., and Wada, Y. (2018). Groundwater
depletion causing reduction of baseflow triggering
Ganges river summer drying. Scientific Reports 8, e12049.
Doi:10.1038/s41598‐018‐30246‐7.
NDF (Nordic Development Fund). (2014). Strategic technical
assistance to support the building climate resilience of water-
sheds in mountain eco‐regions project. Finland: Nordic
Development Fund (NDF).
Negi, G.C.S. and Joshi, V. (1996). Geo‐hydrology of springs in a
mountain watershed: The need for problem solving research.
Current Science, 71(10), pp. 772–776
Negi, G.C.S. and Joshi, V. (2004). Rainfall and spring d
­ ischarge pat-
terns in two small drainage catchments in the western Himalayan
Mountains, India. Environmentalist, 24(1), pp. 19–28.
Negi, G.C.S., Kumar, K., Panda, Y.S., and Satyal, G.S. (2001).
Water yield and water quality of some aquifers in the
Himalaya. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sciences, 27, pp.55–99.
NITI Aayog. (2018a). Inventory and Revival of Springs in the
Himalayas for Water Security. Report of Working Group I,
NITI Aayog, Government of India, 52p.
NITI Aayog. (2018b). Shifting Cultivation: Towards a
Transformational Approach. Report of Working Group III,
NITI Aayog, Government of India, 30p.
Pakhmode, V., Kulkarni, H., and Deolankar, S.B. (2003).
Hydrological‐drainage analysis in watershed‐programme
planning: A case from the Deccan basalt, India. Hydrogeology
Journal, (11), pp. 595–604.
Pandey, R., Alatalo, J.M., Thapliyal, K.et al. (2018). Climate
change vulnerability in urban slum communities: Investigating
household adaptation and decision‐making capacity in the
Indian Himalaya. Ecological Indicators, 90, pp. 379–391.
Pandit, M., Sodhi, S., Koh, N. et al. (2007). Unreported yet mas-
sive deforestation driving loss of endemic biodiversity in Indian
Himalaya. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16, pp. 153–163.
Pitts, M.W. and Alfaro, C. (2001). Geologic/hydrogeologic
setting and classification of springs. In: Springs and Bottled
Waters of the World. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 33–71.
Rai, R.N., Singh, K.A., and Solanki, R.C. (1998). A case study
of water flows of some hill springs of Sikkim, Indian Journal
of Soil Conservation, 16 (1), pp. 52–56.
Rautela, P., and Karki, B. (2015). Impact of Climate Change
on Life and Livelihood of Indigenous People of Higher
Himalaya in Uttarakhand, India. American Journal of
Environmental Protection, 3(4), pp. 112–124.
(RDD) Rural Development Department. (2014). Dhara Vikas
Handbook: A user manual for springshed development to revive
Himalayan springs (2nd edn). Rural Development Department,
Government of Sikkim jointly with the Deutsche Gesellschaft
fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320161064_Dhara_
Vikas_Handbook_User_Manual_for_Reviving_Himalayan_
Springs
Sahin, V. and Hall, M. J. (1996). The effects of afforestation
and deforestation on water yields. Journal of Hydrology, 178,
pp. 293–309.
Savoskul, O.S. and Smakhtin, V. (2013). Glacier systems and
seasonal snow cover in six major Asian river basins: water
storage properties under changing climate, IWMI Research
Report 149, 69p. DOI:10.5337/2013.203
Sena, C. and Condessa de Melo, M.T. (2013). Hydrogeochemical
processes in the Pateira de Fermentelos lagoon (Portugal)
and their impact on water quality. In: L. Ribeiro, T.Y. Stigter,
A. Chambel, et al. (eds.), Groundwater and Ecosystems. IAH:
Selected papers on hydrogeology, 18: 221–236. Taylor and
Francis Group, London.
Shrestha, R.B., Desai, J., Mukherji, A. et al. (2018). Protocol
for reviving springs in the Hindu Kush Himalayas: A prac-
titioner’s manual. ICIMOD Manual 2018/4, Available at
http://lib.icimod.org/record/34040/
Siddique, M.I., Desai, J., Kulkarni, H., and Mahamuni, K.
(2019). Comprehensive Report on Springs in the Indian
Himalayan Region ‐ status of springs, emerging issues and
responses. ACWADAM Report ACWA/Hydro/2019/H88
Siderius, C., Biemans, H., Wiltshire, A. et al. (2013). Snowmelt
contributions to discharge of the Ganges. Science of The
Total Environment, Suppl, S93–101, pp. 468–469.
Singh, A.K. and Rawat, D.S. (1985). Depletion of oak for-
ests threatening springs: An exploratory study. National
Geographic Journal of India, 31(1), pp. 44–48.
Tambe, S., Kharel, G., Arrawatia, M.L. et al. (2012). Reviving
Dying Springs: Climate Change Adaptation Experiments
from the Sikkim Himalaya. Mountain Research and
Development, 32(1), pp. 62–72.
Tiwari, P.C., Tiwari, A., and Joshi, B. (2018). Journal of
Urban and Regional Studies on Contemporary India, 4(2),
pp. 15–27.
Valdiya, K.S. and Bartarya, S.K. (1989). Diminishing dis-
charges of mountain springs in a part of Kumaun Himalaya.
Current Science, 58(8), pp. 417–426.
Valdiya, K.S. and Bartarya, S.K. (1991). Hydrogeological
Studies of Springs in the Catchment of the Gaula River,
Kumaun Lesser Himalaya, India. Mountain Research and
Development, 11(3), pp. 239–258. Doi: 10.2307/3673618
Vashishth, A.K. and Sharma, H.C. (2007). Study on hydrolog-
ical behaviour of a natural spring. Current Science, 93(6),
pp. 837–840.
 7
Enhancing Water Productivity Through On‐Farm Water
Management
Mohammad Faiz Alam1*, Vidya Mandave1, Alok Sikka1, and Navneet Sharma1

ABSTRACT

Water availability for food production is becoming stressed from growing and competing demands from urban-
ization and industry, natural resource degradation and exacerbated spatio–temporal variability due to climate
change. These challenges warrant the need to improve agriculture water productivity (WP), which is below its
potential in large parts of the world, to meet future food and water demands. Increase in WP directly or indi-
rectly can contribute to achieving a number of sustainable development goals (SDGs) including SDG 2 “Zero
hunger” and SDG 6 “Clean water and sanitation”. This chapter provides an overview of interlinkages between
WP and SDG with examples and case studies of range of WP enhancing practices, both water and non‐water
management, which can be upscaled to achieve water productivity gains. However, enabling environment with
right policies and institutions will be critical for adoption of WP practices, sustaining it and ensuring equitable
benefits. This chapter also highlights some of the key challenges of climate change, weather extremes, natural
resource degradation, constraints faced by smallholder farmers and governance which are need to be overcome
to achieve and realize WP gains. Only an integrated approach with investment in both on‐ and off‐farm activities
along with strong policies, institutions, and stakeholder involvement can overcome these challenges to achieve
the potential gains in WP.

7.1. BACKGROUND
Agriculture water demand which already accounts for
70% of fresh water withdrawals globally and up to 95%
in some developing countries (FAO, 2018) is expected
to increase further to meet food demands from an
increasing and wealthier population (Molden et al., 2007;
FAO, 2018). Global estimates indicate that to feed the
world in 2050, water requirement would increase form
~4,500 km3 year‐1 at present to ~7,000 km3 year‐1 (Kijne
et al., 2009). However, water availability is already con-
strained, and many countries are water scarce, threatening
food security. This is evident from the fact that almost 50
% of the 401 basins supporting 2.67 billion people ana-
lyzed by Hoekstra et al., (2012) were found to experi-
ence severe water scarcity during at least one month of
the year. Competing demands form other sectors, natural
resource degradation and climate change will further exac-
erbate the water scarcity (IPCC, 2012; Foley et al., 2019;
United Nations, 2019). Therefore, it will become essential
to increase agricultural production using limited water
resources. One way to achieve this is to increase agricul-
tural water productivity, which is to use less water to pro-
duce same or using available water to produce more.
7.1.1. Water Productivity Concept

Conceptually, water productivity (WP) is the net return

India Office, International Water Management Institute,
1 for a unit of water used and is most commonly measured
New Delhi, India as crop output per cubic meter of water consumed. When
*Corresponding author crop output is measured as mass (kg), WP is referred

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

109
110 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
to as physical water productivity (PWP) and when crop
output measure in monetary terms, WP is referred to as
economic water productivity (EWP).
However, WP is defined and used in a variety of ways
depending on the scale and focus of the analysis but in
its basic form measures production per unit of water use
(Giordano et al., 2017). Since the focus of this chapter
is on‐farm water management practices to enhance WP,
hereafter, we define WP at farm scale from the small-
holder farmer’s perspective as used by Rockström and
Barron (2007) to define it as the ratio of output (in
terms of produce: weight) to input (in terms of water
consumed by crops or water withdrawn or applied), i.e.
physical water productivity. However, it is important to
underline the need to understand the multi‐scalar issues
related to WP as increasing productivity at farm level
may not necessarily lead to increase in water produc-
tivity at basin level and can actually increase basin water
depletion (Molden et al., 2003; Namara et al., 2005).
Thus any application of water‐productivity concept need
clear understanding starting with properly defined defi-
nitions, spatial scale and, understanding of hydrological
setting so that WP enhancing practices doesn’t lead to
less than optimum or unintended negative externalities
(Giordano et al., 2017).
7.1.2. Rationale for Increasing Water Productivity
With increased competition amongst sectors for
limited water resources, natural resource degradation
and expected climate change impacts, increasing WP
is ­
critical to meet future food demand and will have
large implications for local and national water security
(Sharma et al., 2018). Much of the required increase in
food production is expected to come from intensification
of existing crop land and expansion of irrigation rather
than cropland expansion (Foley et al., 2019). For this,
increase in WP will play a critical role, especially in devel-
oping countries where large potential exists and which
is also where most of the population increase will take
place, as water availability for agriculture would reduce
further (Cai and Rosegrant, 2003). For example, Braumal
et al. (2013) showed that at global scale, increasing
crop WP in precipitation‐limited regions on rainfed crop-
land can increase annual production to provide food for
~ 110 million people, and can reduce water consumption
on irrigated cropland to meet the annual domestic water
demands of ~ 1.4 billion people yearly. In another study,
Foley et al. (2019) found large potential across the globe
to save water, showing that with an increase of 10–30 % in
crop WP of wheat alone in India, Pakistan, and Australia
can save 6.9–17.6, 1.7–4.3 and 1.4–2.9 billion m3 of water,
respectively.
This saved water from increasing WP can reduce
the increased completion for water resources by mak-
ing it available for other sectors, ecosystems, and
environmental uses (Descheemaeker et. al., 2013;
­
Molden et al., 2007; Kijne et al., 2009). Other than
positive implications on food production and water avail-
ability, increases in WP have also been associated with
other ­benefits, including improved livelihoods, poverty
reduction, economic growth, and increased employment
opportunities (Molden et al., 2007; Kijne et al., 2009;
Giordano et al., 2017).
7.1.3. Opportunities to Increase Water Productivity
Multiple global studies have highlighted that large
opportunities exist for increasing WP in large parts of
the world (Foley et al., 2019; Brauman et al., 2013; Zheng
et al., 2018). Foley et al. (2019) while analyzing WP of
rice, wheat, and corn, representing 31.9% of the total
global cropland are, found large variation and disparities
in WP. Results showed only China and USA had con-
sistently high mean WP, whereas most other countries
had either low or medium crop WP representing regions
where gains in WP could be made. Similarly, Brauman
et al. (2013) analyzing crop WP for 16 major staple food
globally found large opportunities for increasing WP and
estimated that increasing WP on rainfed croplands can
increase food production by ~30% while holding water
consumption constant.
Analyzing the maps and data from global yield gap atlas
(http://www.yieldgap.org/) which currently covers 70, 84,
and 45%, respectively, of the global rice, maize, and wheat
production shows large gaps in WP (Figure 7.1). The WP
gap map shows that large opportunities to increase WP
lies across the globe for all crops which could be tapped
by range of WP enhancing interventions.
7.1.4. WP and SDGs
In 2015, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
comprising of 17 Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) encompassing economic, social, and environ-
mental dimensions of sustainable development were
agreed as global agenda (United Nations, 2015). With
agriculture globally being the biggest water consumer,
biggest employer, largest economic sector for many
countries, and essential for food security, human life,
and livelihoods, agriculture water management will
be critical in achieving number of SDGs (FAO, 2018).
Thus, water productivity which address agricultural
water uses and with number of benefits (section 7.1.2),
will contribute directly and indirectly to number of
goals and target of SDGs.
 ENHANCING WATER PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH ON‐FARM WATER MANAGEMENT 111
Rice
kg/m3
1.4
0.0
Wheat
kg/m3
2.2
0.4
Maize
kg/m3
2.6
–0.07
Figure 7.1 Water productivity gaps (potential WP – actual WP)
for rainfed crops of rice, wheat and maize. Source: Modified
from Global Yield Gap Atlas, http://www.yieldgap.org/.
Based on Guppy et al. (2018) methodology, we define
the interlinkages and degree of linkages of SDGs target
with WP as:
•• Primary – water productivity and SDG target links
directly, as in SDG target 2.3 – “double the agricul-
tural productivity and the incomes of small‐scale food
producers. . .”
•• Secondary – water productivity and SDG target links
indirectly, but improvement in WP will contributes to
the target as in SDG target 1.1 “ by 2030, eradicate
extreme poverty for all people everywhere.” as improve-
ments in WP will lead to poverty reduction and
economic growth by increasing resource use efficiency
and crop production.
In total, WP links, both primary and secondary link-
ages, to 12 goals and 43 SDGs targets (Figure 7.2). Most
prominent link of WP is to SDG goal 2 “Zero hunger”,
SDG goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”, SDG Goal 12
“Responsible consumption and production” and SDG
Goal 15 “Life on Land”.
The primary linkages of WP with SDG 2 and SDG
6 has already been evident from number of global
studies (Zheng et al., 2018; Brauman et al., 2013; Foley
et al., 2019). For example, Zheng et al. (2018) at global
level showed that by achieving maize WP equivalent to
85% of their potential, production can increase by 100%
by 2050 with 20% less crop area and 28.9% less water
consumption compared with 2005. Similar estimates on
global potential of water saving and increasing food pro-
duction by Brauman et al. (2013) and Foley et al. (2019)
mentioned before (section 7.1.2) highlights the closed
interlinkages between increasing WP and achieving SDG
2 and SDG 6.
7.2. PATHWAYS TO INCREASE WP
Based on the review of past work on agricultural
water productivity, Giordano et al. (2017) summa-
rized four main pathways for increasing WP (Table 7.1).
Range of practices, including both water and non‐water
management, applicable for different farming systems
have been ­successfully demonstrated to achieve these iden-
tified pathways of achieving WP gains. The next ­section
gives a short overview of some (non‐exhaustive) of the
water and non‐water management practices and gains in
water productivity realized from their application.
7.2.1. Water Management Practices
High intra and inter year variability in water avail-
ability manifested in periods of both water scarcity and
excess is a key barrier to increasing crop production,
­especially in semi‐arid and arid rainfed farming. Water
security becomes more critical as water is the entry point
for the upscaling and success of other agriculture inter-
ventions (soil fertility, seeds, access to markets, inputs).
Thus, increasing WP with water management practices
focusing on increasing water availability and using it
­efficiently is critical to mitigate negative impacts of water
scarcity.
7.2.1.1. Rainwater Harvesting and Supplemental
Irrigation
Rain water harvesting (RWH) is the process of col-
lecting and concentrating surface water runoff from
a catchment area in natural or manmade storages (e.g.
dams, check dams, farm ponds, tanks) for agriculture
or other uses (Kijne et al., 2009; Moswetsi et al., 2017).
RWH provides water storage for providing critical irriga-
tion to overcome risk from dry spells during crop seasons
(Moswetsi et al., 2017; Rockström and Barron, 2007),
which severely undermines food security and livelihoods
for smallholder farmers. According to Rockström and
Barron (2007), RWH also provides incentives to farmers
to invest in external inputs such as fertilization, improved
seed, weeds and pest management, further increasing
productivity gains. RWH to provide supplemental
112 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

NO POVERTY ZERO HUNGER GOOD HEALTH

AD WELL-BEING

1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.9

2.5

GENDER EQUALITY CLEAN WATER AND DECENT WORK AND

SANITATION ECONOMIC GROWTH

5.5 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 8.1 8.2 8.4

6.5 6.6

INDUSTRY, INNOVATION REDUCED RESPONSIBLE

AND INFRASTRUCTURE INEQUALITIES CONSUMPTION
AND PRODUCTION

9.1 10.1 10.7 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4

12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8

CLIMATE ACTION LIFE BELOW WATER LIFE ON LAND

13.1 13.2 13.3 14.1 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4

15.5 15.6 15.8 15.9

PRIMARY LINK SECONDARY LINK

Figure 7.2 Links (primary and secondary) between water productivity

and SDGs.

Table 7.1 Pathways to increase water productivity (adapted from Giordano et al., 2017).
Pathway
Increase yield per unit of water
consumed
Reduce non‐beneficial
depletion
Tap uncommitted flows
Reallocate water among user
Explanation, practices
•• By improving water management to reduce stress at critical crop growth stages
•• Improving non‐water inputs that increase production per unit of water consumed
•• Changing to new or different crop varieties with higher yield per unit of water consumed.
•• Increasing the proportion of water applied that is used beneficially by crops and restricting
evaporation from bare soil and from fallow land
•• reducing water flows to sinks (deep percolation and surface runoff) and minimizing
salinization (or pollution) of recoverable return flows
•• Adding water storage facilities, improving management of existing; and reusing
uncommitted return flows
•• Reallocating water from lower‐ to higher value uses within or between sectors, while
addressing possible effects on downstream uses
 ENHANCING WATER PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH ON‐FARM WATER MANAGEMENT 113
i­rrigation (SI) is a key strategy for achieving desired
increase in rainfed yield potential and water productivity.
Supplemental irrigation (SI) is the addition of limited
amounts of water in rainfall deficit periods at critical and
water stress sensitive crop development stages to improve
and stabilize yields (Nangia et al., 2018; Rockström
et al., 2010). SI allows farmers to plant their crops early
­preventing exposure to terminal heat and drought stress
in hot areas, and frost in cold areas thus increasing yield
and water productivity (Nangia et al., 2018). Wisser
et al. (2010) found that SI using locally stored surface
runoff in small reservoirs could increase cereal produc-
tion globally by ∼35%, with large potential increases in
Africa and Asia. Sharma et al. (2010) found that in 225
dominant rainfed districts of India, RWH can provide
100 mm supplemental irrigation to 20.65 Mha during
drought years and 25.08 Mha during normal years which
can increase rainfed production by 12% under traditional
management practices and by 50 % under improved
management practices.
Number of trials and experiments have reported the
benefits of SI on crop yields and WP (Nangia et al., 2018;
Ilbeyi et al., 2006; Tavakoli et al., 2010). On farm trial
with SI in Iran was shown to increase WP of wheat
and barley by 12.9–17.4 % and 31.2 – 38.3 %, respec-
tively (Box 1, Tavakoli et al., 2010). In Ghana, farmers
using SI were able to increase Maize yield from 1.8 to
4 tonne/ha and rice yield from 1.2 to 4.5 tonne/ha thus
Box 7.1 Supplementary irrigation to improve water productivity: A case of Karkheh River Basin (KRB), Iran.
Source: Modified from Tavakoli, A.R., Oweis, T.,
Farahani, H.et al. (2010).
Context: Agricultural area in the Karkheh River
Basin (KRB), located in the south‐western parts of
Iran, is mostly rainfed and based on dryland farming
systems. KRB had low crop water productivity (WP)
due to poor distribution of rainfall and lack of agro-
nomic management practices. Under the Challenge
Program on Water and Food (CPWF), field trials were
conducted to show that supplemental irrigation (SI) can
increase productivity of rainfed production system and
stabilize yields by reducing losses from drought/dry
period thus increasing food security and farmers
income.
Interventions: On farm trials consisting of
supplementary irrigation (single and multiple SI at dif-
ferent stages of crop development stages) for wheat and
barley were conducted during the 2005‐08 winter crop-
ping seasons. Trials were conducted in two catchment
sites: Merek and Honem.
increasing their per hectare income by 35–50 % (Nangia
et al., 2018). In 4 year trial in Turkey, WP at 1/3, 2/3 and
full SI were observed to be 2.39, 1.46 and 1.27 kg/m3,
respectively, much higher compared to rainwater produc-
tivity of 0.96 kg/m3 (Ilbeyi et al., 2006). The above results
shows that SI through RWH can be an effective strategy
to alleviate the adverse effects of soil moisture stress and
increase both yield and WP in rain fed areas facing recur-
rent water scarcity periods.
7.2.1.2. Deficit Irrigation
Deficit irrigation is an irrigation optimization strategy
where water is applied during drought‐sensitive growth
stages of a crop, deliberately creating water deficit in non‐
critical periods that results in minimal yield reduction
but maximizes water productivity (Geerts and Raes.,
2009; Kijne et al., 2009; Giordano et al., 2017). In order
to plan and apply deficit irrigation, good understanding
of crop sensitivity to drought stress and crop production
functions that relate water use to crop yields is required
(English, 1990). However, yield losses from deficit irriga-
tion have been reported and therefore it is especially more
beneficial for the regions where water resources are scarcer
than land, so that increasing crop WP is more beneficial
than maximizing land productivity (yield). Using a meta‐
analysis of 473 published studies covering 31 countries
and 5,553 observations (932 site‐years), Zheng et al. (2018)
found that when deficit irrigation was >80% (i.e. amount
Results: The results showed significant improvements
in WP at both sites due to SI under traditional
management practices. WP for wheat and barley
increased on average by 12.9–17.4 % and 31.2 – 38.3 %,
respectively under different SI treatments. The results
established the opportunities of achieving of vast gains
in WP through SI. With better crop varieties and
improved management practices, further gains in WP
(results not shown here) were achieved highlighting the
multiplicative benefits of clubbing SI with improved
management practices.
Rainfed WPa Total WP Increase
(kg m‐3) (kg m‐3)b (%)
Wheat Merek 0.35 0.41 17.4 %
Honem 0.35 0.40 12.9 %
Barley Merek 0.34 0.46 38.3 %
Honem 0.30 0.40 31.2 %
a
Average of Rainfed WP of all years.
b
Average of Total WP of all years and various SI treatments.
114 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

of irrigation water supplied was 20% less than the water PLL improves the application and efficiency of input
requirements.), WP increased by 7.1% with no loss of yield, leadings to saving in irrigation water, nutrients, and agro-
with 50–80% deficit irrigation, WP increased by 4.2–6.9%, chemicals thus increasing crop yields and crop produc-
but yield decreased by 10.5–20.2% and WP did not change tivity and at the same reducing labour requirements saving
significantly when 30–50% deficit irrigation was applied, cost (Jat et al., 2006; Jat et al., 2009). Field experiments
but yield decreased sharply (−22%). This shows the trad- carried out on the rice–wheat system in Indo‐Gangetic
eoff between WP and yield and need for careful planning plains showed that PLL compared to traditional land
and knowledge when applying deficit irrigation. leveling increased water productivity of rice by 18.0 %,
of wheat by 18.9 % and of overall system by 17.8 % (Jat
7.2.1.3. Increasing Water Application Efficiency et al., 2009, Box 2).
Improving water application efficiency at farm level However, water saving achieved from increasing water
not only help in saving water but also optimize the use application efficiency at farm level may not necessarily
of nutrient and fertilizer application, reduces cultiva- lead to water saving at basin level as a lot of applied
tion costs and weed problems. Practices such as Micro‐­ water percolates and gets recycled and reused in basins
irrigation (e.g. sprinkler and drip irrigation) and laser (Molden et al., 2003, 2007; Giordano et al., 2017). Thus,
land leveling have been shown to increase water applica- enabling institutional and economic policy instruments
tion efficiency. are required to be put in place to allow the equitable
Micro irrigation: It aims at minimizing applied irriga- distribution or allocation of the saved water to achieve
tion water by increasing irrigation application efficiency real savings (Namara et al., 2005). Therefore, care and
and enhancing irrigation water use efficiency of crops adequate assessments are needed to assess the actual
by reducing non‐beneficial evaporation. Micro irriga- improvements in WP on different spatial scales.
tion alongside saving water can improve the quality and
quantity of produce, increasing crop yield, increasing 7.2.1.4. Soil and Water Conservation Practices
income, reducing energy consumption and minimizing Soil and water conservation, or in‐situ water harvesting,
weed problems (Kumar et al., 2013; Upadhyaya and has been the focus of investment in water management in
Alok, 2015). Kumar et al. (2013) demonstrated the appli- rainfed agriculture during the past 50 years (Rockström
cation of micro irrigation (drip and sprinkler) in canal et al., 2010) as increasing water storage within the soil
command area of Punjab, India where inadequate and profile is necessary to increase plant available soil water.
unreliable water supply is a major limiting factor. Results Soil and water conservation practices reduce runoff or
showed that application of micro‐irrigation (drip and concentrate rainfall through runoff to cropped area and
micro‐sprinkler) in comparison to conventional surface maximize rainfall infiltration to increase plant water avail-
irrigation method reduced irrigation water applied by ability (Rockström and Barron, 2007; Rockström et al.,
12.8–20.2 % and 3.2–12.3 % leading to water productivity 2010). Conservation tillage and mulching are couple of
gains of 56.3–66.3 % and 51.8–71.9 % for potato and examples of soil and water conservation practices that
onion, respectively. This led to an additional income com- have been widely reported with range of benefits.
pared to the surface irrigation method of about US$ 302– Conservation tillage: Tillage operations roughen the
543 ha‐1 and 207‐498 ha‐1, respectively. In another example, soil surface and break any soil crust to increase water
trial experiments on 49 farmers’ plots were ­conducted in storage by increased infiltration (Ali and Talukder., 2008)
Cambodia for the vegetable based micro irrigation tech- and increase availability and acquisition of nutrients and
nique showing 43% reduction in water use, 15% increased promote root growth. However, convention operations of
yield of vegetables, and 38% reduction in labor use (Palada intensive tillage consume a lot of energy, cause increased
et al., 2008). In India, it has been estimated that adoption soil moisture evaporation and can lead to soil degrada-
of drip irrigation for suitable crops in the potential areas tion. Therefore, conservation tillage practices based on the
may lead to reduction in crop water requirements to the principle of no or minimum soil disturbance (e.g. zero or
level of 44.46 BCM (Sharma et al., 2009). minimum tillage) is being promoted which limits the nega-
Land leveling: The process of levelling, smoothing, tive externalities of conventional tillage practices (decline
and shaping the field surface to remove depths variations in soil quality, fertility, loss of soil moisture) (Chauhan,
results in uniformity in water distributions in the root et al., 2012). Benefits associated with conservation tillage
zone (Walker, 1989). It has a bearing on all farming oper- include lower production costs achieved through savings
ations, thus making it a perquisite for better agronomic, in fuel, labor, and irrigation water, improvement of struc-
soil, and crop management practices (Jat et al., 2006). ture and moisture retention capacity of soil, improving
Precision laser land leveling (PLL) is the advance method soil organic matter and soil biological properties, lower
to level the field to high precision by using laser guidance weed infestation, reduced lodging, and controlling
and is much more efficient than traditional land leveling. soil erosion (Chauhan, et al.,2012; Andrews, 2002).
 ENHANCING WATER PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH ON‐FARM WATER MANAGEMENT 115
Box 7.2 Increasing water productivity in intensively irrigated Rice‐Wheat systems: A case study of integration
of conservation agriculture with water efficient practices.
Source: Modified from Jat, M.L., Gathala, M.K.,
Ladha, J.K. et al. (2009).
Context: Indo‐Gangetic plains (IGP) of India is dom-
inated by water intensive rice‐wheat cropping system.
Water availability is an important constraint in semi‐
arid tropic and in recent years sustainability and pro-
ductivity of conventional production technologies in
the rice–wheat (RW) system are under stress due to
deterioration of soil health and declining farm profit-
ability due to high inputs of water and labour
Interventions: To increase water productivity, a field
experiment was conducted in the western IGP for 2
years to evaluate various conservation agriculture prac-
tices in combination with precision land leveling (PLL)
and traditional land leveling (TLL) practices to improve
crop and water productivity. Trials of combination of
conservation agriculture practices for rice‐wheat which
consisted of zero‐till direct drill‐seeded rice (ZTDSR),
Practices Rice WP (kg m‐3)
Traditional LL 0.25
Precision LL 0.295 (18.0 %)
Traditional management 0.275
PLL + ZTDSR + ZTW 0.305 (10.9 %)
PLL + BDSR + PBW 0.245 (‐10.9 %)
For example, in wheat Zero tillage was found to increase
WP over conventional tillage by approximately 20 % (Box
2, Jat et al., 2009).
Mulching: Mulching is the process of covering soil
surface with some amendments (organic or inorganic)
which act as a barrier to reduce evaporation losses and
enhancing soil moisture retention (Jabran et al, 2015,
Rockström et al., 2010). Other than reducing evapora-
tion losses and conserving soil moisture, mulching also
provides other benefits such as weed control, improving
nutrient availability, reducing soil erosion and lowering
soil temperature (Jabran et al., 2015) which directly and
indirectly improves water availability to crops and leads
to higher yield and WP of crops. In a three‐year field
experiment on winter wheat, mulching at different rates
was found to increase soil moisture content by 0.7–22.5%
and yield by 13.3–23.0% leading to higher WP (Jabran
et al., 2015). Other soil and moisture conservation prac-
tices includes bunds, ridges, broad bed and furrows,
micro‐basins, runoff strips, terracing, contour cultiva-
tion, conservation agriculture, dead furrows, and stag-
gered trenches (Rockström et al., 2010).
raised beds with no‐tillage for direct‐seeded rice
(BDSR), zero tillage wheat (ZTW) and wheat on
permanent raised beds (PBW) were demonstrated and
compared with traditional practices (­traditional land
levelling + puddled‐transplanted rice and conventional‐
tillage wheat).
Results: Results (average of two years) show that
­irrespective of conservation agriculture practices, PLL
improved WP over TLL by 18.0 %, 18.9 % and 17.8 %
for rice, wheat and overall system, respectively. Impact
of conservation agriculture practices was much more
visible in wheat with Zero‐till and permanent raised
bed increasing water productivity by 52.1 % and 49.1 %,
respectively. The results show that upscaling of
conservation technologies in water intensive rice‐wheat
system could save significant volume of water in already
water stressed IGP and similar regions around the
world.
Wheat WP (kg m‐3) System WP (kg m‐3)
0.95 0.365
1.13 (18.9 %) 0.43 (17.8 %)
0.825 0.37
1.255 (52.1 %) 0.465 (25.7 %)
1.23 (49.1 %) 0.395 (6.8 %)
7.2.1.5. Multiple Water Use (MUS) Systems
Multiple water use (MUS) systems includes integrating
fisheries, livestock, aquatic crops, horticulture, etc. with
crops into the existing irrigation and water use systems/
water infrastructures (Sikka, 2009). MUS provides great
opportunities for enhancing the water productivity of
agriculture and livelihood at various scales. Different
MUS systems that have been applied to increase WP
includes range of integrated framing systems such as
integrated agriculture and fishery in secondary reser-
voir system, trench‐cum‐raised bed for fish–horticulture,
rice–fish culture in low land rice wheat system, on‐dyke
horticulture and fish–prawn–poultry system and rain-
water harvesting ponds for fish–prawn farming with
fruits and vegetables on the pond bunds (Sikka, 2009;
Kumar et al., 2009). For example, in a seasonally water-
logged lands in canal commands, three MUS systems of
secondary reservoir (fed by canal seepage and supple-
mented by tubewell), fish trenches‐cum‐raised bed for
fish–horticulture production and rice–fish culture using
nylon‐pen under waterlogged area were experimented.
Agricultural WP under three MUS systems was found to
116 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
be 2.7 to 6 times the WP of the traditional rice–wheat
system (Sikka, 2009).
7.2.1.6. Other Water Management Practices
There are range of other water management prac-
tices that include alternate wetting and drying (AWD)
for rice, direct seeded rice (Deelstra et al., 2018); appro-
priate irrigation scheduling to minimize wasteful irriga-
tion (Goosheh et al., 2018); modernization of irrigation
system including automation, raised bed planting, crop
diversification and conjunctive use of water (sur-
face, groundwater and poor quality water) which have
been demonstrated and have been shown to increase
productivity.
7.2.1.7. Integrated Watershed Management
for Upscaling Water Management Practices
Integrated Watershed management (IWM) integrates
natural resources and community livelihoods on water-
shed basis in a sustainable way. IWM integrate planning
for land and water taking into account both ground and
surface water, recognizing and planning for the ­interaction
Box 7.3 Integrated Watershed Management for Increasing Water Productivity.
Source: Modified from Wani S. P., Sreedevi, T.K.,
Sudi, R. et al. (2013).
Context: Under the project “Improving Management
of Natural Resources with Sustainable Rainfed
Agriculture”, ICRISAT with partners worked in
Lucheba watershed and Xiaoxincun Watershed in
Yunnan provinces of China during 2003‐2006.
Watershed crop productivity was low and there were
number of challenges in watershed including soil
erosion, low and erratic rainfall, water scarcity, low
moisture retention capacity of soils, fodder scarcity and
lack of proper infrastructure (viz. drinking water, acces-
sibility, market).
Interventions: To overcome the challenges, integrated
watershed management approach was applied through
participatory management. Number of interventions
under integrated watershed management such as rain-
water harvesting, soil and water conservation measures,
improved cropping systems, crop diversification, affor-
estation in wastelands, integrated nutrient management
Xiaoxincun Watershed
Pre post
Rice 9.5 11.2
Maize 7.0 8.1
Vegetables/Sweet Potato 30.4 35.1
of water, plants, animals, and human land use in a water-
shed to balance human and environmental needs, while
simultaneously guarding ecosystem services and biodi-
versity (Bakker, 2012). IWM provides number of benefits
including improving soil moisture, water holding capacity,
soil health, promoting sub‐surface flow, baseflow and
groundwater flow, dissipating soil and water erosion and
surface run‐off (Wani et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016).
IWM approach exemplifies the importance of looking at
multiple uses of watershed resources, rather than simply
the hydrology (Wang et al., 2016) which is required for
achieving multiple connected sustainable development
goals like food security, poverty alleviation, and welfare of
weaker sections of the society. Thus, IWM on watershed
scale naturally leads to increase WP (Wani et al., 2013,
Box 3) and present itself as the suitable approach to
upscale WP enhancing practices on larger scale.
7.2.2. Non‐water Management Practices
Non‐water management interventions help further
increase the potential WP gains and are many times
and integrated pest management practices were carried
out in the watershed.
Results: Post project number of benefits were visible
with increased area under irrigation, increase in crop
yield and crop diversification to high value crops.
Combination of practices led to efficient use of rainfall
with significant improvements in rainwater use efficiency
(WUE) observed (Table below). For different crops,
WUE increase by 15.5–18.9 % in Xiaoxincun Watershed
and by 6.3–13.2 % Lucheba watershed. Other benefits
from watershed interventions included increase in family
income in Lucheba watershed from US$ 973 per annum
to US$ 2582 and improvement in annual mean ground-
water level by 1.4 ‐ 3.8 m in Xiaoxincun Watershed.
Project clearly showed the potential of integrated water-
shed management to upscale water productivity
enhancing practices while achieving simultaneous goals
on increasing income and environmental conservation.
Rainwater use efficiency (kg mm‐1 ha‐1) pre and post
project in two watersheds.
Lucheba watershed
%↑ Pre Post %↑
17.9 4.95 5.26 6.3
15.7 4.59 5.48 19.4
15.5 28.8 32.6 13.2
 ENHANCING WATER PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH ON‐FARM WATER MANAGEMENT 117
essential for achieving the maximum potential. Non‐
water management practices includes a range of practices
such as adding and optimizing agriculture inputs, intro-
ducing risk tolerant and high yielding varieties, genetic
improvements through breeding, soil fertility improve-
ment and nutrient management, pest and disease control,
weed management, timely operations and post‐harvest
management (Bennett, 2003; Ali and Talukder, 2008;
Rathore et. Al., 2014; Rockström and Barron, 2007).
They increase WP by means of improving yield, harvest
index (the ratio of grain to total biomass), increasing
plant water uptake capacity and building resistance of
crops to stresses from, e.g. water and disease (Rockström
and Barron, 2007).
7.2.2.1. Crop Breeding
Improving water productivity through breeding
technology involves improving plant characteris-
­ crops such as cactus and pineapple being most efficient
tics of: (i) reducing non‐transpirational uses of water,
(ii) reducing transpiration without reducing production,
(iii) increasing production without increasing transpira-
tion, and (iv) building tolerance to water‐related stresses
such as drought, salinity and waterlogging or submer-
gence (Bennett, 2003). Crop breeding has been responsible
for tremendous gains in water productivity made in the
past, for example substantial increases in WP for rice and
wheat during green revolution were achieved by reducing
the crop duration and increasing the harvest index
(Bennett, 2003; Molden et al., 2007). However, how much
breeding can help, especially by improving the harvest
index, in future remains uncertain as for common grains
(wheat, maize, and rice) with apprehension that gains
threshold have been reached (Molden et al., 2007, 2010).
Still, breeding to reduce the risk of crop failure (flood and
drought tolerant varieties), targeting early growth vigor to
shade the soil and reduce evaporation, breeding resistance
to pest, diseases, and salinity, and improving nutritional
quality of crops can play an important role in increasing
­productivity (Bennett, 2003; Molden et al., 2007, 2010).
The impact of risk tolerant crop varieties on crop
(water) productivity is evident from number of studies
(Mackill, 2012; Dar et al., 2013; Khakwani, 2011).
For example, submergence tolerant variety of rice
SUB‐1, which can tolerate submergence up to 7–14
days is reported to show yield advantages of 1–3 t/ha or
more (Mackill, 2012) and an increase of 45% over the
current popular submergence intolerant varieties (Dar
et al., 2013). Similarly, the drought tolerant variety of
wheat, Hashim‐8, showed higher harvest index (42.39%
and 46.43%) in stressed (35% field capacity) and severe
stressed (25% field capacity) conditions, which could be
a promising variety for dryland farming which regularly
faces droughts (Khakwani, 2011). A salt tolerant variety
of wheat, Cham 1, showed an average increase of 28.1 %
in crop yield and 39.1 % in water use efficiency over
non‐salt tolerant variety under different salinity environ-
ments (Katerji et al., 2005). Thus, with climate change
already progressing and expected to exacerbate extreme
weather events in future and natural resource degrada-
tion, breeding of risk tolerant varieties can play a big role
in increasing and safeguarding the gains achieved in crop
productivity.
7.2.2.2. Cropping Systems and Patterns
For a given crop variety, soil and climatic conditions,
different crops show significant variation with respect to
relation between biomass produced and water required
(transpiration). There are crops that are more efficient
(biomass/water required) with most common crops (C3)
such as wheat and barley being least efficient, C4 crops
such as maize and sugarcane being more efficient and
(Molden et al., 2007). This variability in WP amongst
the crops opens the opportunity to select suitable crops
according to local climate, water availability and soil which
could be an important strategy in water scarce regions.
In addition, appropriate choice of cropping pattern
and sequence can bring significant increase in WP.
This is achieved as appropriate cropping patterns help
in controlling diseases, pests, weeds, and improving
nutrient supply (Ali and Talukder, 2008). For example,
intercropping with legumes have been documented to
result in improved soil fertility, soil quality, increased
yield, improved resource use efficiency, less weeds and
increased soil organisms biomass, activity and diversity,
all of which directly and indirectly lead to increasing
WP (Rathore et al., 2014; Ali, and Talukder, 2008). This
was demonstrated in field experiments in Bikaner, India
where production potential, profitability, and water use
efficiency (WUE) of five cropping systems was evaluated
(Rathore et al., 2014, Box 4).
7.2.2.3. Soil Nutrient Management
Soil nutrient management is the application, in ade-
quate quantities and in proper balance, of commercial
fertilizers, manure, amendments, and organic by‐products
(mulch, compost, FYM etc.) to agricultural landscapes
as a source of plant nutrients. Soil nutrient management
(organic and inorganic) is essential to take full advantage
of the rainfall and irrigation facilities (Kijne et al., 2009;
Rockström and Barron, 2007). Improving soil nutrient
levels increases evapo‐transpirational water use efficiency
by promoting rapid leaf area expansion which increases
transpiration, and more rapid ground cover which
reduces evaporation (Sharma et al., 2015).
Application of fertilizers and maintaining soil fertility
has been critical in doubling of food production both in
developed and developing countries since the beginning
118 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Box 7.4 Case study: Increasing water use efficiency by using different cropping patterns.
Source: Modified from Rathore V.S., Nathawat N.S.,
Meel B. et al. (2014).
Context: Identification and growing of suitable crop-
ping pattern has the potential to provide higher yields
and water productivity which could maintain and
enhance agriculture sustainability and profitability, espe-
cially in arid regions with limited water availability. The
potential of this approach was showcased in the hot arid
state of Rajasthan in India which covers 62% of the total
hot arid region of India and faces acute water scarcity.
Interventions: The two year on farm experiments were
carried out using five cropping patterns to study the
impact of cropping pattern to improve WUE, profit-
ability and production function. The cropping pattern
included groundnut–wheat (GN‐W), groundnut–isab-
gol (GN‐I), groundnut–chickpea (GN‐CP), cluster
bean–wheat (CB‐W) and mung bean–wheat (MB‐W).
Results: The results showed high variability in water
use efficiency (WUE) of different cropping systems. The
MB‐W and CB‐W systems was found to have the high-
est water use efficiency in terms of yields than other
of green revolution (Cakmak, 2002). For example, Li et al.
(2016) analyzing contributions of agronomic practice and
climatic factors to the changes of irrigation WP in Hexi
Corridor, Northwest China based on the data from 1981
to 2012 concluded that fertilization contributed 32.8 % of
increased to the observed increased in irrigation WP. In
a long term experiment on rice–wheat cropping sequence
evaluating the effects of integrated nutrient management
(INM) (organic + chemical fertilizers) showed that dif-
ferent combinations of INM on average increased yield
by 264.7 % and 337.9 % relative to control (no fertilizer)
treatment and 57.3 % and 21.4 % relative to conventional
farmer practice for rice and wheat, respectively (Saha
et al., 2018). Similar results have been observed in other
trials (Yadav et al., 2000). It has also been observed that
integrated application of organic nutrient sources along
with chemical fertilizers improved yield and long‐term
sustainability of the rice–wheat system as compared to the
100% chemical fertilizer (Saha et al., 2018).
However, excessive and imbalanced use of fertilizers
may lead to a decrease in nutrient use efficiency, dete-
riorating the soil quality and environment, and hence
a decrease in crop productivity therefore nutrient use
efficiency and improved soil management are essential
(Cakmak, 2002.). For this, soil sampling and soil testing
can be used for diagnosing nutrient content in the soil
to identify low fertility soils and follow site‐specific soil
nutrient management strategy.
cropping systems. In comparison to cropping system
with groundnut, MB‐W and CB‐W recorded on average
30.0 % and 39.4 % higher WUE (yield). Similarly, for
WUE (monetary return) MB-W and CB-W system
recorded 111.6 % and 4.7 % higher WUE in monetary
terms compared with other systems with groundnut,
respectively The results suggest that the by employing
most suitable cropping pattern, profitability and WUEs
of crop production in hot arid environment can be sig-
nificantly improved. Average water use efficiency (yield
and return) for different cropping systems over 2 years
is shown in the following table.
WUE (yield): WUE (return):
kg m‐3 Rs m‐3
GN–W: Groundnut–Wheat .38 2.1
GN–IG: Groundnut–Isabgol .24 2.2
GN–CP: Groundnut– .37 3.6
Chickpea
CB–W: Cluster bean–Wheat .46 2.8
MB–W: Mung bean–Wheat. .43 5.6
7.2.3. Enabling Environment: Policies and Institutions
Availability and existence of water and non‐water
management practices that increases WP are not enough
to realize the potential gains but requires an enabling envi-
ronment that provide support and incentivize the adop-
tion of these practices. The enabling environment creates
incentives to invest in practices to improve production
which further lead to opportunities for intensification
of agriculture and diversification of livelihood and ulti-
mately sustainable livelihood and natural resource out-
comes (Shiferaw et al.,2009). However, absence of such
enabling environment is often one of the critical missing
links in the projects leading to low adoption rates of rec-
ommended and piloted practices (World Bank, 2005).
Creating an enabling environment include designing
enabling policies (e.g. fiscal policies., secure rights to land
and water, subsidies) (FAO, 1996; World Bank, 2005); cre-
ating access to efficient institutional arrangements (e.g.
WUAs, markets, finance and risk management, suitable
credit schemes) (Shiferaw et al., 2009); providing access to
markets with higher efficiency, transparency and competi-
tiveness (FAO, 2018; Shiferaw et al., 2009); engaging with
wide range stakeholders in water and related sectors (e.g.
authorities, donors, the private sector, and smallholders, at
both the national and local levels) and looking for the oppor-
tunities outside the water sector highlighting and incor-
porating the inter‐sector linkages (African Development
 ENHANCING WATER PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH ON‐FARM WATER MANAGEMENT 119
Bank, 2011; Upadhyaya and Sikka, 2015) and aligning
the incentives of various users at different scales‐ from
field to basin or country (Upadhyaya and Sikka, 2015).
In absence of this, smallholder farmers lack the incen-
tives to adopt and sustain the interventions for sustain-
able land and water management (Shiferaw et al., 2009).
For example, success of the green revolution which dou-
bled rice and wheat yields was not just the result of the
introduction of improved high‐yielding varieties but was
closely linked with creating a favorable enabling environ-
ments with associated investments in irrigation, making
fertilizers and pesticides available and providing active
market possibilities (FAO, 1996). Similarly, for upscaling
and adoption of Alternate wetting and dry (AWD) for
rice in Bangladesh, Philippines, and Vietnam multi‐stake-
holder engagements, strong central and local government
support along with alternative irrigation payment, pric-
ing arrangements, institutional and policy changes was
highlighted as a critical link despite AWD technology
high potential to reduce irrigation water input by up to
38% with no yield reductions (Lampayan et al., 2015).
However, many times enabling policies, such as electricity
subsidies in many state of India for irrigation, may cause
negative externalities such as farmers to shift cropping
patterns to water‐intensive crops and inefficient irrigation
leading to long term non‐sustainable outcomes (Shiferaw
et al., 2009). Thus, there is need of careful planning and
considering equity, externalities (intended and unin-
tended) and long term sustainability while devising strat-
egies to create an enabling environment.
7.3. CHALLENGES FOR INCREASING WATER
PRODUCTIVITY
In the past, improvement in WP often came with social
and environmental costs including water scarcity, soil deg-
radation, ecosystem stress, biodiversity loss, decreasing
fish stocks and forest cover, and high greenhouse gas
emissions (FAO, 2018). Some of the negatives externalities
from past now also happen to be a constraint for achiev-
ing future WP gains. To meaningfully contribute to SDGs,
future water productivity gains has to be achieved sustain-
ably and without negative environmental externalities.
However, this would require overcoming number of chal-
lenges faced by farmers including climate change, weather
extremes, agronomic constraints, natural resource degra-
dation and governance and challenges related to scaling
up and out water management practices.
7.3.1. Agronomic and Socio‐Economic Constraints
Faced by Smallholder Farmers
Agriculture is the primary livelihood for most of the
poor people in developing countries and large majority
of them are smallholder farmers (land < 2 hectares) with
WP at their farm lagging behind developed markers by a
good margin (Nagayets, 2005; Bain & Company, 2014).
Therefore, any effort to increase WP would require spe-
cial attention on constraints faced by smallholder farmers
that limits application and adoption of practices that are
proven and prevalent in developed countries and large
scale farms.
These constraints include agronomic constrains such
as unsustainable tillage practices, inefficient nutrient (fer-
tilizer) management, lack of water management, limited
knowledge on cultivar choice, less than optimum plant-
ing dates and planting densities and socio‐economic
constraints such as lack of financial capacity, unafford-
ability of agricultural inputs (fertilizers and high yield-
ing seed varieties), marginal low quality lands, lack of
knowledge and capacity, lack of mechanization, labor
shortages, poverty, illiteracy, poor access to agricultural
extension services, and limited access to agricultural mar-
kets among others.
These agronomic and socio‐economic constraints faced
by small holders are linked to historical, socio‐economic,
financial, natural and agronomic factors (Moswetsi
et al., 2017). To overcome these challenges, specific and
targeted innovations, practices and policies addressing
smallholder agronomic constraints are required. This
includes creating enabling environment as discussed in
previous such as affordable and sustainable financing/
credit schemes accessible to smallholder farmers to boost
both on and off farm investments (Munang et al., 2015)
and developing knowledge and capacity of farmers on
water management practices. Four A’s of model of Bain
& Company (2014) underlies the importance of Four
As (Awareness, Advantage, Affordability and Access) in
agricultural water management practices for encouraging
farmers to adopt agricultural management practices
(Bain & Company, 2014; Munang et al., 2015).
7.3.2. Climate Change and Weather Extremes
Agriculture is heavily reliant on weather, climate, land,
and water making it particularly vulnerable to natural
disasters and climatic variability (FAO, 2018a). Frequency
and intensity of extreme events (droughts, floods, and
extreme precipitation events) is expected to increase with
climate change (IPCC, 2012). This could potentially
lead to high losses in the agricultural sector becoming
impediment to achieving WP gains. The high sensitiv-
ity of agriculture to weather extremes is already evident
with floods, droughts, and other meteorological disasters
(such as extreme temperatures and storms) causing pro-
duction loss 20 %, 30 % and 28 % in crops and livestock,
amounting to ~ USD 19.5 billion, USD 29 billion and
USD 26.5 billion, respectively, between 2005 and 2015, in
120 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
developing ­countries (FAO, 2018a). Such sudden shocks
limit the financial capacity of the farmer to invest in water
management practices making them more vulnerable.
Another impact of climate change includes the negative
impact on crop yields of increasing temperature. Based on
extensive published results from different methods, Zhao
et al. (2017) found consistent negative impact of increasing
temperature on crop yield at the global scale. They found
that without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and ge-
netic improvement, each °C increase in global mean tem-
perature on average would reduce global yields of wheat by
6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%.
Additionally, climate change could lead to reduction in
crop growing period, change in planting and sowing dates,
increased incidence of pests and diseases, soil degradation
owing to temperature change (Kang et al., 2009).
To tackle the challenges posed by climate change,
investments would be required in adaptation measures
with WP enhancing interventions becoming more critical.
Importance of adaptation in rainfed areas is highlighted
by the recent report from global commission on adaptation
where “Improving dryland agriculture crop production” is
one of the five key areas of adaptation with potential net
benefits of 0.7 trillion US $ with average benefit cost ration
of greater than five (GCA and WRI, 2019). Investment
and upscaling risk reducing instrument such as insurance,
access to finance, weather forecasting, and dissemination
of relevant information and research in assessing local
scale climate change trajectories and possible impact will
be critical for building resilience of farmers.
7.3.3. Governance
Effective governance at all levels is essential to address
constraints as discussed before in the adoption of WP
enhancing practices. OECD (2015) identified key gov-
ernance gaps faced by government for overall water
management, few of which are also relevant for realizing
water productivity gains such as: Administrative and policy
gaps related to realizing water cuts across administrative
boundaries and authorities but still managed in silos;
capacity gap in terms lack of human resources, expertise
and infrastructure and funding gap to achieve required
goals. Systematic and concentrated efforts are required to
remove these gaps in governance to unleash the potential
benefits of increasing WP.
Some of the strategies for upcoming governance chal-
lenges include incorporating participatory approaches in
project planning, encouraging farmer‐managed irrigation
schemes to hand over the responsibility of management;
reorganization of governance structures in line with inter-
linkages of agriculture and WP with diverse goals and
sectors; incentivizing the private sector to invest in agri-
culture and accessing funds from international financial
institutions and developing partnerships with research
and knowledge organizations to develop capacity
(IFAD, 2015; Munang et al., 2015).
7.3.4. Challenges for Scaling Up and Scaling Out
Scaling (up and out) is expanding, replicating, adapt-
ing, and sustaining successful policies, programs, or pro-
jects to reach a greater number of people which requires
systematic support from public, private, and not‐for‐
profit agencies (Linn, 2012) and is essential to achieve
potential benefits of increasing WP and achieving SDGs.
Scaling agricultural practices involves changes in mul-
tiple regime elements (e.g. in production systems, markets
and consumption systems) and engaging with range of
stakeholders requiring complex dynamics to be addressed
which present number of challenges (Wigboldus
et al., 2016). Molden et al. (2007) summarized some of
the factors that influence to uptake practices that enhance
water productivity are summarized in Table 7.2.
Scaling up and out WP enhancing projects would
require giving importance to unique national and regional
contexts in efforts to scale up, amplify and transfer suc-
cessful technologies and strategies (Munang et al., 2015);
capacity building at all levels, from policy level to farm
level and collaboration across levels and research and
knowledge management to keep refining, developing and
identifying locally suitable water management practices.
This is summarized in three main development instru-
ments identified by IFAD for scaling up agricultural
water management (IFAD, 2015): policy engagement
(such as integrated natural resources (land and water)
management policy framework, participatory watershed
management and planning); project financing (such as
Table 7.2 Factors influencing uptake and adoption of WP
enhancing practices (Source: Molden et al., 2007).
Influencing factors Explanation
Cost, affordability Ability to pay for a management
and profitability practice or technology and evidence
that investment would lead to
profitability.
Risk Risk associated with returns (inter year
variation) based on market, climate,
and availability of water.
Markets Access to markets for selling produce.
Availability of a Reliability of water availability for
reliable supply of management decisions than the total
water quantity.
Education Understanding on practices use and
benefits.
Incentives and Available support for using WP
institutional enhancing practices
structures
 ENHANCING WATER PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH ON‐FARM WATER MANAGEMENT 121

private‐sector involvement; investing in people and their
institutions at the local level) and knowledge management
(partnerships with agricultural research organizations).
And in the end critical, continuous measuring and mon-
itoring on defined indicators is required to assess the
impact and progress.
7.4. CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD
To meet future food demand from increasing
population, limited water resource would be further
stressed by increasing and competing demands from other
sectors, natural resources degradation and added uncer-
tainty under climate change. Therefore, increasing WP in
agriculture would become critical and essential to ensure
food and water security. Improvements in WP would
also lead to sustainable and resource efficient agriculture
which is critical to achieve number of SDGs. Large gaps
between current and potential WP in many parts of the
world represent potential opportunities where such gains
could be made. There are range of practices, both water
and non‐water management, that exist and have been
applied in the field for enhancing WP. The selection and
adoption of appropriate practices for a given biophysi-
cal, social, and climatic context could help close the exist-
ing WP gaps. Figure 7.3 outlines the need for enhancing
water productivity, pathways for that, challenges, and
potential ways forward.

WHY?

Optimise and reduce water needs in agriculture to make it

WATER available for other uses
PRODUCTIVITY (WP) Adapt Agriculture to Climate Change
Net Return for a unit of Healthy Ecosystems and Environmental Uses
water used. Improved Well being (food security, livelihoods, poverty reduction
Linkage to 12 SDG Goals and 43 targets (primary and secondary)

Pathways to increase WP

Increase Yield per unit of water consumed

Tap Uncommitted Flows
Reduce non-beneficial depletion
Reallocate water among user

Water Management Non-Water Management Policies/Institutions

Rainwater Harvesting Breeding Effective

Micro Irrigation, Land Soil Health nutrients Governance
Leveling Cropping Patterns Access to market
Soil and moisture Operation timings, and finance
conservation post harvest, weed and
Multiple water use, AWD pest control etc.

Climate change, weather extremes

Agro-economics constraints by small land holders
Challenges

Natural resource degradation

Lack of Governance and Capacity gaps
Scaling up and out constraints

5 4 3 2 1 Way Forward

ip, ial tiv

e
ll h nc s;
m a
g i e s
e rs
a n d
Fi n a
e s E ffec ies, s
s rs r n
ar t rch
c c
oli tion t
on me ne ac ivate
us s far Sy with s P sea acity p r tor t p stitu arke
c G R e p g c n in d m
Fo lder isk nts SD Ca ildin se eme
ho ;r me Bu olv an
g e nv
n a i
ma

Figure 7.3 Schematic diagram of need for enhancing water productivity, pathways, challenges, and ways forward.
122 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
However, current low adoption rate of such practices
shows that enabling policies and institutions are currently
lacking but are necessary and fundamental to achieve
these gains. Alongside, there are number of challenges
such as agronomy constraints at farm level, climate
change, natural resource degradation, and weak gover-
nance that have the potential to halt and possibly chip
away the gains made till now. To overcome this and realize
WP gains would require effective and integrated solutions
across policies, institution, financial, and research which
are outlined in the chapter to scale‐up and scale‐out water
management practices.
REFERENCES
African Development Bank, (2011). Agricultural Water
Management: An Evaluation of the African Development
Bank’s Assistance in Ghana and Mali (1990–2010).
Operations evaluation department.
Ali, M.H.and Talukder, M.S.U., (2008). Increasing water pro-
ductivity in crop production – A synthesis. Agricultural Water
Management 95, 1201–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat
.2008.06.008
Altieri, M.A. and Nicholls, C.I., (2003). Soil fertility
management and insect pests: harmonizing soil and plant
health in agroecosystems. Soil and Tillage Research, 72(2),
203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167‐1987(03)00089‐8
Andrews, S.S., (2002). On farm assessment of soil quality in
California’s Central Valley. Agron. J., 94, 12–23.
Bain & Company (2014). Growing Prosperity: Developing
Repeatable Models to Scale the Adoption of Agricultural
Innovations. Bain & Company and Acumen.
Bakker, K. (2012). Water security: research challenges and
opportunities. Science 337:914–915
Bennett, J., (2003). Opportunities for increasing water produc-
tivity of CGIAR crops through plant breeding and molecular
biology, In: J.W Kijne, R. Barker, and D. Molden. (Eds.),
Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities
for Improvement. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 103–126. https://
doi.org/10.1079/9780851996691.0103
Blum, W.E.H., (2013). Soil and Land Resources for Agricultural
Production: General Trends and Future Scenarios‐A
Worldwide Perspective. International Soil and Water
Conservation Research 1, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095‐
6339(15)30026‐5
Brauman, K.A., Siebert, S., and Foley, J.A., (2013).
Improvements in crop water productivity increase water sus-
tainability and food security – a global analysis. Environmental
Research Letters 8 (2), 024030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9
326/8/2/024030
Cai, X.M. and Rosegrant, M.W., (2003). World water produc-
tivity: current situation and future options., In: J.W. Kijne, R.
Barker, and D. Molden. (Eds.), Water Productivity in
Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement. CABI,
Wallingford, pp. 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996
691.0163
Cakmak, I., (2002). Plant nutrition research: Priorities to meet
human needs for food in sustainable ways. Plant and Soil 247,
3–24. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021194511492
Chauhan, B.S., Mahajan, G., Sardana, V. et al. (2012).
Productivity and Sustainability of the Rice–Wheat Cropping
System in the Indo‐Gangetic Plains of the Indian subconti-
nent, Advances in Agronomy, 117, 315–369. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐394278‐4.00006‐4
Dar, M.H., de Janvry, A., Emerick, K. et al. (2013). Flood‐tol-
erant rice reduces yield variability and raises expected yield,
differentially benefitting socially disadvantaged groups. Sci
Rep 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03315
Deelstra, J., Nagothu, U.S., Kakumanu, K.R. et al. (2018).
Enhancing water productivity using alternative rice growing
practices: a case study from Southern India. The Journal of
Agricultural Science 156(5), 673–679. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0021859618000655
Descheemaeker, K., Bunting, S.W., Bindraban, P. et al. (2013).
Increasing water productivity in agriculture., in: Boelee, E.
(Ed.), Managing Water and Agroecosystems for Food Security.
CABI, Wallingford, pp. 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1079/
9781780640884.0104
English, M., (1990). Deficit irrigation. I. Analytical framework.
Journal of Irrigation Drainage Engineering, ASCE, 116,
399–412.
FAO, (1996). Lessons from the green revolution: towards a new
green revolution. Technical background document. World
Food Summit: 13–17 November, 1996. Rome, Italy,
FAO, (2019). Soil Degradation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
Available online: http://www.fao.org/soils‐portal/soil‐degra
dation‐restoration/en/
FAO, (2018a). The impact of disasters and crises on agriculture
and food security 2017. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome.
FAO (2018). Transforming Food and Agriculture to Achieve the
SDGs : 20 interconnected actions to guide decision‐makers.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome.
Foley, D.J., Thenkabail, P.S., Aneece, I.P.et al. (2019). A meta‐
analysis of global crop water productivity of three leading
world crops (wheat, corn, and rice) in the irrigated areas over
three decades. International Journal of Digital Earth 0, 1–37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2019.1651912
GCA and WRI, (2019). Adapt now: A global call for leadership
on climate resilience. Global Center on Adaptation and World
Resources Institute.
Geerts, S. and Raes, D., (2009). Deficit irrigation as an on‐farm
strategy to maximize crop water productivity in dry areas.
Agricultural Water Management 96, 1275–1284. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.04.009
Giordano, M., Turral, H., Scheierling, S.M.et al. (2017). Beyond
“More Crop per Drop”: evolving thinking on agricultural
water productivity. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI); Washington, DC, USA: The
World Bank. 53p. (IWMI Research Report 169). doi:
10.5337/2017.202.
Goosheh, M., Pazira, E., Gholami, A.et al. (2018). Improving
Irrigation Scheduling of Wheat to Increase Water Productivity
 ENHANCING WATER PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH ON‐FARM WATER MANAGEMENT 123
in Shallow Groundwater Conditions Using Aquacrop.
Irrigation and Drainage 67, 738–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ird.2288
Guppy, L., Uyttendaele, P.,and Villholth, K.G., (2018).
Groundwater and sustainable development goals: analysis of
interlinkages. UNU‐INWEH Report Series, 04.
Hoekstra, A., Mekonnen, M., Chapagain, A.et al. (2012).
Global Monthly Water Scarcity: Blue Water Footprints
versus Blue Water. PLoS ONE, 7 (2), e32688.
IFAD (2015). Scaling up results in agricultural water management.
International Fund for Agricultural Development.
Ilbeyi, A., Ustun, H., Oweis, T. et al. (2006). Wheat water pro-
ductivity and yield in a cool highland environment: Effect of
early sowing with supplemental irrigation. Agricultural Water
Management 82, 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.
2005.08.005
IPCC, (2012). Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F. et al. (Eds.)
Available from Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh
Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8RU
ENGLAND, 582 pp. Available from June 2012
Jabran, K., Ullah, E., Hussain, M. et al. (2015). Mulching
Improves Water Productivity, Yield and Quality of Fine Rice
under Water‐saving Rice Production Systems. Journal of
Agronomy and Crop Science 201(5), 389–400. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jac.12099
Jat, M.L., Chandana, P., Sharma, S.K. et al. (2006). Laser Land
Leveling: A Precursor Technology for Resource Conservation.
Rice–Wheat Consortium Technical Bulletin Series 7. Rice–
Wheat Consortium for the Indo‐Gangetic Plains, New Delhi,
India, pp. 48
Jat, M.L., Gathala, M.K., Ladha, J.K. et al. (2009). Evaluation
of precision land leveling and double zero‐till systems in the
rice–wheat rotation: Water use, productivity, profitability and
soil physical properties. Soil and Tillage Research, 105, 112–
121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.06.003
Khakwani, A.A., Dennett, M.D.,and Munir, M., (2011). Early
growth response of six wheat varieties under artificial osmotic
stress condition. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
48(2), 121–126
Kang, Y., Khan, S., and Ma, X., (2009). Climate change impacts
on crop yield, crop water productivity and food security – A
review. Progress in Natural Science 19, 1665–1674. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2009.08.001
Katerji, N., van Hoorn, J.W., Hamdy, A. et al. (2005). Salt toler-
ance analysis of chickpea, faba bean and durum wheat vari-
eties. Agricultural Water Management, 72(3), 195–207.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2004.09.014
Kijne, J., Barron, J., Hoff, H. et al. (2009). Opportunities to
increase water productivity in agriculture with special reference
to Africa and South Asia 48.
Kumar, S., Singh, R., Kaledhonkar, M.J. et al. (2013). Improving
Water Productivity through Micro‐Irrigation in Arid Punjab
Regions. Irrigation and Drainage 62, 330–339. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ird.1734
Kumar, D.M., Amarasinghe, U., Sharma. B.R. et al. (2009).
Water Productivity Improvements in Indian Agriculture:
Potentials, Constraints and Prospects, Strategic Analyses of
the National River Linking Project (NRLP) of India–Series 4.
Kumar, M. Dinesh,and Amarasinghe, U. (eds.). International
Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Lampayan, R.M., Rejesus, R.M., Singleton, G.R., and Bouman,
B.A.M., (2015). Adoption and economics of alternate wetting
and drying water management for irrigated lowland rice.
Field Crops Research, 170, 95–108. doi:10.1016/j.
fcr.2014.10.013
Linn, J.F. (2012). Scaling up in agriculture, rural development,
and nutrition (2020 Focus). International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.2499/
9780896296756
Li, X., Zhang, X., Niu, J. et al. (2016). Irrigation water produc-
tivity is more influenced by agronomic practice factors than
by climatic factors in Hexi Corridor, Northwest China.
Scientific Reports 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37971
Molden, D.H., Murray, R.S., and Makin, I., (2003). Water
Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and opportunities for
improvement, CAB International. New Delhi, India.
Molden, D., Oweis, T., Steduto, P. et al. (2010). Improving agri-
cultural water productivity: Between optimism and caution.
Agricultural Water Management, Comprehensive Assessment
of Water Management in Agriculture 97, 528–535. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.023
Molden, D., Oweis, T.Y., Steduto, P. et al. (2007). Pathways for
increasing agricultural water productivity, in: David Molden
(Ed.), Water for Food Water for Life: A Comprehensive
Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture.
International Water Management Institute and Earthscan,
Chichester, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470670590.
wbeog308
Moswetsi, G., Fanadzo, M., and Ncube, B., (2017). Cropping
Systems and Agronomic Management Practices in
Smallholder Farms in South Africa: Constraints, Challenges
and Opportunities. Journal of Agronomy, 16, 51–64. https://
doi.org/10.3923/ja.2017.51.64
Munang, R., Mgendi, R., Alverson, K. et al. (2015). Ecosystem
Based Adaptation (EBA) for food security in Africa –Towards
a comprehensive Strategic Framework to Upscale and Out‐
scale EbA‐driven agriculture in Africa. United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi
Nagayets, O., (2005). Small farms: current status and key trends.
Paper prepared for the Future of Small Farms Research
Workshop. Wye College, 26–29 June 2005
Nangia, V., Oweis, T., Kemeze, F.H., and Schnetzer, J. (2018).
Supplemental Irrigation: A Promising Climate‐Smart Practice
for Dryland Agriculture. Practice brief Climate‐smart agricul-
ture. Global Alliance For Climate Smart Agriculture.
Namara, R.E., Upadhyay, B., and Nagar, R.K., (2005).
Adoption and impacts of micro‐irrigation technologies:
Empirical results from selected localities of Maharashtra and
Gujarat states of India. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International
Water Management Institute. Research Report 93.
OECD, (2015). Governance challenges and suggested tools for
the implementation of the water‐related Sustainable
Development Goals. Presented at the 2015 UN‐Water Anuual
International Zaragoza Conference.
Palada, M.C., Bhattarai, S. Roberts, M. et al. (2008). Increasing
on‐farm water productivity through affordable microirrigation
124 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
vegetablebased technology in Cambodia. Proc. 2nd
International Forum on Water and Food. 11– 13 November
2008. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 5 p.
Rathore V.S., Nathawat N.S., Meel B. et al. (2014). Relative pro-
ductivity, profitability and water use efficiency of cropping
systems in hot arid India. Experimental Agriculture, 50:
549 – 572.
Rockstrom, J. and Barron, J., (2007). Water productivity in rain-
fed systems: Overview of challenges and analysis of opportu-
nities in water scarcity prone savannahs. Irrigation Sciences
25, 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271‐007‐0062‐3
Rockstrom, J., Karlberg, L., Wani, S.P.et al. (2010). Managing
water in rainfed agriculture –The need for a paradigm shift.
Agricultural Water Management 97, 543–550. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.009
Rockstrom, J., Lannerstad, M.,and Falkenmark, M., (2007).
Assessing the water challenge of a new green revolution in
developing countries. Proceedings of National Academy of
Sciences, 104, 6253–6260. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
0605739104
Saha, S., Saha, B., Ray, M. et al. (2018). Integrated nutrient
management (INM) on yield trends and sustainability,
nutrient balance and soil fertility in a long‐term (30 years)
rice‐wheat system in the Indo‐Gangetic plains of India.
Journal of Plant Nutrition, 1–11. doi:10.1080/01904167.2018.
1510509
Sharma, B., Molden, D. and Cook, S.J., (2015). Water use
efficiency in agriculture: Measurement, current situation and
trends, In: P. Drechsel, P. Heffer, H. Magen et al. (Eds.).
Managing Water and Fertilizer for Sustainable Agricultural
Intensification. International Fertilizer Industry Association
(IFA), International Water Management Institute (IWMI),
International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), and International
Potash Institute (IPI). First edition, Paris, France.
Sharma, B.R., Amarasinghe, U.,and Xueliang, C., (2009).
Assessing and Improving Water Productivity in Conservation
Agriculture Systems in the Indus‐Gangetic Basin, 4th World
Congress on Conservation Agriculture‐Innovations for
Improving efficiency, Equity and Environment, New Delhi,
India, 4–7 February 2009
Sharma, B.R., Rao, K.V., Vittal, K.P.R. et al. (2010). Estimating
the potential of rainfed agriculture in India: Prospects for water
productivity improvements. Agricultural Water Management
97, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.08.002
Sharma, B., Gulati, A., Mohan, G. et al. (2018). Water
Productivity Mapping of Major Indian Crops. NABARD and
ICRIER.
Shiferaw, B., Okello, J., and Reddy, V.R., (2009). “Challenges of
Adoption and Adaptation of Land and Water Management
Options in Smallholder Agriculture: Synthesis of Lessons
and Experiences.” In Rain‐Fed Agriculture: Unlocking the
Potential. London, UK: CAB International, 258–75.
Sikka, A.K. (2009). Water productivity of different agricultural
systems. In: Water Productivity Improvements in Indian
Agriculture: Potentials, Constraints and Prospects, Strategic
Analyses of the National River Linking Project (NRLP) of
India–Series 4. Kumar, M. Dinesh & Amarasinghe, U. (eds.).
International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri
Lanka.
Tavakoli, A.R., Oweis, T., Farahani, H.et al. (2010). Improving
rainwater productivity with supplemental irrigation in Upper
Karkheh River Basin of Iran. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria. 102.
United Nations, (2015). Transforming our World: the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. NY, USA: https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingour
world
Upadhyaya, A. and Alok, S. (2015). Concept of Water, Land
and Energy Productivity in Agriculture and Pathways for
Improvement. Irrigation & Drainage Systems Engineering 05.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2168‐9768.1000154
Walker, W.R., (1989). Guidelines for designing and evaluating
surface irrigation systems. FAO IRRIGATION AND
DRAINAGE PAPER 45). Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations.
Wani S. P., Sreedevi, T.K., Sudi, R.et al. (2013). Improved liveli-
hoods and water productivity through integrated watershed
management – A Case Study from China. Resilient Dryland
Systems Report No. 61. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh,
India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi‐
Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). 48 pp.
Wang, G., Mang, S., Cai, H. et al. (2016). Integrated watershed
management: evolution, development and emerging trends.
J. For. Res. 27, 967–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676‐016‐0293‐3
Wigboldus, S., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C.et al. (2016). Systemic
perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593‐
016‐0380‐z
Wisser, D., Frolking, S., Douglas, E.M.et al. (2010). The signif-
icance of local water resources captured in small reservoirs
for crop production – A global‐scale analysis. Journal of
Hydrology, Green‐Blue Water Initiative (GBI) 384, 264–275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.032
World Bank, (2005). Shaping the Future of Water for Agriculture:
A Sourcebook for Investment in Agricultural Water
Management. The International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development/The World Bank, Washington.
Yadav, R.L., Dwivedi, B.S., Prasad, K. et al. (2000). Yield
trends, and changes in soil organic‐C and available NPK in a
long‐term rice–wheat system under integrated use of manures
and fertilizers. Field Crops Research 68(3), 219–246.
Young, R., Orsini, S., and Fitzpatrick, I., (2015). Soil degrada-
tion – a major threat to humanity. Sustainable Food Trust.
Zhao, C., Liu, B., Piao, S.et al. (2017). Temperature increase
reduces global yields of major crops in four independent esti-
mates. PNAS 114, 9326–9331. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1701762114
Zheng, H., Bian, Q., Yin, Y.et al. (2018). Closing water produc-
tivity gaps to achieve food and water security for a global
maize supply. Scientific Reports 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598‐018‐32964‐4
Zwart, S.J. and Bastiaanssen, W.G.M., (2004). Review of mea-
sured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice,
cotton and maize. Agricultural Water Management 69, 115–
133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2004.04.007
 8
Climate Actions and Challenges for Sustainable
Ecosystem Services: Approaches and Application in California
Case Studies
Qinqin Liu1

ABSTRACT

Climate change threatens our future life and planet by disrupting economies and affecting lives as well as eco­
systems’ sustainability for water, energy and food on global, national, and regional scales. The United Nations
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 provided direction to take actions addressing climate change impacts
and related challenges in conflict and growing inequalities to build a sustainable world. There are different
impacts on water, energy, food, and environmental sectors under changing climate. This chapter presents and
discusses selected case studies focused on approaches and applications in climate actions, and achievements of
greenhouse gas emission reduction by state and local water agencies in California. Their actions and practices
have been summarized for climate impact and vulnerability assessment as well as climate action planning efforts.
Related challenges and opportunities have been identified in Delta restoration for carbon offset and multiple
benefit projects, energy reporting efforts from local water agencies as well as climate‐safe infrastructure in
California. These case studies will have implications on how regional climate actions in California water sector
could contribute to the global SDGs related to climate change. These approaches and applications could be used
in other regions of the world to tackle challenges and seize opportunities for sustainable ecosystem services
under changing climate.

8.1. INTRODUCTION ecosystem – comprised of a biological environment and

Climate change caused by human activities leads to
increased temperature, sea level rise, changes in weather
patterns and extreme events such as drought, fire and
flood. The highest levels of Green House Gas (GHG)
emissions since the industrial revolution have contrib­
uted significantly to changing climate, which is threat­
ening our future life and planet by disrupting economies
and affecting lives well as ecosystems’ sustainability for
water, energy and food at global, national and regional
scales (Barnosky etal, 2013, Liu 2016, California
Department of Water Resources, 2018). A sustainable
­sustainable development. The key to sustainable deve­
1
Department of Water Resources, Natural Resources Agency,
Sacramento, California, USA.
series of habitats – is one that is able to thrive and
support itself without outside influence or assistance.
Ecosystem services include a range of benefits that
people obtain from their surrounding ecosystem.
Ecosystem services in the water sector include water
uses for power, urban, industrial and environmental
needs, as well as for irrigation for agricultural food
production, which are closely linked to sustainable
ecosystems. Climate change effects on ecosystem
processes lead to loss or reduction of these ecosystem
services, which have significant future impacts on water,
energy, food, and species and habitats (Liu 2016).
Sustainable ecosystem services are connected with
lopment is achieving a balance between the exploitation
of natural resources for socio‐economic development, and

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

125
126 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
c­ onserving ecosystem services that are critical to every­
one’s well‐being and livelihood (Falkenmark et al., 2007).
Climate change projections include warmer air tempera­
tures, diminishing snowpack, precipitation uncertainty,
increased evaporation, prolonged droughts, and sea level
rise (IPCC 2014, 2018). Global actions are critical to
address the challenges of climate change on sustainable
ecosystem services to meet water, energy and food demands,
and environmental needs. The United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) 13 provided a global blueprint
to guide current and future actions maintaining dignity,
peace, and prosperity to take climate change actions for
people and the planet. Particularly, the SDG13 provided
direction to take urgent actions addressing climate change
impacts and related challenges in conflict and growing
inequalities to build a sustainable world for everyone. the
SDG13 established strategies and targets for global climate
actions to ensure global temperature rise can be limited to
well below 2°C, or even 1.5°C. Without such strategies and
targets for climate actions, the world’s average surface tem­
perature increase is likely to surpass 3°C by the end of this
century. Such climate effects could adversely affect eco­
system services for sustainable water, energy, and food
supply. Taking climate actions can create opportunities for
better lives and environments, reduce GHG emissions, and
develop climate resilience for sustainable ecosystem ser­
vices. The Paris Agreement signed in 2016 is an
agreement within the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with
GHG emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance.
Adopting the Paris Agreement was a significant first step
of climate actions to reach the SDG13 target, in which all
countries committed to take action addressing climate
change. Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would have
clear benefits for people and ecosystems with a more sus­
tainable and equitable society, but requires rapid, far‐
reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of
society (IPCC 2018).
Datasets and tools can improve the integration of cli­
mate science into decision‐making and recommenda­
tions, and directly inform vulnerability assessments and
adaptation strategies for climate actions in energy, water,
oceans and coasts, forests, wildfires, agriculture, biodiver­
sity and habitat, and public health. Planning to adapt to
the impacts of climate change requires the best forward‐
looking quantitative scientific information available.
Global Climate Model (GCM) data have provided the
basis for most assessments of vulnerabilities and poten­
tial strategies of adaptation to climate change. GCMs
contain several key uncertainties arising from inexact and
diverse representations of the physical climate system.
These include unknown future changes in atmospheric
components, such as aerosols and greenhouse gases, and
future variations of natural climate variability (Stocker
et al. 2013). While the most comprehensive assessment
would include incorporation of all available GCM model
simulations, this is not practical given the time and
resources this requires. Using an ensemble or group of
several simulations from different GCMs is thus a
current best practice considering the uncertainty and
range of future climate projections. One approach to the
selection of GCMs is to choose GCMs according to
their ability to simulate spatial and temporal character­
istics of historical climate at global, regional, and local
scales. In California, the Department of Water Resources
(DWR) Climate Change Technical Advisory Group
identified a subset of 10 GCMs (out of an original set
of 32) that performed best at simulating historical climate
means and variability related to water resources and
hydrologic extremes (California Department of Water
Resources 2015a).
GCMs have spatial resolutions that are too coarse
(>100km) for local‐to‐small‐scale applications, requiring
statistically or dynamically downscaled products to be
developed for regional studies. The best available
statistical downscaling technique is the Localized
Constructed Analogues (LOCA), which is designed to
better represent daily extreme weather conditions, such as
intense precipitation or heat waves (Pierce et al 2014).
Most recently, LOCA methodology was used to develop
downscaled daily precipitation, maximum and minimum
temperature, wind speed, specific and relative humidity,
and surface solar radiation for technical studies in
California’s 4th Climate Assessment (Pierce etal 2018).
California natural resources, people, and ecosystems
are increasingly vulnerable to hydrological extremes of
drought or floods related to the effects of climate change,
including significant challenges from flooding, unreliable
or unsafe water supplies, groundwater overdraft, habitat
degradation, and species declines. California has taken
these challenges to improve the state’s ability to manage
water, energy, food, and the environment for sustainable
ecosystem services. The California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 as Assembly Bill 32‐AB 32 created
a comprehensive multi‐year program to reduce GHG
emissions for climate change mitigation in California.
The AB 32 Scoping Plan and update (2014, 2017)
provided roadmaps and integrated approaches for
California to achieve the goal of reducing GHGs emis­
sions with defined targets in multiple sectors. Governor’s
executive order as EO B‐55‐18 established a new initiative
for the state of California to achieve carbon neutrality by
2045. Through these state‐level policies and laws,
California has committed to reduce its GHG emissions
by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and by 80% below 1990
levels by mid‐century.
 CLIMATE ACTIONS AND CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 127

Table 8.1 Climate Change Effects and Related Actions in Water, Energy, Food and Environmental Sectors. Source: Liu 2016.
Key factors Water Energy Food Environment
Climate Change Leads to hydrological Affects energy Affects food Changing ecosystem
Effect on temperature, changes in surface production cycle & production cycle, process by increasing
snowpack, water and ground energy uses with soil systems and temperature, fire &
Precipitation, fire, & water, increase water increased water plant growth with GHG, decreased
sea level rise. stress, drought, stress. increased water stream flow, water
flood, sea water stress. quality, increased air
intrusion, reduce pollution with impacts
instream flow & on forest, biodiversity,
water quality; affects land & watersheds.
water supply and
uses.
Climate Change (CC) Fossil energy use in Fossil energy Fossil energy use for Environmental
Actions water cycle could generation and uses soil, crop & food management forest,
increase GHG for increase GHG for practices increase watershed and
CC; energy CC; renewable GHG for CC; energy wetlands for CC
efficiency and energy production efficiency, renewable mitigation.
renewable energy and energy efficient energy, climate smart
use in water systems mitigate CC. agricultural practices
mitigate CC. mitigate CC.

Climate change has different impacts on water, energy,
food sectors, and related ecosystem processes. Table 8.1
synthesizes relevant information based on prior studies
(Liu 2016). Various actions and strategies in each sector
should target the major factors contributing to GHG
emissions. California provides examples of leadership in
developing regional applications and approaches mak­
ing contributions to global climate actions. This chapter
evaluated and synthesized these applications and
approaches in case studies, and identified climate change
challenges and opportunities for sustainable ecosystem
services in California water sector. Objectives of this
chapter are to provide examples for pathways and prac­
tices in California water sector on how to implement the
SDG13 for global climate actions with recommenda­
tions at regional levels. Particularly, section 8.2 provides
examples of climate change impacts and related actions;
section 8.3 identifies case studies for application and
approaches by evaluating achievements and lessons
learned in climate actions and practices of water agencies;
and section 8.4 discusses related climate change chal­
lenges and opportunities for Delta wetland restoration,
energy reporting in water cycle, and climate‐safe infra­
structure. These case studies could have implications to
enhance other regional actions and practices including
climate change impact and vulnerability assessment, cli­
mate action plans, and integrated policy and planning
for sustainable ecosystem services in water, energy, food,
and the environment.
8.2. CLIMATE IMPACTS AND ACTIONS
IN CALIFORNIA
Recent researches have begun to connect climate change
and the SDG13 related to water, energy, food, and the envi­
ronment (O’Riordan et al. 2015; Liu, 2016; Zhang
et al. 2018; Colucci et al. 2017; Endo and Oh 2018; Pereira
et al. 2019; Swatuk and Cash. 2018). A conceptual frame­
work has been developed to interlink climate change effects
of changing temperature, snowpack and precipitation with
water, energy, food, and related key elements in ecosystem
processes (Liu 2016). This conceptual framework provided
a scientific basis and understanding for integrated policies
and planning as well as decision‐making for sustainable
ecosystem services in water sectors, including developing
California’s Water Plan Update (California Department of
Water Resources 2018b) and Climate Change Scoping
Plan Update (2017) as well as developing a water and
energy grant program. Research addressing questions on
environmental security of the water‐energy‐food nexus in
the Asia––Pacific Coastal Region including California has
implication on how to address important global environ­
mental issues using integrated approaches from natural
science with social science (Taniguchi et al. 2013). Recent
California case studies provided an overview of challenges,
data gaps, and research needs to address the water––
energy––food nexus related to climate change at regional
and global scales (Liu 2016; California Department of
Water Resources, 2017).
128 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Climate change impacts in California include sea level
rise (Figure 8.1), snow pack reduction (Figure 8.2) and
warmer temperatures (Figure 8.3), which are exacer­
bating many critical challenges for flood and wildfire
risks, and reduced water supply and habitats (California
Department of Water Resources 2018). California cli­
mate science and data (California Department of Water
Resources 2015 b) indicated that the temperatures in the
state have shown a warming trend in the past century.
Major regional climate effects include:
•• Variations for observed temperature increase from
1895 to present, and projected temperature increase
by mid‐21st century.
•• Precipitation changes in 33 main water supply water­
sheds from 1950 to 2012.
•• Changes in historical snowpack (1961–1990) and pro­
jected (2070–2099) ranges of the snowpack from a
lower warming to a higher warming scenario.
California has taken the leadership to develop climate
policies, actions and strategies to address these climate
change effects in ecosystem services. Table 8.2 summa­
rizes examples for these actions including data and sci­
ence (California Department of Water Resources 2015b;
Liu 2016), water resources and management planning
(California Water Plan 2013 and 2019, California Water
Action Plan 2016), climate change research and policy

Figure 8.1 Flood with Sea Level Rise in Bay‐Delta Region (CAL‐Adapt’s Sea Level Rise Tool). Source: Modified
from Graphic representation of Cal‐Adapt’s Sea Level Rise Tool. Go to http://cal‐adapt.org/tools/slr‐calflod‐3d to
see more detailed sea level rise scenarios. Data from University of California, Berkeley.
 CLIMATE ACTIONS AND CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 129

Historical Range (1961-1990) Lower Warming Range (2070-2099) Higher Warming Range (2070-2099)

48% loss 65% loss

April 1 Snow Water Content in inches:

0 10 20 30 40+

Figure 8.2 Trend of the Snowpack Changes. Source: Elissa Lynn, DWR Climate Change Program Consideration
of Climate Change in Water Resources Planning, California Climate Science and Data, California Department of
Water Resources, 2015. © 2015, State of California.

60

11-Year Running Mean

MEAN TEMPERATURE (˚F)

58

56

54

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/Tracker/CA

Figure 8.3 Trend of temperature changes. Source: Western Regional Climate Center, retrieved from: http://wrcc.
dri.edu/climate/Tracker/CA.
130 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Table 8.2 Examples in Related California Climate Actions.

Examples
Regional climate change
vulnerabilities and impact
assessment
CA Fourth Climate Change
Assessment.
Climate Action Plan in State
Water Project
Regional water ‐ energy nexus
Water‐energy‐food nexus case
related to climate change
Integrated science and policy
across multiple sectors
Urban &
Agricultural water
management Plans
Key points
Provided tools for regional climate change
vulnerabilities and impact assessment
Provided science foundation for understanding
climate‐related vulnerability at the local
scale and informing resilience actions, state
polices, plans, integrated program actions
and guidance to safeguard California for
climate change.
Reduce GHG from SWP operation by
terminating coal‐fired power plants, using
renewable energy, and increasing SWP
system energy efficiency.
A large variation in the average energy
intensity values estimated in the regional
water supply.
WEF nexus cases from California with climate
change implications for benefits of water
and energy savings related to GHG
reduction.
Research and policy for cross‐sector actions in
water, energy, and food as well as
environments related to climate change
Guidance on climate actions in urban and
agricultural water planning
References
The Climate Change Handbook for Regional
Water Planning from Department of Water
Resources.
California’s Changing Climate 2018.
California Department of Water Resources
Climate Action Plan — Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reduction Plan, 2012 &2020.
California Water Plan Update 2013;
California Department of Water
Resources, 2015, 2017.
Liu 2016; 2017;
California Department of Water Resources,
2017.
California Water Action Plan (2014); CA
Water Plan 2013;
California Climate Change Research Plan,
2014, The California AB 32 Scoping
Plan 2017
Urban &Agricultural Water Management
Plans 2015

Notes: GHG‐ Green House Gas; SWP‐ State Water Project; WEF‐ Water‐Energy‐Food

plans (California Climate Change Research Plan 2014),
the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment
(CEC, 2018), and the California AB 32 Scoping Plan
update (2014, 2017).
Climate change actions in adaptation and mitigation
have been addressed for California’s 10 hydrological
regions (Figure 8.4) and 30 resources management strat­
egies (RMS) have been developed (California Department
of Water Resources 2013, 2015b). Many of the GHG
reduction measures have been adopted into California’s
water, energy, food, and environmental sectors. For
example, California Water Action Plan (2014; 2016)
established strategies and a roadmap for water resource
reliability, ecosystem restoration, and resilience related to
climate change. Resource Management Strategies related
to climate change, water, and energy in California
included ecosystem restoration, and agriculture and
watershed management (Department of Water Resources
2013; 2017). These RMSs have the goals of reducing
water demand, increasing water supply and improving
water quality, environment and resource stewardship and
flood management. Integrated water management
approaches are used in these RMS to address climate
change issues and ecosystem services related to water,
energy, food, and the environment.
8.3. CASES OF CLIMATE ACTIONS
IN CALIFORNIA WATER SECTOR
8.3.1. Climate Change Impacts and Vulnerability
in California Hydrological Regions
California has 10 hydrological regions, each with dif­
ferent types of water supplies as indicated in Figure 8.4.
Water in California is managed at the federal, state, and
local levels, providing over 49 339 273 502 Cubic Meters
(m3) of water per year, serving over 30 million people
and irrigating nearly 2 428 113.85 hectare of farmland.
Studies in California water resources related to climate
change indicated in increasing temperatures and chang­
ing hydrology and this increasing trend is one of the
indications of climate change effects at regional scales
(California Department of Water Resources 2013;
2015b). The increased regional temperatures, changes in
 CLIMATE ACTIONS AND CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 131

Hydrologic region boundary

Mountain Counties overlay area

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta overlay area

State Water Project

Federal Water Project

Local Water Project

Miles 0 25 50 100 200

Figure 8.4 California hydrological regions and water systems. Source: California Department of Water Resources.
(2015b). California Climate Science and Data for Water Resources Management. © 2015, State of California.

snowpack and precipitation, and increased water
stresses from drought can reduce ecosystem services and
affect the water––energy nexus and agricultural food
production, as well as fish and wildlife habitats in
California. The major climate change vulnerabilities
have been assessed and represented in a map indicating
different vulnerabilities in California’s hydrological
regions (Figure 8.5). Appropriate climate change
adaptation strategies should be developed based on
specific vulnerability assessment at local scales. Regional
decisions and practices in integrated management of
water, energy, food, and related ecosystems are essential
to adapt and mitigate global climate change impacts at
regional scales.
8.3.2. Climate Action Plans for GHG Emission
Reduction and Carbon‐Free Water Systems
The climate actions and achievements in the water sec­
tor have been evaluated at state and local levels. Case
studies have been identified from organizations having
leadership in applications and approaches to serve as role
models for other state and local agencies to develop sci­
ence and data, climate action plans and to implement
related practices. Particularly, climate action plans, GHG
reduction targets and outcomes were assessed and sum­
marized in these case studies.
Carbon‐free or carbon neutrality refers to having a net
zero carbon footprint by achieving net zero carbon dioxide
132 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Climate Change Vulnerabilities North Lahontan • Increased Mountain

air and water temperatures
Because of the economic, geographic, and biological would place additional
diversity of California, vulnerabilities to anticipated stress on sensitive
future climate changes are best assessed on a regional ecosystems and
basis. A few of the key climate change vulnerabilities species . • Higher
are indicated. For more in-depth descriptions temperatures and
please go to: http://www.water.ca.gov/ longer dry seasons
climatechange/docs/CA_Climate_Science_ would increase
and_Data_Final_Release_June_2015.pdf. wildfire risk.
Counties • Loss
of snowpack
storage may
reduce reliability
of surface water supplies
• Snowpack reduction
may have significant
impacts on the water-
related tourism industry.

Sacramento River San Joaquin River

North Coast • Longer
• Increased air and water • Increasing temperatures
drought periods could
temperatures would place and variable precipitation
reduce local fractured-rock
additional stress on patterns would
groundwater
sensitive ecosystems affect agricultural
supplies.
and species. crops by
• Sea level
• Loss of snowpack reducing winter
rise may
storage may reduce chill-hours,
make tidal
reliability of surface increasing extreme
marshland
water supplies and heat days and increasing
susceptible to more
result in greater demand on evapotranspiration.
frequent, longer and
groundwater resources.
deeper flooding.
South Lahontan • Higher temperatures and
San Francisco Bay • Sea longer dry seasons would increase wildfire risk and
level rise may increase the impair water quality in local streams and lakes.
susceptibility of • Reduced snowpack would impact the winter-
tidal wetlands to dependent economy which also supports
more frequent, disadvantaged
longer and communities.
deeper flooding.

Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta • Sea level
rise may increase stress on
Delta levees and change
water quality.

Central Coast • Coastal infrastructure

and nearshore ecosystems are
vulnerable to increasing sea level
and storm surges, while coastal
aquifers could be affected by
increasing salinity intrusion.

South Coast • Extreme precipitation
events may result in greater flood risk,
debris flows, and degradation of habitat.
• Higher temperatures and
longer dry seasons would
increase wildfire risk and
impair water quality in
local streams and lakes.
Tulare Lake • Loss of Colorado River • More
snowpack storage may reduce frequent and longer droughts
reliability of surface imported would reduce imported
water supplies and replenishment water supply
of local supplies, and result in greater demand reliability and
on groundwater resources . • Increased air and decrease local
water temperatures would place additional water quality and
stress on sensitive ecosystems and species. habitat.

Figure 8.5 Climate change vulnerability at California regional scale. Source: Elissa Lynn, DWR Climate Change
Program Consideration of Climate Change in Water Resources Planning, 2016, State of California.
 CLIMATE ACTIONS AND CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 133

Table 8.3 Examples of climate changes action plans and GHG targets and achievements.
Name of action/program GHG targets
State Water Project (statewide) GHG emissions to 50% below 1990
levels by 2020 (near term target) and
80% below 1990 levels by 2050
(long‐ term target); New initiative to
achieve carbon neutrality by 2045;
Sonoma County Water Agency Set carbon free water target for leadership
(Northern California) role in local water agencies.
San Diego County Water Authority GHG Emission reduction targets (MT
including City of San Diego CO2E): 1) 2009 (baseline): 5837;
(Southern California) 2) 2020: 4961 (15% below baseline);
3) 2035: 2977 (49% below baseline;
4) 2050 (80% below baseline).
Achievements & success factors
Have achieved near‐term target before 2020.
Leadership to develop DWR climate action
plan & update and implement Governor’s
executive order (EO B‐55‐18).
Have achieved carbon free water by 2015;
Leadership to develop and achieve carbon
free water target in Sonoma County Water
Agency Urban Water Management Plan,
2015.
Achieve the targets in progress as indicated in
the action plan;
Leadership to develop the Climate Action
Plan in December 2015.

emissions, balancing carbon emissions with carbon
removal (often through carbon offsetting), or simply elim­
inating carbon emissions. Reducing energy intensity and
fossil energy uses in the water sector can reduce GHG
emissions and mitigate climate change. Climate change
action plans and implementation from the State Water
Project, Sonoma County Water Agency and San Diego
County Water Authority/San Diego City provided prac­
tical examples on ways to mitigate GHG emission with
defined targets at statewide and regional scales (Table 8.3).
The specific GHG targets, achievements and success
factors for each agency to implement climate actions and
approaches are summarized in the following section:
i) The State Water Project (SWP)
Climate action and GHG targets for the State Water
Project (SWP) have been established by DWR’s Climate
Action Plan including a GHG emissions reduction
designed to reduce DWR’s GHG emissions to 50% below
1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
(Table 8.3 and Figure 8.6). These goals are more aggres­
sive than California state mandates, and the first goal has
already been achieved (California Department of Water
resources 2018; 2020). DWR has achieved the GHG
reduction target by reducing annual GHG emissions by
more than one million metric tons since 1990, the
equivalent of taking 200 000 cars off the road. The
significant reduction in GHG emissions is being accom­
plished by terminating a contract with a coal‐fired power
plant, joining the Greenenergy program, using renewable
energy resources, and increasing energy efficiency
throughout the SWP system. The plan also sets the stage
for an 80% GHG emissions reduction by 2050. As DWR
implements its Climate Action Plan, use of renewable
energy resources will increase and purchases of fossil‐fuel‐
generated energy will decrease. DWR is in the process of
updating this Climate Action Plan to achieve carbon neu­
trality by 2045 to meet the new policy requirements by
Governor’s executive order (EO B‐55‐18). The major
factor contributing to the success is DWR Climate Change
Program leadership in adopting ambitious initiatives to
develop a climate action plan with clear GHG emission
reduction targets and strategies to implement state climate
change policy and significantly reduce GHG emission
from energy used in water conveyance from northern to
southern California. As a result, DWR Climate Change
Program has received three national Climate Leadership
Awards from 2013 to 2018. However, there are still some
large data gaps from diverse hydrological regions that
limit development of a climate adaptation plan quickly.
More investment and policy support for climate adaptation
will enhance and promote integrated climate actions from
both mitigation and adaptation in California.
ii) Sonoma County Water Agency
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) provided an
excellent example for climate change mitigation actions
with a carbon‐free water system (Table 8.3). In 2011, the
Water Agency’s Board adopted its energy policy which
established the goal of achieving carbon‐free water by
2015. This goal was reached by increased water‐use
efficiency, water system operational efficiency, and devel­
oping renewable energy sources. Ongoing conservation
efforts resulted in the SCWA reducing its total energy use
by 27 percent since 2005. SCWA supplies 100% of its
electricity needs through renewable sources by a
combination of constructing its own power sources and
contracting for renewable and carbon‐free sources, such
as hydroelectric, landfill gas, and solar energy (SCWA
UWMP 2015). Water utilities are in a unique position to
134 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Thousands of
MWh
8000

7000

6000
Market
Purchases Natural Gas
5000

Coal Solar and other Non-Hydropower Renewables

4000

Small
3000 Hydropower

Large
2000 Hydropower

1000

0
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Future Power Portfolio Targeting low Emission and Renewable Resources

In future years, DWR will steadily increase the use of renewable energy sources. As solar and other non-
hydropower renewable power sources ramp up, fewer market purchases will be needed to meet total electricity
demand for the SWP.

Figure 8.6 SWP Emissions Reductions under DWR Climate Action Plan. Source: California Department of Water
resources, (2018). State Water Project, Clean Energy for California.

help California adapt to severe droughts and to achieve
the state’s climate goals by making investments in clean,
renewable sources of energy, which benefit customers and
the environment by supplying carbon‐free water. SCWA is
also developing a forward‐looking climate adaptation
plan to serve as a roadmap for the assessment of climate
risks and potential adaptation strategies related to its
water supply, sanitation, and flood control infrastructure
and operations. A key success factor for SCWA is striving
to look forward, beyond today’s issues, to anticipate ways
to advance its mission, and to provide leadership for local
water agencies to achieve carbon‐free water systems by
using proactive water planning related to climate change
mitigation. The lesson learned could be how to coordinate
climate change mitigation and adaptation planning and
approaches in the integrated water management process.
iii) San Diego County Water Authority/San Diego City
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) devel­
oped its Climate Action Plan (SDCWA, 2015) with GHG
emission reduction targets (see Table 8.3). The SDCWA is
committed to proactively addressing climate change chal­
lenges. The Climate Action Plan is an interdisciplinary
effort intended to promote, facilitate, and coordinate
implementation of climate change strategies and related
activities within the Water Authority including San Diego
City. A key success factor consists of developing this plan
proactively to provide a comprehensive approach for
current practices and operations and measures to be
implemented to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for
climate‐change effects through 2035. This plan established
guidance for San Diego City regarding adaptation and
GHG emission reduction measures, quantification, mon­
itoring and reporting. San Diego City climate change
actions included:
•• Evaluate potential impacts of climate change on water
reliability.
•• Conduct climate change vulnerability assessment.
•• Establish long‐term supply and facilities plans to miti­
gate and adapt to impacts of climate change.
•• Develop water and energy reporting with GHG
evaluation.
 CLIMATE ACTIONS AND CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 135
Local groundwater extraction and treatment are cur­
rently most energy intensive for the potable water delivery
process within the control of the City. Wastewater opera­
tions consume approximately 121 million kWh of energy.
A total of 25,780 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) GHG emissions per year was associated with
urban water supply (3725 for potable water and 22 055
for recycled water) in 2015. Wastewater operations gen­
erate 85% of the total GHG emissions. However, on‐site
methane gas production offset the GHG emissions (San
Diego City 2015). Coordination of SDCWA Climate
Action Plan with cities to achieve GHG reduction targets
and early public engagement could increase local support
to implement its climate action plan and emissions stan­
dards defined in California Environmental Quality Act.
8.4. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
IN CLIMATE ACTIONS AND APPROACHES
Climate actions and approaches were evaluated in wet­
land restoration, energy reporting in water cycle and cli­
mate‐safe infrastructure to identify challenges and
opportunities in the California water sector. Addressing
challenges of vulnerability and complexity of infrastruc­
ture and ecosystems are critical to adapt and mitigate cli­
mate change and extreme events. Identifying related
opportunities could help achieve multiple benefits for
sustainable ecosystem services in water, energy, food, and
environmental health. Particularly, California has taken
challenges and opportunities for climate actions and
applications including carbon offset and multiple benefit
projects in the complex Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta
(Delta) system, developing policies and implementing
energy reporting requirements in local urban water
agencies, and initiating state efforts for a climate‐safe
infrastructure. The following sections provide evaluation
and synthesis to address challenges and related opportu­
nities in these actions and approaches.
8.4.1. Carbon Sequestration and Habitat Enhancement
in the Delta
Watershed and wetland restoration provide opportu­
nities for multiple benefits in carbon sequestration and
habitat enhancement. Using green infrastructure
connecting water with environments can achieve multiple
benefits from the ecosystem services related to climate
change (Pitman et al 2015). This living network of green
spaces and water systems provides multiple ecosystem
services that strengthen the resilience of urban environ­
ments, enabling them to mitigate and adapt to climate
change. It further enhances growth, health, and biodiver­
sity as well as water, energy, and food security. Riparian
vegetation in watersheds and restored wetlands in the
Delta provide multiple ecosystem services benefits,
including modification of temperatures and climatic con­
ditions, carbon sequestration to reduce GHG impact,
improved human health and well‐being, more effective
water management, greater opportunities for biodiversity
conservation, and flood protection for food production.
The Delta plays a critical role as an important natural
resource and agricultural region as well as the hub for
California’s water supply. It is a complex ecosystem that
not only supports over 700 species of fish and wildlife,
but is also used to convey water from Northern to
Southern California. The coequal goals of the Delta
Reform Act (2009) recognized critical problems in eco­
system function and water supply reliability from a com­
plexity of natural and human‐made systems in the Delta.
A multitude of stressors threaten our ability to provide a
more reliable water supply, and to protect, restore, and
enhance Delta ecosystems. Effects of these stressors
include:
•• Declining water supply reliability.
•• Increasing risk to Delta levees.
•• Increasing winter floods.
•• Delta subsidence and sinking farmland.
•• Increased vulnerability to earthquakes.
•• Decreased water quality.
•• Increased invasive species distributions that are harm­
ing native species.
Many of these stressors produce non‐linear effects on
the Delta since there are dynamic interactions among
species’ changes and habitat quality in this complex eco­
system. It is uncertain how Delta systems will change in
response to both current and future stressors related to
changing climate. All these factors contribute to
significant challenges for Delta wetland restoration with
carbon sequestration and habitat enhancement.
DWR has taken the approach in Delta wetland restora­
tion with climate change mitigation and habitat improve­
ment benefits. Construction of subsidence reversal and
carbon sequestration projects on Sherman and Twitchell
Islands in the Delta are good examples of ways to obtain
multiple benefits and evaluate trade‐offs for climate
actions in California and other regions of the world.
Carbon sequestration in these projects could reverse sub­
sidence and retain carbon for habitat enhancement. Delta
subsidence is one of the major stressors for ecosystem
function and water supply. Cultivation of the Delta
organic‐soils in agricultural land use has resulted in
oxidation of organic matter and CO2 emissions leading to
subsidence, which increased risk of levee failures threat­
ening the farmland and water conveyance systems
(Mount and Twiss 2005). Restored wetlands are generally
carbon sinks, since CO2 is removed from the atmosphere
as biomass is stored in the soil carbon pool (Drexler 2011;
136 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Deverel et al 2017). Creating managed wetlands on sub­
sided islands in the Delta could provide multiple benefits
by stopping and reversing the effects of subsidence and
storing carbon. Significant changes to Delta agriculture
by adopting land‐uses as managed wetlands could con­
tribute to GHG emissions reductions and carbon seques­
tration as well as ecosystem enhancement (Miller
et al. 2008).
However, there are over 283 280 hectares of diked
farming wetlands in the Delta that are currently private
agricultural lands. Conflicts and trade‐offs between wet­
lands restoration and agricultural land use are critical
challenges that must be addressed for success in applica­
tion of Delta green infrastructure practice. How to mon­
itor their effectiveness and assess co‐benefits is one of the
key research needs (California Climate Change Research
Plan 2015), including improving methods for modeling
ecosystem services and developing a quantitative under­
standing on the role of wetlands as protective assets for
state infrastructures and multi‐benefit restoration pro­
jects. Lessons learned from these projects are to develop
policy and partnerships with shared funding, expertise
and resources to take the cross‐sector challenges and
opportunities for ecosystem benefits of climate change
adaptation and mitigation as well as habitat improve­
ment. Future research models, tools and data systems
should be developed for comprehensive analyses to quan­
tify these cross‐sector benefits and trade‐offs.
8.4.2. Data Collection and Energy Reporting in Water
Sector
Energy is used throughout the water sector to extract,
convey, treat, distribute, and heat water. Approximately
75 percent of water sector electricity consumption is by
end‐users, including water heating and cooling, advanced
treatment by industrial customers, and on‐site pumping
and pressurization for irrigation and other purposes. The
other 25 percent (approximately) of electricity consump­
tion within the water sector occurs in drinking water and
wastewater system operations, including water extraction
and conveyance, drinking water treatment and distribu­
tion, and wastewater collection and treatment (California
Department of Water Resources 2017; Liu 2017). Energy
reporting from local water agencies is an important
approach for data collection, analysis, and synthesis to
understand energy uses for GHG emissions in water sec­
tor. Knowing how much energy is used in water supply
and consumption provides scientific basis to reduce
energy uses for GHG emissions reduction in the California
water sector.
The energy intensity (EI) of water is defined as the total
amount of energy required for the use of a given amount
of water in a specific location, calculated on a whole‐
system basis (e.g. kilowatt hours per cubic meters of
water, kWh/m3). Understanding the energy intensity of
the water supply at a regional scale will enable local plan­
ners to make decisions on energy savings related to each
type of water supply. It may also help evaluate how much
energy may be saved by water conservation and water use
efficiency, showing the possible benefits of reducing water
demand and GHG emissions (DWR 2017). However,
there are significant challenges due to limited data and
reporting of the regional energy intensity in the water
cycle, especially having sufficient detail in the regional
energy intensity for actual project‐level analysis.
Voluntary energy intensity reports have been submitted
by local water agencies in their Urban Water Management
Plans that have been evaluated to address these issues.
Only about 7% of local water agencies have submitted
these reports. Some reports not only provided energy
intensity data but also actions in climate change impact
studies on local water supply, vulnerability assessments,
climate change adaptation and mitigation, and water
shortage contingency planning related to drought.
Challenges, opportunities, and information gaps have
been identified by evaluating these reports. Major data
gaps and limitations from these reports include lack of
clear data sets on what type of water supply, which part
of water cycle, and specific water system connections
with other utilities and agencies due to local water system
complexity. No consistent standards have been established
on net energy intensity related to renewable energy gener­
ation and uses as well as carbon footprints related to
energy intensity due to lack of legal requirements. Water
system complexity for energy reports, lack of staff
resources and funding support could be factors to limit
local water agencies’ energy reporting efforts. To take
these challenges and opportunities, the following factors
should be considered in the energy reporting efforts:
•• Water and energy efficiency are two interlinked com­
ponents of a sustainable future concern to address
regional sustainability.
•• Efforts to conserve water and energy may impact the
social, environmental, and economic livelihood of the
region, and it is also important to consider and assess
the connection these resources have with other aspects
of a sustainable future.
•• Legal requirements and policy change with funding
support could improve local water energy reporting
efforts.
A 2018 state water conservation legislation included
new requirements for all the local water agencies to report
their energy use in the water cycle. Successfully imple­
menting this legislation could help to improve energy
reporting and data collection, and fill the data gaps for
local water agencies to take climate change actions.
 CLIMATE ACTIONS AND CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 137
8.4.3. Climate‐safe Infrastructure
A climate‐safe infrastructure is one of important
approach for California to take climate actions. Climate‐
safe infrastructure is defined as infrastructure that is sus­
tainable and adaptive to meet design criteria for resilience
under stresses caused by the current and future climate
(CNRA 2018). The state is seeking to ensure a climate‐
safe infrastructure to be resilient and sustainable to with­
stand growing climate threats, particularly from
worsening extreme events. The climate‐safe infrastructure
bill (AB 2800, Quirk, 2016) established the law for
Climate‐Safe Infrastructure Working Group (CSIWG)
developing recommendations to the California legislature
on how to build and design the state infrastructure to be
safer regarding growing climate extremes from wildfire,
flood and other related risks. For examples, the aging and
deteriorating state water infrastructure has created criti­
cal challenges for California to update and modernize
existing and new water infrastructure in water storage
and conveyance to adapt to changing climate conditions.
Developing climate‐safe infrastructure requires establish­
ing a strong bridge between the scientific and engineering
communities, as well as supportive public policy aligned
with the goals of resiliency. The CSIWG consisting of a
panel of scientists, engineers and architects provided rec­
ommendations on how to best incorporate forward‐
looking climate science and information into the state’s
infrastructure design.
The significant challenges in moving toward climate‐
safe infrastructure require profound shifts in values,
thinking, priority‐setting and policy commitments by
overcoming the following major barriers: informational
and knowledge, capacity/skills, attitudinal, political,
financial, legal/regulatory, and institutional barriers. The
CSIWG provided a vision of climate‐safe infrastructure
with a framework for actions and recommendations for
the climate‐safe path through mitigation and adaptation.
Key recommendations involved:
•• Establishing state policy and decision‐making process
for climate‐safe path.
•• Updating all relevant infrastructure standards and
guidelines.
•• Providing education and outreach to help policy
makers and the public better understand the true costs
over the full life‐cycle of infrastructure projects for
improving resilience.
•• Addressing the training and professional development
gaps of its infrastructure‐related workforce.
•• Coordinating and prioritizing climate‐safe path related
resilience policies and actions at the highest level.
•• Providing funding for climate science to support sci­
ence‐based decision‐making and related processes,
reducing or eliminating major barriers to the adop­
tion of state‐level climate safe infrastructure policy.
Implementing these recommendations could open new
opportunities for California to coordinate and collabo­
rate among scientists, engineers, architects, and policy‐
makers to develop climate‐safe infrastructure for climate
change adaptation and mitigation. Storage and convey­
ance of water play a major role in California water
management. A trend toward more rain than snow in the
total precipitation volume, and a decreasing total snow­
pack could affect one‐third of the state’s water supply.
Addressing these climate challenges is critical for long‐
term water infrastructure investment and system planning
to meet the increasing water needs for energy and food
production for sustainable ecosystem services.
8.5. SUMMARY
It is essential to address an array of climate change
challenges at regional levels to achieve overall SDG13
targets for global climate actions. Regional decisions and
practices in integrated management of water, energy,
food, and related ecosystems are critical steps to adapt
and mitigate global climate change impacts at local scales.
California cases provide examples for developing
approaches and practical applications of science and
policy to take actions for sustainable ecosystem services
in water, energy, food and the environment. Success
factors in these case studies involve leadership with pro­
active climate action plans and implementation to achieve
GHG reduction targets. Key recommendations from
these case studies include:
(i) Providing science and policy support for interdisci­
plinary research that is critical to develop the data­
base and tools for comprehensive analysis to fill
knowledge gaps at regional scales, address eco­
system service complexity and quantify the mul­
tiple benefits and tradeoffs for related natural
resource investment to meet integrated climate
action planning needs.
(ii) Providing financial and regulatory support as well
as incentives for local water agencies to collect
better data and information to support their cli­
mate actions and develop reports for energy used in
the water sector.
(iii) Promote cross‐sector climate actions and partner­
ships to take challenges and opportunities in eco­
system restoration and climate‐safe infrastructure for
multiple benefits in sustainable ecosystem services.
Overall, taking climate change leadership efforts from
the state and local water agencies, as indicated in the case
studies, puts California on a responsible path toward
138 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
helping the global community achieve the targets and
limiting global average warming to 2°C or less (1.5°C) by
the end of this century.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Contributions from Wyatt Arnold for the content, Jordi
Vasquez with information assistance and review efforts
from Fethi Benjemaa and David H. Schuler for this book
chapter are greatly appreciated. The management support
and reviews from John Andrew and Elissa Lynn in the cli­
mate change program of the California Department of
Water Resources are also appreciated.
REFERENCES
AB 12, (2009), Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta Reform Act.
AB 2800, Quirk, (2016). The Climate‐Safe Infrastructure bill.
AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2014, 2017);
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/
first_update_climate_change_scoping;
Endo, A; Oh, T., (2018). The Water‐Energy‐Food Nexus:
Human Environmental Security in the Asia‐Pacific Ring of
Fire. Singapore: Springer. PP1‐337.
Colucci, A., Magoni, M., Menoni, S., (2017), Peri‐Urban
Areas and Food‐Energy‐Water Nexus: Sustainability and
Resilience Strategies in the Age of Climate Change. Publisher:
Switzerland: Springer. PP 1–– 156.
Barnosky, AD, Brown, JH, Daily, GC, Dirzo, R, Ehrlich, AH,
Ehrlich, PR, Eronen, JT, Fortelius M, Hadly, EA, Leopold,
EB, Mooney, HA, Myers, JP, Naylor, RL, Palumbi, S, Stenseth,
NC, Wake MH. (2013), Scientific Consensus on Maintaining
Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century.
California Department of Water Resources (2012;2020)
Climate Action Plan—phase 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Plan (GGERP) and Update. https://water.
ca.gov/Programs/All‐Programs/Climate‐Change‐Program/
Climate‐Action‐Plan
California Department of Water Resources, (2017). Connecting
the Dots between Water, Energy, Food, and Ecosystems Issues
for Integrated Water Management in a Changing Climate.
California Department of Water resources, (2018a). State Water
Project, Clean Energy for California.
California Department of Water Resources. (2013a). California
Water Plan Update. http://www.water.ca.gov/waterplan/
cwpu2013/final/index.cfm.
California Department of Water Resources. (2015a).
“Perspectives and Guidance for Climate Change Analysis.”
California Department of Water Resources. (2015b). California
Climate Science and Data for Water Resources Management.
California Department of Water Resources. (2013b), The
Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning.
California Department of Water Resources.(2016), Final 2015
Urban Water Management Plans Guidebook for Urban
Water Suppliers.
California Department of Water Resources. (2018b). The
Sustainability Outlook: A Summary. “Water Plan Updates.”
Sacramento, CA
California Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Climate
Change Research Plan for California. https://research.
fit.edu/media/site‐specific/researchfitedu/coast‐climate‐
adaptation‐library/united‐states/west‐coast‐amp‐hawaix27i/
california‐‐‐statewide/Brown‐‐Rodriquez.‐‐May‐2015.‐‐
CAT‐Research‐Plan.pdf
California Natural Resources Agency, California Department
of Food and Agriculture, and California Environmental
Protection Agency. (2014, 2016). California Water Action
Plan, Update. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/california_water_
action_plan/Final_California_Water_Action_Plan.pdf.
California Natural Resources Agency (2018), >Climate‐Safe
Infrastructure Working Group, Paying it Forward: The Path Toward
Climate‐Safe Infrastructure in California. Report. Sacramento,
CA: CNRA, Publication number: CNRA‐CCA4‐CSI‐001.
CEC (2018), California’s Changing Climate, California’s
Fourth Climate Change Assessment, https://www.energy.
ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019‐11/Statewide_Reports‐SUM‐
CCCA4‐2018‐013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf
California Climate Tracker, https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/Tracker/
CA/.
Deverel, S., Jacobs, P., Lucero, C., Dore, S. and Kelsey,
T.R., (2017). Implications for Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions and Economics of a Changing Agricultural
Mosaic in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. San Francisco
Estuary and Watershed Science.
Drexler, J.Z., (2011). Peat Formation Processes Through the
Millennia in Tidal Marshes of the Sacramento–San Joaquin
Delta, California, USA. Estuaries and Coasts, 34(5), p.900.
IPCC (2014), Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pachauri RK
and Meyer LA, editors. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
IPCC Climate Report (2018), http://www.un.org/en/climate
change/un‐climate‐summit‐2019.shtml.
Liu Q. (2016). Interlinking Climate Change with Water‐Energy‐
Food Nexus and Related Ecosystem Processes in California
Case Studies. Ecological Processes, 5(1), 1–14.
Liu, Q. (2017), WEF Nexus Cases from California with Climate
Change Implication, in Water‐Energy‐Food Nexus: Theories
and Practices (Salam et al. Eds.), AGU Books, ScholarOne,
Wiley‐Blackwell. Pp 151–162.
Mount, J., Twiss, R., (2005), Subsidence, Sea Level Rise, and
Seismicity in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Permalink
Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 3(1).
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4k44725p
Miller, R. L., Fram, M., Fujii, R., Gail W. (2008), Subsidence
Reversal in a Re‐established Wetland in the Sacramento‐San
Joaquin Delta, California, USA,Journal San Francisco
Estuary and Watershed Science, 6(3). https://escholarship.
org/uc/item/5j76502x
O’Riordan, J., Sandford, R. W., Harford, D. (2015), The
Climate Nexus: Water, Food, Energy and Biodiversity. British
Columbia: Rocky Mountain Books, PP. 1–153.
Pierce, D.W., Daniel R. C., and Bridget L. T.r. (2014).
“Statistical Downscaling Using Localized Constructed
Analogs (LOCA)*.” 15 (6): 2558–85.
Pierce, D. W., Julie F. K., and Daniel R. C.. (2018). “Climate,
Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the Fourth
 CLIMATE ACTIONS AND CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 139
California Climate Assessment.” California’s Fourth Climate
Change Assessment. www.climateassessment.ca.gov.
Pitman SD, Daniels CB, Ely ME (2015) Green Infrastructure
as Life Support: Urban Nature and Climate Change. Trans R
Soc S Aust 139:97–112.
Pereira, L.M., McElroy, C., Littaye, A., Girard, A.M., (2018).
Food, Energy and Water Sustainability: Emergent Governance
Strategies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. PP 1–278.
Sonoma County Water Agency, (2015). Climate Vulnerability
Assessment and Adaptation Work Plan Work Plan. https://
evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/185/media/159712.pdf
Sonoma County Water Agency, (2015a), Urban Water
Management Plan.
Sonoma County Water Agency, (2015b). Climate Vulnerability
Assessment and Adaptation Work Plan. https://evogov.
s3.amazonaws.com/185/media/159712.pdf
San Diego City (2015), Urban Water Management Plan.
Swatuk, L.A., Cash, C., (2018). Water, Energy, Food and
People Across the Global South: ’the Nexus’ in an Era of
Climate Change. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan,
PP. 1–13.
Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.‐K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K.
Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.‐M. Bréon, et al. (2013). Technical
Summary in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Taniguchi M, Allen D, Gurdak J (2013) Optimizing the Water‐
Energy‐Food Nexus in the Asia‐Pacific Ring of Fire, Eos,
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union., p 47.
The San Diego County Water Authority, (2015), Climate
Action Plan.The United Nations Sustainable Development
Goal 13 (SDG13), (2015): Take Urgent Action to Combat
Climate Change and its Impacts. https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/climate‐change‐2/.
Zhang, X., Li, HY., Deng, ZD., Ringler, C., Gao, Y. (2018),
Impacts of Climate Change, Policy and Water‐Energy‐Food
Nexus on Hydropower Development. Renewable Energy,
v116 (201802): Part A, 827‐834.
Work Plan. https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/185/media/159712.pdf
 9
Monitoring and Accountability Frameworks for SDG 6:
The Role of Civil Society Organisations
Catarina Fonseca1 and Laura van de Lande1

ABSTRACT

This chapter discusses the results of a review of accountability mechanisms for holding governments account-
able to achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 on clean water and sanitation in 25 countries. The
data was collected and validated involving more than 1000 people from governmental and non‐state organisa-
tions. This chapter summarizes the findings from country reports focusing on examples from the Asian
countries.
The study provides insights on the limited existing in‐country accountability mechanisms and their func-
tioning, resulting in evidence for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and governments to find more effective
ways to hold service providers accountable for reaching SDG6 targets. The study concludes with a summary of
what is currently working well and what needs to be urgently addressed for meaningful reporting on implemen-
tation and progress towards SDG 6 targets.

9.1. CONTEXT: ACCOUNTABILITY, HUMAN
RIGHTS, AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
GOALS FRAMEWORK
Accountability is one of the pillars of human rights – it
is a key principle that explains who is accountable (the
government as primary duty‐bearer) to whom (the citi-
zens as rights‐holders) and for what (human rights to
water and sanitation). All United Nations (UN) member
States have recognized the human rights to water and
sanitation by supporting one or more international docu-
ments, such as treaties, resolutions or declarations1. This
means that the rights to water and sanitation are enforce-
able: moving access to water and sanitation from a matter
of charity into a legal obligation.
The most remarkable difference between access to
water and sanitation in the human rights framework
compared to the goals and targets related to water and
1
IRC, The Hague, The Netherlands
sanitation in the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)
framework (UNGA, 2015) is based on the legal nature of
the former and the political nature of the latter. The
human rights framework consists of legal obligations,
enforceable in front of courts and other judicial mecha-
nisms, whereas the Sustainable Development Agenda is
based on political commitments. The former consists of
laws and principles, whereas the latter consists of targets
to be reached.
Various human rights mechanisms exist that collect
large amounts of information and issue recommenda-
tions on many targets of SDG 6. These mechanisms
include the Universal Periodic Review, the treaty bodies,
and special procedures that collect information that can
be used for SDG reporting. Also, at the national level
there are human rights institutions and ombudspersons
of which resources and capacities may prove to be useful
for accountability purposes under the SDG6.
The commitments of the SDG framework are political.
Nonetheless, they have been agreed at the highest level,
and it is therefore not an “optional extra” for states

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

141
142 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
(German and Randall, 2017). The SDGs are not legally
binding, so accountability is not exercised in a similar
way as in the human rights framework. However, there
may be ways to hold governments to account within
national and international judicial and quasi‐judicial
mechanisms, particularly where the targets overlap with
international human rights or national legal guarantees.
At the national level, governments need to translate the
SDG commitments into practical plans and policies and
provide political direction. They must further be account-
able for this towards their citizens and provide for effec-
tive and meaningful means for individuals and civil
society to scrutinise progress and influence decisions.
9.1.1. Accountability Mechanisms: Definitions
The definition of accountability differs across branches
and disciplines. Mostly however, accountability refers to
the obligation of relevant authorities to take responsi-
bility for their commitments and actions, be answerable
to the people affected by these, and be subject to a thor-
ough monitoring process and to some form of enforce-
able measures if progress is lacking (OHCHR, 2013). In
other words; accountability means those who are respon-
sible accept responsibility for their actions and omissions
and accept that they are called upon to give an account of
why and how they have acted or failed to act, and adjust
their policies and actions accordingly.
More than just seeking to correct past wrongs,
accountability is forward‐looking, seeking to influence
government actions in the future. For the commitments
made under the Sustainable Development Agenda this
means that accountability is aimed at making government
actions more responsive to the SDG6 targets and the
needs of citizens.
National accountability mechanisms come in many
shapes and forms. Every country has its own set of insti-
tutional structures and mechanisms to implement, keep
track of, and ensure accountability for the achievement
of water and sanitation targets (UNDP/UNICEF, 2015).
This study explores specifically the mechanisms avail-
able for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) to hold the
government accountable for the commitments made
under SDG6. CSOs are voluntary organisations with gov-
ernance and direction coming from citizens or constitu-
ency members, without significant government‐controlled
participation or representation (Pearce, 2000). Examples
include village associations, environmental groups, youth
groups, women’s rights groups, farmers associations, etc.
CSOs do not include business or for‐profit associations.
In this study “effective accountability mechanisms” are
considered to be mechanisms that are transparent, engage
stakeholders, facilitate and encourage critical reflection
on progress and lesson learning, and are responsive to
issues addressed by stakeholders. The results of account-
ability mechanisms must be made publicly available in
progress reports, and information must be easily acces-
sible to everyone, and governments follow up the results
from these progress reports in a structural manner.
9.1.2. Accountability mechanisms under
the Sustainable Development Agenda
Negotiations about accountability mechanisms at the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were tense, and
eventually led to the use of “follow‐up and review”
instead of the phrase “monitoring and accountability” in
its outcome document. States are often reluctant to com-
mit to strong accountability mechanisms. The account-
ability mechanisms for international commitments are of
a voluntary nature, and viewed by many as not trans-
parent, unfit for purpose tick‐box exercises, overbearing
and in some cases competitive amongst themselves,
leading to duplication of work (Donald and Way, 2016).
Several initiatives in the water and sanitation sector
encourage the setting up of global, regional and national
accountability mechanisms to oversee the implementa-
tion of international political commitments, including
the WHO/UNICEF Joint Sector Programme (2017),
Joint Sector Reviews (Danert, 2016), Sanitation and
Water For All Partnership, and the Voluntary National
Reviews (UNDESA. 2019) at the UN High Level Political
Forum2 (HLPF).
9.1.3. Civil Society Participation in Accountability
Mechanisms
Each year, the HLPF, as the main United Nations
platform on sustainable development, has a central role
in reviewing progress towards achieving the SDGs. Its
voluntary national reviews (VNRs) aim to facilitate the
sharing of experiences, including successes, challenges,
and lessons learned. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development however provides little detail on the HLPF
accountability structure.
Although states acknowledge the role of CSOs in the
implementation of the Agenda, promote civil society
partnerships and state that follow‐up and review processes
shall be “open, inclusive, participatory and transparent
for all people and will support reporting by all relevant
stakeholders”, there are no concrete procedures outlined
for monitoring and reporting by civil society, and there is
no official procedure for an assessment of a state’s
performance to be taken into account (UNGA, 2015:
paragraph 41). Due to this voluntary nature of reviews as
well as their sole reliance on governments’ report-
ing – without review by civil society – the 2015 outcome
document raises questions in terms of accountability.
 MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS FOR SDG 6
The 2016 HLPF session’s Ministerial Declaration did
address the importance of participatory and inclusive
implementation, follow‐up and review. Although
acknowledging the primary responsibilities of govern-
ments in this regard, the declaration also acknowledges
the contribution of relevant stakeholders such as civil
society, academia and philanthropic organisations. It
states that “their participation supports accountability to
our citizens” (UNESC, 2016: paragraph 15).
The most recent 2017 Ministerial Declaration empha-
sizes the need to communicate the SDGs at all levels for
the purpose of effective implementation and account-
ability (UNESC, 2017: paragraph 28). Nevertheless, stan-
dards for institutionalized participation of civil society at
the review processes have never been set. There are no
concrete modalities set out for independent civil society
monitoring, data collection, and progress assessment and
reporting.
The lack of strong accountability guidelines for review
and participation of civil society at the HLPF makes it
even more critical for CSOs to use national level account-
ability mechanisms. Civil society plays a crucial role in
verifying and validating governments’ monitoring out-
comes, but also in generating data themselves through
innovative ways (de Albuquerque and Roaf, 2012 pp 190–
1). This better reflects the needs and challenges faced by
people who are often excluded from government reviews.
It also provides for alternative data on water, wastewater,
and ecosystem resources, which reflects realities faced by
people on the ground.
Gathering evidence through monitoring can moreover
be used to influence the political agenda, steering
development priorities aiming to close the development
gap between areas and groups of people, and fast‐tracked
for those furthest behind (Sriskandarajah, 2018).
9.2. STUDY METHODOLOGY
AND FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS
The data and information collected for this chapter
took place between September 2017 and March 2018 and
involved stakeholders including governments (national
and decentralized), CSOs, non‐governmental organisa-
tions (NGOs), development partners, UN agencies,
research and education institutions, think‐tanks, founda-
tions, and others.
The study focused on 25 countries (low, middle, and
high income) across Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri
Lanka), Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana,
Guinee Conakry, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal,
Tanzania, and Togo) and Latin America (Costa Rica,
Honduras, and Mexico). There were also two European
countries (France and The Netherlands). These were the
143
countries where groups of non‐government stakeholders
have committed to the global Terms of Reference and the
timeline of the research.
For each country participating in this study, a local
organisation and lead researcher has been identified to
implement a standard methodology:
•• Development of a detailed TOR for each step of the
research and for each of the outputs.
•• Consultation of existing databases and reports and
review of policy documents (secondary sources).
•• Selection of stakeholders to contact.
•• A questionnaire (online survey) send to all stake-
holder representatives. The majority of the countries
(21) have more than 20 respondents to the online
questionnaires. In some countries the online question-
naires were printed and filled in on paper or by email
and then filled in online by the lead researcher.
•• In‐depth interviews with representatives of selected
stakeholders (including government and other rele-
vant actors).
•• Formulation of a two‐page document per country
summarising the findings.
•• A focus group discussion (FGD) with relevant stake-
holders was conducted in each country for validation
of results and further assess the preliminary research
results.
An in‐depth report was formulated by the focal points
in each country containing all findings, conclusions, and
recommendations. The 25 country reports have been
further summarized into one report (Van de Lande and
Fonseca, 2018).
More than 1000 people were consulted. The study team
put full efforts to ensure diversity and representation of
stakeholders to be consulted for the study for each of the
countries (see Figure 9.1).
This chapter summarises the findings from the country
reports focusing on examples from the Asian countries
selected for this publication.
9.3. FINDINGS
9.3.1. Responsibilities for Monitoring SDG6
Most country reports in this study have indicated that
responsibilities for SDG6 implementation, monitoring,
and reporting are allocated across a range of different
ministries, through the establishment of parliamentary
committees, or dedicated independent bodies.
Governmental ministries tasked with the implementa-
tion and monitoring of SDG6 include ministries of
Climate, Economy, Health, Education, Environment, and
Energy, among others. Some of the reviewed g­ overnments
have dedicated a special department within a ministry
144 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Local Non - Governmental Organisation
Government (national level)
International NGO or Think Tank
Local Civil Society Organisation
Development partner or UN agency
Research or education institution
Government (municipal, provincial,
regional or district level)
Private Sector
Foundation
Media
Individual
Other
Figure 9.1 Respondents per type of organisation.
Box 9.1 Examples of responsibilities for monitoring and reporting on SDG6
In Afghanistan, the Ministry of Economy (MoEc) is
charged by the government to coordinate, assess, mon-
itor and report the SDGs progress to the HLPF meeting
through a specific coordination mechanism.
In Bangladesh, the General Economic Division
(GED) is the focal point of HLPF reporting. The
Division also performs as the Secretariat of the SDG
Coordination Cell (responsible for monitoring national
progress on SDGs) formed under the Prime Minister’s
Office (PMO).
In Nepal, three high‐level committees have been for-
mulated to help the implementation of the SDGs in
Nepal. A steering committee is chaired by the Prime
Minister; a coordination committee is chaired by the
Vice Chairman of the National Planning Commission
(NPC) and nine thematic committees headed by NPC
tasked with monitoring and reporting on the implementa-
tion of SDG6, and in a number of countries independent
institutions or committees are appointed and tasked with
reporting on SDG6. These are often chaired by high‐level
officials. Some examples are described in Box 9.1.
At the time of this study, some countries were still in
the process of defining and establishing clear processes
and responsibility to report on SDGs. In Bangladesh, the
government was in discussion on how to establish a pro-
cess for reporting on SDG6 apart from the already
21%
18%
17%
16%
7%
7%
6%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Members. The NPC is an advisory body of the
government of Nepal, tasked with overall planning and
progress reporting of the SDGs and serves as a central
agency for monitoring and evaluating development
plans, policies, and programmes.
In the Netherlands, accountability is well organized
around national water policies, the EU Water
Framework Directive, Kaderrichtlijn Water and through
different water boards and private sector companies:
such as VEWIN for drinking water, the Dutch Water
Authorities – Unie van Waterschappen (UVW) – for
water quality and IWRM plus Rioned for sewerage.
There is either low awareness of SDG6 mechanisms for
national progress, or when participation is facilitated,
mechanisms around SDG6 are seen as having little
added value above existing water sector processes.
established process to report on overall SDGs while
Bhutan was still in the process of defining and establish-
ing clear processes and responsibility to report on SDGs.
9.3.2. Data Availability for Monitoring and Reporting
on SDG6
There are few countries with special departments,
independent bodies, or committees tasked with SDG6
monitoring and reporting purposes. In Nepal, there is a
 MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS FOR SDG 6
Box 9.2 Country examples on challenges with data availability
In Afghanistan, there is lack of one single plan for
SDG6, as well as a monitoring framework for WASH
services at the national level. The study from Afghanistan
concluded that there is little awareness of SDGs in
Afghanistan at both the level of government and other
actors.
In India, data sets need to be aligned with what is
required for tracking the progress of each SDG indicator
(e.g. safely managed water or sanitation). Presently,
groundwater availability is counted as “safely managed
water” without undertaking water quality tests.
However, multiple studies show that groundwater is
contaminated in many places around the country.
Similarly, while the data on total wastewater generated
and total capacity of sewage treatment plants and
common effluent treatment plants is collected by
Central Pollution Control Board, capacity utilization
data is available for only some plants. Therefore, an
National Monitoring and Information Program (NMIP)
unit under the Department of Water and Sewerage,
Ministry of Water and Sanitation for collecting and ana-
lyzing progress data regarding water and sanitation and a
system to compile data on annual basis.
Given the challenges with data availability, in many
countries global monitoring instruments are being used
for national reporting purposes, in the absence of or com-
plementing, data collected in country. For instance, in
Pakistan, a monitoring and reporting tool for SDG tar-
gets 6.1 and 6.3 is prepared by the World Health
Organization (WHO) and is being tested by the Ministry
of Climate Change (MoCC) to use it in future. In Sri
Lanka, a regional workshop was conducted by the JMP
for SDGs in May 2017 and requested the countries in the
region to establish the baseline for SDGs. A report was
prepared to update the status on basis of projections and
taking into account the increased access of pipe water
connections provided by National Water Supply and
Drainage Board (NWSDB) and others. This was shared
with key stakeholders as the baseline for SDGs.
The Sustainable Development Agenda requires a new
set of indicators and enhanced ways for monitoring
progress. Some of the country studies indicated that their
governments (sometimes in consultation with different
stakeholders) are conducting a gap‐analysis to examine
what data is currently covered by monitoring and report-
ing mechanisms and which new indicators with
corresponding data collection mechanisms are needed to
fill the data gap and bring monitoring more in line with
the SDG Agenda. There is generally an interest in align-
ing country monitoring indicators with global indicators,
145
estimation of the proportion of wastewater treated and
wastewater reused is not possible. There are no data sets
available for handwashing as none of the surveys col-
lects data on this indicator. With the frequency of large
surveys varying from five to 10 years, the data becomes
outdated by the time it becomes available in the public
domain.
In Sri Lanka, the sector will continue with the report-
ing structure and protocols established
During the Millennium Development Goals period.
The latest national‐level data on population access to
water and sanitation was estimated based on the
national census that was conducted in 2012. Since the
next National Census will be conducted in 2021, the
data and information on the informal water and sanita-
tion, particularly the population using protected wells,
unprotected wells, tube wells and other sources, will not
be available until 2021.
but country governments have difficulties in aligning
processes and indicators that serve different purposes and
needs (see Box 9.2 with country examples).
Half of the country studies reported that governments
are in the process of developing new monitoring systems
tasked with monitoring the SDGs, some countries
mention the development of a new monitoring system for
SDG6 specifically and for data collection. Sometimes,
these mechanisms are based upon new technologies for
monitoring, and based on new sets of indicators. This is
the case for Bangladesh and India.
In Bangladesh, the government is preparing a macro
level data repository system (SDGs Tracker) to facilitate
the results based monitoring system within the
government. A data gap analysis for monitoring SDGs
has also been conducted, which identified that data for
only 70 indicators is readily available (out of 232) in the
existing data generating system of Bangladesh. In India,
the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
(MoSPI) has developed draft indicators for all SDGs,
including for the targets of SDG6, which, at the time of
the study, were yet to be finalized. Once national indica-
tors are final, the Development Monitoring Cell of NITI
Aayog plans to undertake outcome monitoring of SDGs
and an SDG indicator dashboard is being established by
the MoSPI.
9.3.3. Tracking who is being left behind
The 2030 Agenda emphasizes that “no one should be
left behind”; therefore, to monitor progress in this regard,
it is important that the data can be disaggregated to
146 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Box 9.3 Examples on challenges to track who is being left behind

In Afghanistan, data is often incomplete and of variable
quality with reliance on periodic household surveys. As
the quality, completeness and timeliness of facility data
improves, the gap between routine and survey data is
likely to narrow. Data collection often excludes popula-
tions and disaggregation of data remains limited.
In Nepal, data covers physical progress only, which is
inadequate in the context of newer smart technical
options and the broad requirements envisioned by the
SDGs.
In India, the indicator framework was placed in the
public domain in March 2017 for wider consultation.
CSOs provided collated feedback on 7 April 2017 after
a thorough review. Major suggestions centred around
inclusion of marginalized groups and the use of disag-
gregated data to set priorities. Although there is real‐
time update of the MIS at the national level, it does not
reflect disaggregated data for marginalized communities
or data based on age, gender, caste, disability, etc.
Disaggregated data, though available, is not analyzed
for decision‐making purposes or prioritisation. The
Management Information System (MIS) reflects only
numbers and there are no qualitative studies; data is not
enough to inform the degree of persisting discrimination.
Public consultations and community‐based monitoring
systems need to be constituted to ensure last‐mile
inclusion of the marginalized.

i­ndicate where, when, how, and at whom to target inter- Table 9.1 Results of the online survey to the question: “Does
ventions. The study found that countries are not collect- your government provide account to sector stakeholders
ing data that allows tracking progress on those being left on progress towards the targets of SDG6?”
behind, even though it is recognized as a priority in some I don’t
countries. See Box 9.3 with illustrative examples. SDG6 target know No Yes
6.1.1 on drinking water 19% 12% 69%
9.3.4. Third Party Validation of Data on SDG6 6.2.1 on sanitation and hygiene 19% 12% 69%
6.3.1 on wastewater treatment 39% 27% 34%
In many countries, there are no procedures in place that 6.3.2 on ambient water quality 39% 23% 38%
guarantee third party validation of data. In Afghanistan, 6.4.1 on water use efficiency 40% 27% 33%
the absence of independent monitoring potentially 6.4.2 on water stress 46% 25% 29%
undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the processes. 6.5.1 on integrated water resources 32% 20% 48%
In India, the third party verification process for data is management
neither transparent nor regular. In India, the 2017 VNR 6.5.2 on transboundary 48% 23% 30%
was prepared in a far less participatory manner, and the cooperation
6.6.1 on water‐related ecosystems 46% 24% 30%
report was made online available only a few days before
6.a.1 on international cooperation 39% 19% 42%
the HLPF review. In Pakistan, there are no forums to dis-
6.b.1 on stakeholder participation 34% 20% 46%
cuss data results in the reports from the Pakistan Social
and Living Standard Measurements (PSLM) and
Multiple Cluster Indicator Survey (MCIS). each of the SDG6 targets. Survey respondents have indi-
Some country studies state that stakeholders are able to cated that such mechanisms are mostly available for the
verify government reporting on SDG6 progress, or to targets and indicators for 6.1. on drinking water and 6.2.
play a role in data collection and results monitoring for on sanitation and hygiene (Table 9.1). The results of the
SDG6. This include Bangladesh, Kenya, Maldives, online questionnaires show the same results as the
Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Togo. country reports. The results are also similar when the
analysis is done per region.
9.3.5. Accountability Mechanisms for SDG6 The country studies that have included references to
accountability mechanisms for individual targets of
Many country studies indicate that accountability SDG6 include Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Mexico,
mechanisms for SDG6 specifically are not available or are Netherlands, Pakistan, and Togo.
unknown. Country studies however do outline mecha- Accountability mechanisms brought forward in the
nisms and tools that can be used for holding government countries studies include government‐led ones such as:
actors accountable for SDG6. monitoring mechanisms, working groups and national
Accountability mechanisms mentioned are used for meetings, independent committees, joint sector reviews,
SDG6 generally or for national plans and policies that democratic systems and parliamentary reviews, consulta-
implement commitments to Agenda 2030, but not for tions and open budget discussions.
 MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS FOR SDG 6
Box 9.4 Accountability for human rights to water and sanitation within SDG 6 in Kenya
The Kenyan country study explains that the Constitution
of Kenya 2010 has placed a human right obligation to
ensure every person in Kenya has the right to clean water
in adequate quantities and to reasonable standards of
sanitation. This therefore calls for key actors in the water
and sanitation sector to put in place plans, systems, and
mechanisms to achieve gradual realisation of universal
access to water and sanitation. Accountability to this is
key in ensuring that the government institutions,
development partners deliver their promise and commit-
ments to the citizens and to achieve the targets of both
SDGs and Kenya Vision 2030.
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights
(KNCHR) is an autonomous national institution with
There were also accountability mechanisms initiated by
CSOs such as National events and conferences used to
share information and lessons learned and building
capacity for holding government accountable for the
SDG6 commitments. These types of gatherings serve to
exchange information and learning, and to join forces for
advocacy and reviewing purposes. For instance, in
Bangladesh, pre‐budget consultations organized by CSOs
create space where CSOs can convey sector demand from
grassroots to policy makers. Participants of these events
represent multiple groups including government officials,
academia, business sector and media, along with civil
society. CSOs try multiple channels to both involve the
government and enhance its accountability, including
collective advocacy through platforms, such as the
Citizen’s Platform for SDGs, through holding policy dia-
logues, conducting and disseminating policy research,
lobbying, orientation to grassroots communities on
raising questions in local government forums.
Some of the country studies have referred to networks
of civil society organizations as a means to more effectively
hold their governments to account for reaching SDG6 tar-
gets. These networks consist of many different organiza-
tions, of different sizes and functioning at different levels.
Networks usually appoint spokespersons or lead organisa-
tions that are tasked to represent the voices of all their
members. Governments tend to meaningfully consult these
network organisations as they consist of so many unified
stakeholders. CSO networks therefore usually have bigger
influencing capacities than smaller, stand‐alone CSOs.
Publicly accessible reports written by civil society on
the implementation or progress on SDG6 are regarded as
important accountability tools. Less commonly used,
“shadow reports” provide an alternative view in response
to the release of government’s own reports. Civil society
also initiates research and reports with a thematic focus,
147
the constitutional mandate to monitor, investigate, and
advise the nation on matters of human rights, including
the right to water and sanitation. KNHRC is a member of
the national steering committee for SDG6 reporting, and
carried out monitoring of the realisation of the right to
water and sanitation in Kenya. Therefore, this Commission
forms a very important avenue for accountability that can
hold the government accountable on delivery of the
promises on access to water and sanitation especially as
per the SDG6 indicators. Also, Kenya CSOs Network
(KEWASNET) serves as an accountability mechanism
that checks the government’s performance on delivering
its promises on rights to access to water and adequate san-
itation and compiles the annual CSO sector report.
to inform and alert the public on pressing issues. This
way, people as well as the government are made aware of
policy gaps and failures as well as good practices in
achieving the targets under SDG6. There are also various
ways for civil society to hold government financially
accountable. These include: social audits, in which the
accuracy of government financial records is reviewed,
public expenditure tracking exercises, and citizens report
cards, which assess the level of people’s satisfaction.
However, many of the mechanisms put forward lack
the criteria required to be considered effective account-
ability mechanisms and few countries indicate complaint,
grievance, and enforcement mechanisms (only the Kenya
and the Mali studies make reference to enforcement
mechanisms).
Few countries use human rights mechanisms to hold
government accountable for SDG6 (see Box 9.4 for the
example from Kenya). Various human rights mechanisms
exist that collect large amounts of information and issue
recommendations on many of the SDG6 targets. These
mechanisms include the Universal Periodic Review (UPR),
the treaty bodies, and special procedures that collect
information that could be fed into SDG reporting. Also at
the national level there are human rights institutions and
ombudsmen of which resources and capacities may prove
to be useful for accountability purposes under the SDG6.
9.4. DISCUSSION
9.4.1. Good Practices
Country studies have pointed out that participation of
CSOs in accountability mechanisms led the government
to increase attention on SDG6. It helped to put SDG6
issues on the political agenda and increase corresponding
resource allocations.
148 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Participation of CSOs in accountability mechanisms
leads to better insights, and improved access to
information on government commitments, policies, plans
and progress on SDG6. In India, participation of CSOs
leads to government officials increasingly making data
available in public domain. In Bhutan, participation has
helped raise more awareness and accountability by use of
social media and many other informal channels.
Country studies also indicated that participation helps
to inform and create more awareness among people and
organizations on the issues regarding SDG6. There is
increased information and awareness creation among
civil society and increased learning and sharing of good
practices on implementation of SDG6.
Country studies indicated that effective accountability
mechanisms create better and more effective ways for the
collection of data and monitoring results on SDG6. A
number of country studies have indicated that civil
society participation leads to improved progress moni-
toring. This is sometimes due to the fact that civil society
puts pressure on governments to inform them of progress
(and therefore effective monitoring by the government is
required), or due to civil society’s own initiatives to col-
lect data themselves for the purpose of progress
monitoring.
Some country studies referred to participatory experi-
ences that lead to adjustments in government policy mak-
ing and action. Accountability mechanisms that allow for
scrutinising the effectiveness of policies on SDG6 can
lead to policy adjustments or new priorities in policy
making. For instance, in Afghanistan, there was partici-
pation of NGOs/INGOs and CSOs in the revision of
WASH policy 2016: the WASH policy 2010 has been
revised in 2016 to bring in line the WASH services in rural
areas. The Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and
Development (MRRD) invited the NGOs, INGOS and
CSOs to WASH coordination meetings to know their
feedbacks and comments for revision of WASH policy.
Sometimes, CSOs were able to increase the govern-
ment’s priorities and focus on marginalized areas, grass-
roots communities, and vulnerable groups, in line with
their commitments under SDG6. This was the case in
Bangladesh, where pre‐budget consultation with the
government and other stakeholders, creates space for a
bottom up approach, from grassroots to policy makers.
In Bhutan, participation has also played an important
role in reaching out to the most vulnerable, neglected sec-
tions of the society through data, information sharing,
and raising awareness and issues. It has helped mobilize
smaller but more focused targeted interventions and it
calls for the sector agencies to be more inclusive.
CSOs indicated that partnership between civil society,
government, and other stakeholders including, for
example, service providers, communities, private sectors,
and academia is strengthened when stakeholders partici-
pate in accountability mechanisms. It has also led to an
improved coordination among stakeholders and more
clarity and awareness of roles and responsibilities, at both
the level of government and civil society.
9.4.2. Main Challenges
Most country studies indicate that their governments
are still struggling to implement their commitments from
the 2030 Agenda and SDG6 specifically in their national
framework of plans, policies, and regulations. Monitoring
is hindered by the lack of a baseline, and the indicator
system used is often outdated and needs to be adjusted.
Progress monitoring is often limited, which in turn forms
a barrier to effective accountability mechanisms.
The SDGs emphasise that we must “leave no‐one
behind” and yet in most surveyed countries data is incom-
plete, inadequate and not disaggregated enough to allow
for tracking progress on reaching the most marginalised
groups (i.e. the poorest, indigenous groups, refugees, and
the elderly).
Some country studies indicate that there is limited
opportunity for CSOs to verify or provide data on
progress and this forms a barrier to the effectiveness of
existing accountability mechanisms. Very often there are
no systematic mechanisms in place to gather data,
information, or feedback from nongovernmental
stakeholders.
The level of meaningful participation in accountability
mechanisms differs widely across different types of stake-
holders. Generally, development partners have good
access to the government. They also seem to play impor-
tant roles in the development of indicator systems as well
as provision of data for monitoring. Together with larger
(international) NGOs they play major roles in the organi-
sation of sector events and are directly consulted by the
government. Unlike national or local CSOs, these inter-
national organizations are most able to provide direct
feedback, comments, or advise the governments in their
national reporting processes.
Country studies have indicated that the governments’
commitments on SDG6 remain a topic at the national
level only and are not being implemented and monitored
at the local level. His is the same for accountability mech-
anisms. Participatory meetings are often organized at the
central level only.
Besides lack of resources dedicated to the participation
of CSOs in accountability mechanisms, country studies
also indicated that states do not allocate enough budget
for SDG6 implementation or for the development of
accountability mechanisms. Civil society has indicated
too often that they face financial difficulties, which forms
a barrier to effective participation in accountability
 MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS FOR SDG 6
mechanisms. Country studies indicate that the government
and development partners should invest more in funding
civil society organisations so they are able to perform
their roles adequately. A few country studies also indicate
that organisations themselves should put more effort into
fundraising opportunities or that they should try to be
more independent from international NGOs and
governments.
Some country studies report a lack of awareness,
knowledge and capacity among CSOs on what moni-
toring implementation of SDG6 actually means and
there is lack of coordination and confusion about roles,
responsibilities, and mandates regarding SDG6.
9.5. CONCLUSIONS
The results of the study show that each country has its
own set of challenges and opportunities in adopting
monitoring and accountability frameworks for SDG 6.
The examples clearly illustrate best practices across dif-
ferent countries and the important role of civil society
organisations. The examples can be used as a guide for
those countries which are still struggling with appropriate
monitoring frameworks for SDG 6.
From many country studies, the main conclusion is
that there is little awareness on SDG6 generally, as well as
on the implementation and monitoring processes. The
first step is therefore to assign clear roles and responsibil-
ities in implementation and monitoring of SDG6 by
government actors. As a result, CSOs can then become
aware whom to approach in order to establish dialogue or
advocate on the issues important to the sector.
In parallel, it is important to also increase the level of
awareness among the public and CSOs on SDG 6 with
more transparency and sharing of information by the
government. By allowing stakeholders to view all plans
and policies regarding SDG6, as well as progress made by
the government in reaching its targets, CSOs and other
stakeholders will be better equipped to assist and support
their governments.
The present mechanisms available to hold government
to account are not officially or legally established.
Without an official legal basis, the government and other
stakeholders do not have sufficient incentives to organize
meaningful accountability mechanisms and outcomes of
meetings risk not being seriously taken into account.
Often, consultations take place on a sporadic basis, with
no obligation to involve stakeholders. Formalized stake-
holder meetings ensure that these are organized regularly,
giving participants the opportunity to prepare and orga-
nize meaningful contributions.
From many of the in‐depth country‐studies it emerges
that participation in accountability mechanisms is by invi-
tation only and there is often no room for smaller NGOs/
149
CSOs and people from marginalized groups to take part
in consultations as they are not invited and/or do not have
their voices represented. Ensuring that consultations are
inclusive is a responsibility of both governments and
CSOs that already have access to the consultations.
However, being present at meetings is not enough.
Relationship between the governments and non‐state
actors are structured in such a way that criticism can be
taken as an assault – making it difficult for CSOs to pro-
vide their inputs and feedback. Mechanisms need to be in
place that safeguard the consideration of civil society’s
contributions to meetings. CSOs contributions need to be
taken adequately into account by the government.
Concluding, country studies indicate that participatory
accountability mechanisms have the potential to increase
political attention and funding for SDG6. Moreover, it
leads to capacity building within government for imple-
mentation of SDG6. Participation in accountability
mechanisms can also lead to better and more effective
ways for the collection of data and monitoring practices,
which can successfully influence government policy mak-
ing, and an increased attention on marginalized areas,
grassroots communities, and vulnerable groups.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the country
consultants that collected the data in each of the coun-
tries. Namely: Azizurrahman Rafiee, Amitabha
Bhattacharjee, Arnauld Adjagodo, Phurpa Thinley,
Sylvestre Tiemtoré, Beaudelin Nguegang, Vanessa
Dubois, Ibrahima Sory Sylla, Hamza Mahama, Sandra
Metayer, Omar Nuñez, Saroj Tucker, Francis Wadegu,
and Assad Ibrahim Tolo. Additionally, the authors would
like to thank the reviewers that accompanied the design,
implementation, and validation of findings. Namely: Al‐
hassan Adam, Yemisi Akpa, Bari, Heloise Chicou, John
Garrett, Oli Henman, Ceridwen Johnson, Snehalatha
Mekala, Stuart Kempster, Wilhelmina Malima, Sandra
Metayer, Hannah Nuemeyer, Essoklnam Pedessi,
Nathalie Seguin Tovar, Ibrahima Sory, Erma Uytewaal,
and Elynn Walter.
NOTES
1 Legal basis of the human right to water and sanitation: Article
3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; Article 11,
para.1 and 12 (1) the International Covenant on Economic
Social and Cultural Rights, 1966a; Article 6 (1) of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966b;
the Convention on the elimination of discrimination against
women (1979); the Convention on the rights of the child
(1989), the General Comment on the right to water (2003), the
Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (2007)
150 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
explicitly refer to the rights. All resolutions in which states rec-
ognise the human rights to water and sanitation deriving from
the above treaties can be accessed here in several languages:
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/WaterAndSanitation/
SRWater/Pages/Resolutions.aspx
2 The High-level Political Forum, United Nations central
platform for follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development
Goals, provides for the full and effective participation of all
States Members of the United Nations and States members
of specialized agencies.
REFERENCES
de Albuquerque, C. and Roaf, V. (2012) On the right track.
Good practices in realising the 603 rights to water and sanita-
tion. UNESCO WWAP
Danert, K. (2016) Effective Joint Sector Reviews for Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene. A Study and Guidance. World Bank
Group’s Water Global Practice
Donald, K., and Way, S. (2016). Accountability for the
Sustainable Development Goals: A Lost Opportunity? Ethics
and International Affairs, 30(2), 201–213.
German, T. and Randall J. (2017) Delivering Results to Leave No
One Behind. A discussion paper for the Results Community
OECD Workshop, 19 September 2017. Development Initiatives
Pearce, J. (2000) Development, NGOs and civil society. Oxfam
GB. Oxford.
Sriskandarajah, D. (2018). A People’s Agenda: Citizen
Participation and the SDGs. In: R. Desai, H. Kato, H. Kharas,
and J. McArthur. (Eds.), From Summits to Solutions: Innovations
in Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 302–
317). Washington, D.C.: 614 Brookings Institution Press.
UNDP Water Governance Facility/UNICEF (2015) WASH
and Accountability: Explaining the Concept. Accountability
for Sustainability Partnership: UNDP Water Governance
Facility at SIWI and UNICEF. Stockholm and New York
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR) (2003), General Comment No. 15: The Right to
Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant), 20 January 2003,
E/C.12/2002/11
UN DESA (2019) Handbook for the preparation of Voluntary
National Reviews. The 2019 Edition. Department of
Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations.
UN Economic and Social Council (2016) Ministerial declaration
of the high‐level segment of the 2016 session “Implementing
the post‐2015 development agenda: moving from commit-
ments to results” and “Ensuring that no one is left behind” 29
July 2016, E/HLS/2016/1
UN Economic and Social Council. (2017) High‐level seg-
ment: ministerial meeting of the high‐level political forum
on sustainable development. 14 July 2017, E/2017/L.29–E/
HLPF/2017/L.2
UN General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III)
UN General Assembly (1966a) International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966,
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3.
UN General Assembly (1966b) International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations,
Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171.
UN General Assembly (1979), Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December
1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13
UN General Assembly (1989), Convention on the Rights of the
Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol.
1577, p. 3.
UN General Assembly (2007), Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities: resolution / adopted by the General
Assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106.
UN General Assembly (2015), Transforming our world: the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015,
A/RES/70/1
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) (2013), Who Will be Accountable? Human Rights
and the Post‐2015 Development Agenda, HR/PUB/13/1
Van de Lande, L. and Fonseca, C. (2018). Global Review of
National Accountability Mechanisms for SDG6. London: End
Water Poverty.
WHO/UNICEF (2017) Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation
and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. Geneva:
World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
 10
Research to Policy and Practice: Challenges and Opportunities
Ashim Das Gupta1

ABSTRACT

This chapter emphasizes the importance of education and research in universities and institutions of higher edu-
cation to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An elaboration is provided on how the sustainable
development principles are to be incorporated in the existing educational curriculum of higher education with
a special focus on the pedagogical methods of teaching, and how the research activities are to be planned and
carried out to address the sustainable development issues. Translating research and evidence‐based knowledge
to decision‐making process is a challenging task and the barriers to translation are indicated. Opportunities to
overcome these barriers are identified and discussed. To enable the uptake of research findings and recommen-
dations in decision‐making processes, the relevant government officials and decision‐makers should be involved
all throughout the process from research initiation to the final stage of arriving at the desired outcome. A
long‐term sustainable strategic partnership is needed to bring universities and institutions of higher education,
governments and the communities they serve together in addressing development challenges.

10.1. INTRODUCTION translating that into policy/practice, and developing a

Water is an essential resource for attainment of many
of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), espe-
cially those related to food security, healthy lives, energy,
sustainable cities, sustainable consumption and pro-
duction, and marine and terrestrial ecosystems. SDG
6 specifically reflects the critical importance of water
in its own right, ensuring availability and sustainable
management of water and sanitation for all. There is also
growing recognition of the crucial contribution of water‐
related investments to climate resilience and to delivering
on the Paris Agreement. Beyond environmental concerns,
sustainable and collaborative management of shared
water resources also strengthens international peace and
security (OECD, 2018). Achieving the SDGs requires a
multi‐pronged approach, including scientific research,
1
Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Asian
Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand
trained “Community of Practice” to sustain the advances
in the relevant sectors.
Over the past decades, the global, regional and national
scientific community has developed the methodologies of
data gathering, scientific analysis and research on various
aspects related directly or indirectly to SDGs. This has
led to an understanding of the behaviour of biophysical
and socio‐economic systems to demonstrate and quan-
tify many important links between nature and resilient
societies and economies. This progress is clearly apparent
in the abundance of publications, new scientific journals,
datasets, frameworks, research funding, and networking
initiatives. However, it is questionable, in most of the
scientific and academic research, to what extent research
findings are translated into policy and practice.
To accelerate research update in policy and practice,
capacity building of the next generation of professionals
and citizens comprising the Community of Practice is
essential. The process will help meet the challenges of

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

151
152 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
poverty, climate change, and clean water and to sustain
those advances post‐2030 as well. It requires engagement
of higher education as a catalyst. A few key questions are:
•• How can the institutions of higher education be
engaged to play an important role in the development
and capacity building of the next generation of pro-
fessionals and citizens who will be the Community of
Practice?
•• With the recognition of interdependencies of SDGs,
trade‐offs and synergies and their integration into
policy design and practice, what would be the research
directions and emphasis in academic disciplines?
In this context, this chapter aims to provide a general
introduction of formal education and research in univer-
sities, academic institutions, and research organizations,
and then identify and elaborate challenges and con-
straints in translating research findings and recommen-
dations into policy and practice. Understanding that this
transformation is a complex process, it further explores
all possible opportunities for up‐taking research findings
in decision‐making process, development of policy guide-
lines and strategies for action.
10.2. RE‐ORIENTING FORMAL EDUCATION
AND RESEARCH
The formal process of education and training is through
the undergraduate and graduate degree curriculum in
universities and academic institutions. Traditionally, in
most universities and academic institutions at the under-
graduate level, educational program in various disciplines
of engineering and science is offered without an undue
degree of specialization. It is only at the graduate level
where training becomes more focused. In the graduate
program, students take a variety of courses over a range
of subjects deemed by the student’s committee to be
essential for effective work in a disciplinary subject area.
The thesis and dissertation requirements are usually con-
centrated in a narrow area where the student seeks to push
forward the frontiers of knowledge through research.
Over the years many of the traditional graduate level
curricula in science and engineering have been reformed
and/or new curricula have been introduced to deliver an
education and research programs with interdisciplinary
focus. For example, in the areas of hydrology and water
resources, the traditional academic curricula have been
reformed gearing towards the concept of Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM). Similarly,
academic curricula emphasizing Integrated Natural
Resource Management (INRM) with an emphasis on
the agricultural sector have been introduced in many
undergraduate and graduate programs of higher edu-
cation at national level. Also, education for sustainable
development and environmental education have been
promoted in universities and institutions of higher educa-
tion in response to the need of professional development
to address different aspects of environmental challenges
in line with the underlying concepts of sustainability and
sustainable development. A new academic field, namely,
Sustainability Science, with strong roots in the envi-
ronmental aspects of the sustainability concept (Kates
et al., 2001) was proclaimed following the 2001 World
Congress “Challenges of a Changing Earth 2001” in
Amsterdam. This field of study differs from standard sci-
ence in that it seeks a complimentary truth to the tra-
ditional form of knowledge generation. Sustainability
science asserts that the search of sustainable solution to
global problems requires new methodologies that bring
together the three pillars of sustainability: environment,
society, and economy. In 2002, UNESCO established the
UN Decade (2005‐2014) of Education for Sustainable
Development (DESD). The overall goal of DESD was
to integrate the principles, values, and practices of sus-
tainable development into all aspects of education and
learning. This educational effort encouraged changes
in behaviour that creates a more sustainable future in
terms of environmental integrity, economic viability and
a just society for present and future generations (https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141629).
To achieve the SDGs by 2030, the universities and
institutions of higher education have to play a key role
in education and capacity development of the future pro-
fessionals, decision‐makers and the society at large to
face the sustainable development challenges. The SDGs
cover a wide range of complex social, economic, and
environmental challenges. Education, research, innova-
tion, knowledge transfer, and leadership will be essential
in helping society to address these challenges. The impor-
tance of education for sustainable development is recog-
nized in a number of SDGs, in particular SDG 4, which
calls for “inclusive and equitable quality education and
life‐long learning opportunities for all”. Universities and
institutions of higher education, with their overall respon-
sibility in creation and dissemination of knowledge and
their unique position within society, can contribute sig-
nificantly for the achievement of the SDGs. A whole
institution approach is needed for the active involvement
of all stakeholders (students, staff, faculty/ educators,
local citizens, community organizations, and companies)
working together, to embed sustainability in curriculum,
teaching and learning, governance, facility and opera-
tions, human resources, community interaction, and in
research. In view of this consideration, an elaboration is
provided in the following sections on how the sustainable
development principles are incorporated in the existing
educational curriculum of higher education with a spe-
cial focus on the pedagogical methods of teaching, and

how the research activities are to be planned and carried
out to address the sustainable development issues.
10.2.1. Pedagogy for Sustainability Education
It is quite a challenging task to embed the sustainability
concept and its application in the traditional academic
curricula of different disciplines in universities and
institutions of higher education. Sustainability concept
implies development maintaining social equity, economic
efficiency, and environmental integrity. The education in
this area seeks to cultivate the skills to understand the rela-
tionships between different issues or in other words the
cross‐cutting issues, appreciate how they are connected,
and approach problems and decision‐making with theses
interdependencies in mind. During the last two decades
or so, several universities and institutions of higher
education worldwide have implemented various initia-
tives embracing education for sustainable development
in their academic curricula (Gosselin et al, 2013; Du
et al, 2013; Andrades Pena et al, 2018). Many universities
have launched educational programs designed to meet
the professional requirement of SDGs, prompted by
United Nations supported initiatives such as the Higher
Education Sustainability Initiative, the Principles of
Responsible Management Education Initiative, and the
Sustainable Development Solutions Network. To help
academic institutions accelerate action on the SDGs, the
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN)
Australia/Pacific published a practical guide that provides
an overview of how universities and institutes of higher
education can contribute to implement the SDGs through
their core functions and activities: learning and teaching,
research, organisational governance and ­operations, and
external leadership (SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017). The
universities and institutions of higher education have
to be proactive in adopting sustainability policy and
strategy in all phases of operation and service ­provision.
Only the aspects of learning and teaching, and research
are considered here to discuss how the traditional process
of education and research should be reformed to address
the need of training and expertise developed to deal with
sustainable development challenges.
Apart from acquiring knowledge and understanding in
different subject areas in science and engineering disci-
plines, students should gather knowledge, skills, and moti-
vation to understand and address the sustainability issues
in the development process for the achievement of SDGs.
The education for sustainability, in this sense, calls for a
comprehensive integration of sustainability themes in dif-
ferent courses considering a holistic and interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary approach to motivate sustainability
awareness. Two main approaches are identified to incor-
porate sustainability themes in different courses of a
RESEARCH TO POLICY AND PRACTICE 153
curriculum following the process of horizontal or vertical
integration (Figueiro and Raufflet, 2015). Horizontal
integration means that the sustainability concept is
embedded within different courses which imply the need
to adopt a holistic and interdisciplinary approach. The
vertical integration on the other hand implies creation
of separate and stand‐alone course (s) on sustainability
within the curriculum. Some authors have argued that
the vertical integration approach plays an important role
for teaching about essential concepts related to sustain-
ability. However, it is also pointed out that the organiza-
tion of separate course(s) could not emphasize the need to
incorporate sustainability principles into the professional
decision making capabilities of future graduates, unless
and until they are integrated with the discipline‐based
concept and application. Figueiro and Raufflet (2015)
pointed out that “the curriculum will be more effective in
teaching sustainability issues if sustainability is integrated
into core courses than if it is presented in a marginal
way to deliberately give visibility to sustainability in the
curriculum”. Also, Watson et al. (2013) stated that “the
integration of sustainability into existing courses may
aid students in viewing sustainability in a systemic and
holistic manner by demonstrating how sustainability and
technical content can be blended to create sustainable
designs”. However, difficulties arise when an attempt is
made to restructure the existing courses to bring in the
sustainability concept and application in coherence with
the main subject context of an existing course.
Many literatures highlighted initiatives taken in
recent years to incorporate education for sustainable
development in existing academic curricula. Gosselin
et al. (2013) stressed the need of integration of sustain-
ability into higher education academic programs through
the presentation of three case studies of curriculum
implementation. These studies are from the University
of Nebraska‐Lincoln, Northern Arizona University, and
Kean University (NJ). The review outlined the academic
structure, program, resources, the motivation, and mech-
anisms for curricular change, key sustainability‐learning
outcomes and program goals, curricular changes, and
assessment strategies these institutions used to inte-
grate sustainability into their undergraduate curriculum.
Du et al. (2013) reported an educational initiative and
research project based on collaboration between Beijing
Normal University, China, and Aalborg University,
Denmark, developing a sustainability curriculum using
the methodology of Problem and Project Based Learning
(PBL) in a Chinese context. A theoretical framework is
established to understand and analyse the culture’s change
toward a sustainability curriculum that employs PBL
methodology. Shing (2015) conducted a thorough evalu-
ation of the extent to which the sustainable development
concept is integrated in the undergraduate curricula of
154 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
four traditional engineering disciplines: chemical, civil,
electrical, and mechanical engineering in Malaysia. This
evaluation was part of thesis research by the author
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Faculty of
Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
The content of all courses were examined to check the
integration of sustainability concept and the responses of
students through questionnaire survey were analyzed to
evaluate the extent to which students acquire knowledge
and interest in sustainability. The study revealed that the
knowledge and understanding of sustainability concept
is well transpired as expected and it proposed strategies
to further improve the effectiveness of sustainability edu-
cation for the Malaysian engineering students. Andrades
Pena et al. (2018) examined the extent to which sustain-
ability themes are being incorporated into the curricula
of a Spanish public university strongly committed to
signing sustainability policies and declarations. Also, the
main barriers to incorporating sustainability themes into
the course curricula were analyzed. In this study, different
methodological instruments were used over three phases
through a case study approach. In Phase I, data were col-
lected using a survey distributed to all faculty members of
the university; in the second phase, a web‐content anal-
ysis of syllabuses of all undergraduate degrees was carried
out; and in the third phase, 10 semi‐structured interviews
with key stakeholders were conducted. The study also
indicated that the university has many difficulties in incor-
porating, holistically or separately, sustainability themes
in its formal courses despite having so many policies, reg-
ulations and a commitment to sustainability.
A review of selected published literature provided
above clearly indicates that a considerable progress has
been made in different institutions of higher education
to embed the essential elements of sustainability in the
existing curricula. Both means of integration through
horizontal and vertical approaches can be used to
reform the curricula. However, it certainly depends on
the departments in the institution and their policy and
strategy, and most importantly the knowledge and per-
ception of faculties in respective department. The lead-
ership and top management of institutions plays an
important facilitating role in strategic implementation of
sustainability education in existing curricula. Education
for sustainability is primarily about imparting knowledge
on principles, values, skills, and attitude to learners that
empower them to contribute to sustainable development.
They should be able to take informed decisions and
responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic
viability, and a just society for present and future gen-
erations. UNESCO (2017) elucidated on six key com-
petencies for sustainability that the future graduates
and professionals should acquire and they are namely:
system thinking competency, normative competency,
collaborative competency, critical thinking competency,
self‐awareness competency, and integrated problem‐solv-
ing competency. Responding to this requirement, inno-
vative pedagogical approaches are required for academic
teaching and learning to train the future professionals.
The traditional academic teaching and learning
methods are, therefore, inadequate to train and prepare
the future graduates with sufficient competencies to
address issues related to SDGs. Innovative pedagogical
approaches like PBL are, therefore, needed in teaching and
learning of sustainability principles and its application in
practice. PBL is an instructional method in which stu-
dents learn through facilitated problem solving. Student’s
learning centres on a complex problem that does not have
a single correct answer. As PBL engages with problems
that are open‐ended and require students to invest their
critical thinking skills, it is an ideal pedagogical strategy
for imparting education for sustainable development (Du
et al., 2013; McGibbon and Van Belle, 2015; Thomas and
Depasquale, 2016; Guerra, 2017; Vemury et al., 2018).
McGibbon and Van Belle (2015) explored the issues
around incorporating a proxy for sustainability – Carbon
Footprint – into the Information Systems undergrad-
uate curriculum within an educational setting of PBL.
Embedding Green Information Systems theory and
practice into the coursework of students majoring in
Information Systems and Computer Science brings an
interdisciplinary advantage to the “wicked problem” of
sustainability. The unique contribution is that it explores
how reflective practice enables students to become more
aware and empowered through exposure to real‐world
problems, such as Carbon Footprint. Another literature
that elaborated on pedagogical approaches developed
and implemented to deliver sustainable design educa-
tion to second‐year undergraduate students on Civil
Engineering Programmes in the (then) School of Civil
Engineering and Geosciences at Newcastle University
was discussed by Vemury et al. (2018). The case presented
offered an example of how to help students understand
the contested and contingent nature of sustainability. An
action‐based approach was adapted to the development
of a teaching and assessment model centered on PBL in
a real world context. Because of the use of a design brief
that addressed a practical infrastructure problem encoun-
tered by regional communities, the academic team were
able to make arguments related to the three pillars of
sustainability more accessible to the students. This sug-
gests that pedagogical instruments based on PBL strat-
egies were effective in delivering sustainable development
education. For the completeness of this section on “Re‐
Orienting Formal Education and Research”, an overview
of content of an academic curriculum in water resources
management and the direction of academic research is
provided in the following sections.

10.2.2. Academic Curriculum
The founding principle of an academic curric-
ulum in water resources management should be to link
development, distribution, and utilization aspect with
the environmental and socio‐economic aspect leading
to the perception of sustainable development. As well
as exposure to political science and legal aspects would
be highly beneficial to prospective water professionals,
who must be familiar with the institutional framework
within which planning and management is undertaken.
The mission is to prepare the future water professionals
with the knowledge and understanding of the environ-
mental, social, political, and economic framework within
which the present‐day water issues must be addressed and
to equip them with the necessary tools and techniques to
come up with a viable solution in order to define strat-
egies for water use in future ensuring the sustainability
of the resources. The graduate education program in
water resources management should encompass the
listed knowledge elements grouped under the following
six thematic disciplines:
(i) Water Resources Systems and Environment: This
thematic group of courses may cover following
contents:
•• Understanding the Physical System: components
and their interaction.
•• Water supply–Rain Water, Surface Water and
Groundwater: distribution at different scale,
water use at national scale and on sectoral basis,
water use to water availability–water security.
•• Water Pollution and Health: issues and concerns,
sources of water pollution, linkage between health
and water, communicable diseases associated with
water, adopted measures for protection.
•• Catchment and Aquatic Ecosystem: basic prin-
ciples relating hydrology to aquatic ecosystems
(wetlands, swamps and lakes, forest ecosystem,
grasslands etc.), Eco‐system dynamics.
•• Climate/Hydrologic Changes: Climate change
and its effect on water resources and environ-
ment, Extreme events.
(ii) Management Concepts: This group of courses may
cover following contents:
•• Integrated Water Resources Management
(IWRM): Concept, principles and tools, scope
of implementation in practice.
•• Eco‐system Based Approaches (EBAs): eco‐
system services, conservation through strategies
such as Ramsar’s “wise use of wetlands.”
•• Adaptive Management: concept and review of
approaches, result‐based approach–feedback
system.
RESEARCH TO POLICY AND PRACTICE 155
•• Sustainable Development and Management
based on triple bottom‐line concept (environ-
ment, economy and social).
(iii) Contemporary Issues and Considerations: This
thematic group of courses consider the following
key aspects:
•• Environmental Flow: environmental flow
regime‐ theory and methodologies, ecosystem
health monitoring, reclamation and restoration
of degraded ecosystems.
•• Irrigation System Operation and Management:
concept of water savings, water saving technol-
ogies, irrigation efficiency, Irrigation planning
and maximization of benefit of irrigation.
•• Water Allocation: resource scarcity and alloca-
tion criteria, property right and resource allo-
cation, multi‐objective decision–support system
for water allocation, case studies.
•• Water Demand Management (WDM): factors
affecting water use in different sectors, prin-
ciples, advantages, and feasibility of WDM,
WDM measures/options, tools, instruments and
mechanisms of WDM, WDM plan implemen-
tation, case studies.
•• Urban Water Management: understanding
urban water cycles, management issues, chal-
lenges and opportunities, challenges of water
reallocation among urban and rural entities,
innovative management approaches: financial
and institutional considerations, public–private
partnership, technological improvement, and
community participation.
•• Water Security and Risk Management: water
security fundamentals, water related disaster
and risk: risk management strategy, water
resources security and water scarcity, food secu-
rity, agriculture, energy and water security, risk
based principles for defining and managing
water security, case studies.
•• Water Conservation, Reuse and Recycle: address-
ing supply side of water management, waste­water
reclamation, “reduce–­reuse–­recycle” system,
holistic solutions to ensure water security.
(iv) Role of Modelling in Water Resources Management:
The following recommended elements are to be
dealt with:
•• Modelling Techniques: simulation and optimization.
•• System Analysis Techniques: linear program-
ming (LP), dynamic programming (DP).
•• Rationale Decision Making: concept of ratio-
nality, risk analysis and management, utility
theory, Bayesian decision making.
•• Multi‐Criteria Decision Making: overview of
different techniques with application.
156 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
•• Integrated Modelling: integrated bio‐physical,
hydrologic and economic modelling.
•• Overview of Selected Models: case studies.
(v) Economics and Financial Considerations: The fol-
lowing aspects are to be covered:
•• Engineering Economy and Economic Analysis:
quantification of economic costs and economic
benefits, project economics and evaluation – net
present worth, annual cost comparison, rate of
return and benefit–cost ratio.
•• Demand and Utility of Water: cost and benefit
components, supply and demand curve, willing-
ness to pay, marginal cost and marginal benefit,
functions of water utilities.
•• The Value of Water and its Evaluation: use
values and non‐use values, overview of valua-
tion approaches and their application.
•• Pricing of Water Services and Cost Recovery:
national water initiative, pricing principles; dif-
ferent forms of water pricing in practice, prin-
ciples for recovering the cost of water planning
and management activities, pricing principles
for recycled water and storm water use.
•• Economic Instruments: charges and taxes, sub-
sidies and grants, tradable discharge permits,
deposit refund system.
•• Economic and Financial Feasibility: financial
vs economic analysis, assessing economic and
financial feasibility of water resources projects.
(vi) Water Law, Policy, and Administration: The fol-
lowing aspects are to be considered:
•• Water Law: basic provisions, functions and
water use rules, Legal status of water resources:
ownership, water rights and permits, water
trading and role of water market (example of
Murray Darling Basin).
•• Water Policy: objective, strategies and goals,
components of water policy.
•• Role of Policy Interventions: national water
initiative, basin plan, water resources
management plan, integrating water policy in
the development process.
•• Water Administration: different types depending
on functions, uses, jurisdiction and legal regime,
water users’ association, major issues in water
administration.
•• Socio‐economic Impact of Water Reforms (e.g.
basin plan) on Communities: framework of
assessment, Case examples.
The courses can be taught using traditional methods
as well as active pedagogic approaches like PBL as men-
tioned above, including gaming, internship, seminars and
case studies. It is to be noted that the learning process
using the conventional method of instruction through
delivery of lectures in the classrooms is typically very
passive – listening, watching, and taking notes, with
little or no opportunity for exchanging ideas with the
instructor. Educational research has shown that this
process of delivery results in poor learning. Learning
becomes much more effective when the students are
actively involved in the learning process.
To address current development issues, the trained pro-
fessionals should have a broader understanding across
disciplines. At the same time s(he) should have an exper-
tise in specific disciplinary area in order to contribute
effectively and work in coherence with other disciplinary
experts to come up with a sustainable solution. The
course content and offering of the course curriculum
need to strike a balance between broad overview educa-
tion and the required education for specialization. Apart
from having a stand‐alone course dealing with sustain-
ability focusing on key knowledge areas of sustainability
theory and practice, sustainability concepts, values and
principles are to be embedded within the subject matter
of all disciplinary‐based courses. An interactive and
learner‐centered instruction process is recommended sup-
ported by practical examples and case studies. Through
case studies, practical physical situations are discussed
with problem identification and an array of analysis pro-
cedures being identified that can be used to address the
issues based on evaluation of data and information. This
complete exercise is to be conducted in an interactive
manner through group discussions, interrogations, and
deliberations so that students are proactive in the process,
exchange their views, and understand the complexity
of issues. In this process they develop critical thinking,
address the issues in a collaborative manner to arrive at
an acceptable solution using the available tools and tech-
niques. To facilitate this process, the faculty plays a cru-
cial role not only as educator but also as facilitator in a
didactic environment to stimulate critical learning. Re‐
orienting an existing curriculum with traditional offering
mode to a PBL curriculum involves a large cultural
change, both for faculty and students. This change pro-
cess may take substantial time for the faculty to prepare
and organize educational mode, like the selection and
adaptation of learning materials, and the development
and management of study programs. However, the long‐
term benefits would be achieved if the change process is
effectively managed and the teaching faculty is encour-
aged to learn and adapt new skills progressively. In this
regard, the facilitating role of the institute’s management
system is very important starting with a dedicated thrust
of leadership, policies and strategies supported by a well‐
designed implementation plan that will motivate teaching
faculty and staff to incorporate sustainability themes into
the academic curriculum. Adequate financial and human

resources are to be mobilized to upgrade the existing
courses with the infusion of sustainability themes.
10.2.3. Academic Research
The research programs in most of the institutions
of higher education focus on technical and scientific
aspects of water resources development and management
without having much cross‐sectorial integration as well
as not providing emphasis on enabling environment
of water resources management like water policy and
strategy, water legislation, institutional framework, and
environment cum socio‐economic factors. An analysis
of SDGs demonstrates the interconnectedness of the
goals and targets, with various nexuses identified among
sectors, such as the education–gender–health nexus;
the energy–food–poverty nexus; the water–energy–
food nexus; and the climate–land–energy–water nexus
(El‐Jardali et al., 2018). A number of SDG targets
directly refer to the need for research‐related activ-
ities as key components to address the SDGs. These
are related to Zero Hunger (Goal 2); Good Health and
Well‐Being (Goal 3); Affordable and Clean Energy (Goal
7); Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (Goal 9);
Responsible Consumption and Production (Goal 12);
Life below Water (Goal 14); and Partnerships for the
Goals (Goal 17). Many of these targets are considered the
“means of implementation” of the SDGs. A wide range
of research approaches is needed to address the extent
and nature of the challenges posed by the SDGs. These
approaches include, apart from the more traditional dis-
ciplinary approaches (across the natural sciences, social
sciences, and engineering and technology studies), the
newer approaches that are crucial for addressing the
complexity and real‐world context of the SDGs. These
newer approaches help to explore “what is possible” and
are guided by values to achieve the SDGs equitably and
they are categorized as (SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017):
a. Sustainability science – or more broadly research for
sustainable development – a new branch of research
which seeks to understand how interactions and
emergent properties between natural, social, and
economic systems shape sustainable development
challenges, and how to create transformations towards
more sustainable outcomes.
b. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches that
bring different disciplines, sectors, and types of
knowledge (traditional, practitioner, expert, citizen,
and so on) together to help illuminate all aspects of
complex social, environmental and economic
challenges.
c. Co‐design and co‐production approaches, which work
closely with policy makers and users of knowledge
RESEARCH TO POLICY AND PRACTICE 157
from the start to define the problems, plan the research
methodology, and carry out the research.
d. Inclusive approaches that recognise and engage with
important groups – such as women, indigenous peo-
ple, and diverse cultures, worldviews and ideologies –
and forms of knowledge – such as traditional
knowledge – that are often under‐represented in
research.
e. Policy‐relevant advice that uses existing knowledge
and research to assist policy makers understand the
implications of different policy options and design
new policies.
These new research approaches can be more challeng-
ing to carry out than traditional approaches, particularly
within the traditional structures of institutions of higher
education. However, in order to address the challenges of
SDGs, it is necessary for the institutions of higher educa-
tion to encourage and support these research approaches,
particularly the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
approaches. A new mode of transdisciplinary problem
and solution‐oriented education and research is to be
adopted on top of the traditional academic research that
seeks the involvement of a wider set of institutions and
types of researchers to work together on specific problems
within specific contexts. Research on applied problems of
socio‐economic and ecological systems is of interdisci-
plinary and transdisciplinary nature that requires coop-
eration between different scientific disciplines and society
at large including the active input of practitioners from
outside the academic environment. Furthermore, the
research on policy‐relevance advice and the research fol-
lowing co‐design and co‐production approaches are pro-
active approaches to integrate science with the needs of
policy‐makers and the researchers working closely with
and/or within the decision‐making bodies through formal
or informal knowledge exchange partnerships and/or col-
laborations as agreed. These later aspects are considered
further in the next section dealing with “Research Input
to Policy and Practice” that addresses the question: “How
can research feed into development policy and support
positive change?”
The research on sustainable development has pro-
gressed over the years in academic institutions of higher
education and in recent years the emphasis has been to
address the challenges of meeting the SDGs by 2030.
Brandt et al. (2013) undertook a mixed quantitative and
qualitative analysis of peer‐reviewed sustainability sci-
ence studies where the transdisciplinary approach has
been applied. Based on a review of transdisciplinary
case study papers, they concluded that transdisciplinary
research must be clearly framed, including the use of a
common terminology and the development of a broad
suite of appropriate methods. Leal Filho et al. (2018),
158 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
in a recently published article, stressed the need to per-
form quality research on sustainable development and
reiterated the need to use the results of this research to
foster sustainable development across many areas. They
put forward a set of research needs and stressed that
the SDGs be accorded greater priority in international
sustainable development research efforts. A number of
other published articles dealt with exercises to iden-
tify research questions and priority research areas by
engaging researchers and practitioners in water research
(Brown et al., 2010); in biodiversity, ecosystem services
and sustainability (Hossain et al., 2017); and for the
post‐2015 international development agenda (Oldekop
et al., 2015), which are SDGs. With a review of these
articles, a list of research themes in water resources
management with a thrust of addressing the challenges
of attaining SDGs is provided here with the relevant
questions to be addressed to.
Extreme events: Human society is particularly vulner-
able to severe weather events that cause damage to prop-
erties and infrastructure, affect the livelihood and even
inflict loss of life. It is imperative to consider the pos-
sible effects of projected changes in climate and associ-
ated extreme events in order to develop robust strategies
for adaptation to hydrological change and to implement
policies for better management of the water supply and
drainage issues. Some of the relevant questions are out-
lined below:
•• What are the risks to water supply infrastructure
under future scenarios of extreme rainfall events?
•• What are the best ways to retain more water upstream
for supply purposes in times of drought, or to prevent
flooding events downstream during extreme precipi-
tation events?
•• How can we efficiently and effectively plan adaptation
measures to cope with extreme events given the uncer-
tainty associated with model predictions?
•• How can we reduce uncertainty in the prediction of
floods and droughts?
•• How can we improve flood resilience and adaptation
at the individual, community and population level
to improve emergency planning and protect key
infrastructure?
Water supply, treatment and distribution networks:
Most of the water supply distribution networks and the
water treatment infrastructures in developing countries
have been in operation for decades. It has been always
a challenging task for the concerned water authorities
to maintain proper functioning of the system through
adaptation of structural and operational measures. To
meet the increasing demand in future, the supply system
needs to be efficient in operation and be integrated with
measures of conservation, recycle, and reuse. Some of the
relevant research questions under this theme are outlined
below:
•• How will climate change influence hydrological regime
in lakes, rivers, and groundwater that in turn impact
on water supply? Can we optimize water supply within
catchments?
•• How does public perception of water management
affect their response to calls for water conservation?
•• How can we improve people’s perceptions of reuse
and recycle options such as grey water recycling?
•• What is the opportunity of using treated water to
recharge groundwater as well as rivers?
•• What are the options available to improve the opera-
tion of existing water supply systems? Is it more effec-
tive to optimize the operation of existing old systems
or to develop new ones?
•• Whether water and wastewater treatment should be
carried out at more numerous smaller, distributed sites
or at a few, large centralized facilities?
Freshwater pollution: One of the most critical prob-
lems of developing countries is improper management of
vast amount of wastes generated by various anthropo-
genic activities. Unfortunately, freshwater in rivers, lakes,
even underground are being polluted by indiscriminate
disposal of sewerage, industrial waste and plethora of
human activities, which affects their physico‐chemical
characteristics and microbiological quality. Salient issues
and questions to be addressed to are provided below:
•• What are the effects of pollutant fluxes, pollutant
patterns through time and peak concentrations on
aquatic species, populations, community processes
and functioning?
•• How do the timing and magnitude of pollutant inputs
affect freshwater ecosystems, and what implications
do they have for pollution regulation to remain within
environmental limits?
•• What are the cumulative effects (synergistic, additive)
of multiple‐stressors? For example, how will changes
in thermal dynamics due to environmental change
influence the mobility and effect of pollutant loads?
•• Where should monitoring technologies be deployed to
better detect environmental problems?
•• How can we improve models to better understand and
predict the impacts of effluent on river water quality?
•• What impacts will the targeted sediment management
in catchment headwaters have further down the
system? (e.g. removing sediment supply to estuaries,
changing niche space).
Freshwater biodiversity: For sustaining freshwater
biodiversity, development of an understanding of the
freshwater community responses to various measures in
a specific situation is essential, however, the interacting

processes are very complex that has significant impli-
cations for the way freshwater biodiversity should be
managed and conserved. Some research questions are
proposed below that apply equally to all major groups of
freshwater organisms:
•• How will changing flow regimes affect freshwater and
estuarine ecosystem structure and function? How
these can be evaluated?
•• How can information on species traits and responses
to environmental stressors be aggregated and dissemi-
nated to inform studies of biodiversity and ecosystem
resilience?
•• What is the role of freshwater biodiversity in freshwater
ecosystem functioning? How this can be evaluated for
freshwater ecosystem management?
•• What mechanisms underpin the relationships bet-
ween biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem
services and how can we better utilize integrative
approaches to understand these relationships?
•• How the ecosystem functioning, functional diversity
and water quality are related to each other?
Valuing freshwater services: Freshwater services for eco-
systems and environmental functions have an economic
value that need to be considered while using the resources
in the development process. There is a need to secure a
diverse, healthy, and resilient natural environment that
supports society’s well‐being, health and prosperity now
and in the future; and the values of the services provided
by the natural environment are reflected in decision‐mak-
ing. Questions on theme of valuing freshwater services
are provided below:
•• What is the full ecosystem service value (including reg-
ulating, provisioning, cultural and supporting services)
of freshwaters? How can ecosystem service values be
incorporated into development appraisal tools, and
what new ecosystem service valuation tools do we need?
•• When considering trade‐offs between catchment
ecosystem services (e.g. flood water storage versus
food production; flood protection versus ecosystem
function), where does the balance lie between human
and environmental needs and how do we quantify it?
•• What impact do existing reservoirs have on the range of
ecosystem services that would otherwise be provided?
•• What is the total economic value of a clean water
supply? How can the full value of water be integrated
into stakeholder decisions?
•• What is the true economic loss of leakage, what is an
acceptable loss, and what is the most effective way to
achieve such a level of efficiency? How far should we
go with improving the environmental quality of water?
•• What tariff structures will best support sustainable
management of water resources, recognizing ecosystem
RESEARCH TO POLICY AND PRACTICE 159
services and human need? How can alternative charg-
ing systems, such as lifetime and marginal utility tar-
iffs, be efficiently and effectively implemented?
Social‐ecological systems: The link between ecological
function and society’s well‐being is extremely complex and
multi‐dimensional, and remains subject to much uncer-
tainty. Considerable research has been devoted to the
effects of biodiversity loss on ecosystems, and also, it is
well understood that society’s well‐being strongly relies on
ecosystem services; however explicit causal relationships
between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, ecosystem
services, and society’s well‐being are rarely explored.
Questions relevant to this theme are provided below:
•• How do the main drivers of global change (e.g. climate
change, land use change) impact biodiversity, eco-
system functioning and the provision of ecosystem ser-
vices? How can we manage biodiversity and ecosystem
services sustainably in the context of climate change?
•• What are the relationships between ecosystem services
and different dimensions of individual and collective
human well‐being, and how can we develop suitable
indicators for decision‐makers?
•• What role can ecologists and conservationists play in
ensuring long‐term human well‐being and sustainable
development?
•• How can we examine and demonstrate in real world
situations some of the theories of social‐ecological
systems such as tipping points, critical transitions
or resilience? How do different social, economic and
political institutions drive and respond to such shifts?
•• How can the value of non‐monetary ecosystem ser-
vices be integrated into the assessment of social‐eco-
logical systems?
Integrated catchment management: Integrated
catchment management is a process that recognizes the
river catchment as a basic organising unit for under-
standing and managing ecosystem processes. Decisions
concerning the use of land, water, and other resources are
considered within a wider framework of environmental,
social and economic issues. The issue of balancing
human demands for water with the needs of terres-
trial and aquatic communities is central to river basin
management plans. Potential research questions related
to this theme are provided below:
•• How do we change or align upstream land management
to reflect long‐term water quality, quantity, and
resource requirements and reduce the need for down-
stream technological remedies?
•• What are the effects of local‐scale engineering schemes
(e.g. hydroelectric schemes) on river ecosystems, how
can we regulate them, and to what extent do these
developments conflict with the policy of resettlement?
160 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
•• To what extent can we apply ideas of hydrolog-
ical connectivity to prioritize restoration of water
bodies? What is the right balance between the cost of
treatment and in stream ecosystem benefits?
•• How will hydrological and ecological connectivity bet-
ween the array of freshwater bodies (streams, flood-
plains, ponds, lakes, groundwater) be affected by
future changes in the hydrological cycle?
•• How can we adapt agricultural systems to reduce
water use in times of shortage?
•• How do we manage the water cycle to further improve
public health and environmental protection?
•• How will technological innovations, behaviours and
climate change shape our urban water future? What
management systems will support reallocation of
water use among urban and rural entities?
Water governance: Governance is exercised through
laws, norms, language and power at formal or informal
levels, through bureaucracies or participation and through
the state or other forms of organisation. Formal gover-
nance can refer to mechanisms, institutions, and processes
through which authority is exercised in the conduct of
public affairs. Water governance refers to the political,
social, economic and administrative systems in place that
influence water use and management. Research questions
relevant to water governance are indicated below:
•• In view of the increasing demand for water, how the
effectiveness of the water governance structure can be
measured for water security?
•• How effective is the water governance system to ensure
equity and efficiency in water resource and services
allocation and distribution, and balances water use
between socio‐economic activities and ecosystems?
•• What governance arrangements would permit local
communities to take initiative, participate, and con-
tribute to shape development in their area?
•• How can governance systems engage effectively with
citizens who mobilize outside the formal arena of
politics and in informal spaces of participation?
•• How can the rights of marginal and vulnerable groups
be protected and enhanced in the process of large‐
scale infrastructure development?
•• How can the rights of geographically remote and/or
mobile social groups be integrated and promoted in
national development agendas?
Sustainable management: Sustainable development and
management is a long‐term process and entails elements
such as the preservation of the physical environment on
the one hand, but also economic efficiency and social
equity on the other. Concurrently, a vital attention is
needed at the interface of water issues with other key sec-
tors such as food and energy security. It is clear that water
cannot be managed sustainably without consideration
of other sectors that impact upon and which are in turn
impacted by water. Relevant research questions are indi-
cated below:
•• How does the adoption of water management concepts
like IWRM lead to efficient, equitable, and sustainable
management of limited water resources and for coping
with conflicting demands under climate change?
•• Is the ecosystem approach suitable for providing an
evidence base for sustainable management of the
environment?
•• What decision‐making processes should be put in place to
manage trade‐offs between different ecosystem services?
•• How are the non‐traditional aspects of sustainability
such as goal and target/limit uncertainties, ethics,
cultural dimensions, aesthetics and general non‐
material values (e.g. solidarity, compassion, mutual
help) to be integrated in the sustainable management
process?
•• What is the implication of food or biofuel production
on water demand, the managed release of agricultur-
ally productive land for flood control, and the energy/
carbon cost of providing water services?
Food security, land and agriculture: Meeting current
and future food needs while reducing pressures on land
and natural resources is one of society’s greatest chal-
lenges, yet unequal access to land remains one of the
greatest causes of poverty, human insecurity, and conflict.
Poverty, food security and environmental sustainability
are inextricably linked to the agricultural sector. There
remain many gaps in our understanding of the kinds of
policies and land‐tenure systems that support diversified
and resilient agricultural systems. Research questions
related to this theme are provided below:
•• What investment mechanisms strengthen rural peo-
ple’s land rights and promote the diversification of
food systems?
•• Under what conditions does greater land tenure secu-
rity lead to more efficient, equitable and sustainable
resource use?
•• What are the most cost‐effective approaches of sus-
tainably increasing the agriculture productivity and
incomes of small‐scale farmers?
•• How can agro‐ecological farming practices (including
those that are not easily commodifiable) be effectively
scaled up to address local and global food needs?
•• What can be learned from successful examples of
large‐scale commercial agriculture’s role in incentivis-
ing more sustainable forms of production?
•• What are the most promising agricultural techno-
logical innovations and how can they be effectively
shared and implemented?

10.3. RESEARCH INPUT FOR POLICY
AND PRACTICE
Transforming research into policy and practice is a
process of going from research evidence to decision and
action. To communicate research findings to policymak-
ers with a view to integrate research findings into the
policy making process is a key challenge. Understanding
the role, interactions and incentives between the many dif-
ferent stakeholders in the research to policy process would
help to answer the question: “How can research feed into
development policy and support positive change?” Many
of the research tools developed in academia are not fully
utilized by policymakers. Some potential reasons for this
could be:
•• The scientists/researchers who have developed them
do not fully appreciate the institutional, economic
and cultural constraints within which policymakers
operate.
•• Policymakers frequently are not aware that relevant
scientific research is available to them.
•• There is a disconnect between the timeframes within
which scientists/researchers and policymakers operate.
By endorsing the sustainable development agenda for
2030, the leaders of national governments have pledged
to gear the development in a sustainable trajectory. This
requires policy intervention with cross‐sectoral integration
in the development process ensuring sustainable resource
use. However, political commitment alone will not serve
the purpose; proper mechanisms must be in place to steer
the implementation of their decisions and actions. Policy
decisions to meet the SDGs need to be based on policy‐
relevant evidence, co‐designed, and co‐produced with the
pertinent stakeholders, taking into consideration local
and political context. Institutions of higher education are
uniquely placed to lead the cross‐sectoral implementation
of the SDGs, providing an invaluable source of expertise
in research and education on all sectors of the SDGs, in
addition to being widely considered as neutral and influ-
ential players (El‐Jardali et al., 2018). However, how to
address the interconnecting issues or in other words the
nexus aspects is a huge challenge to realize specific targets
in different sectors as meeting each and every individual
goal could be dependent on the level of achievement in
one or more of the remaining goals. Mainali et al. (2018)
discussed on development of an analytical framework to
evaluate sectoral linkages and examined potential syn-
ergies and trade‐offs among various SDGs’ goals and
targets. Synergies and trade‐offs related to energy access
(SDG 7), clean water and sanitation access (SDG 6),
food security and sustainable agriculture (SDG 2), and
poverty alleviation (SDG 1) have been evaluated from the
perspective of developing countries with examples from
RESEARCH TO POLICY AND PRACTICE 161
South Asia (Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka) and Sub‐
Saharan Africa (Ghana, Ethiopia and Rwanda), using
historical data for the period between 1990 and 2012.
The analytical framework includes both qualitative and
quantitative methods. Network analysis technique has
been used for exploring the conceptual linkage among
different indicators, and capturing the targets associated
with SDGs. Advanced Sustainability Analysis (ASA)
developed under the European framework programme
has been used for quantifying the synergies and trade‐
offs among sustainability indicators. The analysis showed
strong synergy among various SDG targets. Interestingly,
the potential synergy differs from country to country and
over time.
The importance of getting research evidence into
policy and practice is widely acknowledged in litera-
ture, particularly in the area of medical and healthcare
services (Aaserud, et al., 2005; Giles‐corti, et al., 2015;
Uzochukwu1 et al., 2016; Ellen et al., 2018). In this
regard, Knowledge to Action (KTA) Framework
(Graham et al., 2006) is advocated to guide the imple-
mentation of the process of translation. Field et al. (2014)
reported on a citation analysis and systematic review of
using the KTA in practice. They reported that the KTA
Framework is being used in practice with varying degrees
of completeness. It is frequently cited, with usage ranging
from simple attribution via a reference, through inform-
ing planning, to making an intellectual contribution.
Morton et al. (2018) mentioned many challenges in deliv-
ering and evaluating knowledge for healthcare, but the
lack of clear routes from knowledge to practice is a root
cause of failures in safety within healthcare as various
types and sources of knowledge are relevant at different
levels within the healthcare system. The authors adopted
a developmental approach in creating an evaluation
framework that allowed for scrutiny of both processes
and outcomes and was adaptable to projects on differ-
ent scales. This framework proved useful as a planning,
reflection, and evaluation tool for KTA, and could be
more widely used to evidence the ways in which KTA
work helps improve healthcare outcomes.
Even though substantial progress has been made in
areas of medical and healthcare services in translating
research and evidence‐based knowledge to decision‐
making processes, there is an increasing recognition
of the need to disseminate effectively research findings
for policy decisions and actions in other disciplinary
areas, particularly while addressing the interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary issues in meeting development
goals by 2030. By referring to the need for knowledge
exchange between scientists and decision‐makers in
natural resources management, Cvitanovic et al. (2015)
introduced a new field of research broadly character-
ized as “knowledge exchange” that focused largely on
162 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
identifying and overcoming the barriers to knowledge
exchange among scientists and decision‐makers. The
authors reviewed the literature in relation to knowledge
exchange for natural resource management, with a focus
on evidences in relation to the management of marine
resources. This review identified critical barriers inhib-
iting knowledge exchange among marine scientists and
decisions‐makers. Options for overcoming these barriers
such as novel approaches to knowledge exchange, and the
enabling environments and institutional reforms needed
to complement efforts to improve knowledge exchange,
are also identified. This review concluded by articulating
the gaps in our understanding of knowledge exchange, to
help guide future research in this field and improve the
sustainable management of marine resources. Alnsour
and Meaton (2015) explored the use of university gen-
erated research data by Jordanian planning authorities
in their decision‐making processes. They used a mixed
method approach employing a questionnaire survey and
face‐to‐face in‐depth interviews for data collection. All 93
Jordanian planning municipalities were targeted for this
study and the findings revealed that the use of research
was quite low. Identified factors affecting the use of
research in decision‐making processes ranged from legal,
administrative, and technological issues to financial,
social, and people related challenges. Though researchers
have devoted much time and energy to bridge the gap bet-
ween research and decision making, yet significant gaps
still exist between the two. With an overview of cited ref-
erence articles in this section, challenges and opportu-
nities are identified and discussed in the next section.
10.4. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The findings of academic research addressing
development issues need to be incorporated into the
decision‐making process to formulate required policies
and actions. But in reality, this seldom happens as the
line of action needed from research informing policy pro-
cess to action is rather complex. A number of recently
published articles dealing with knowledge exchange bet-
ween scientists and decision‐makers discussed barriers
to knowledge exchange, the options to overcome these
barriers, and on strategies to close the research transla-
tion gap. With a review of selected articles (Cvitanovic
et al., 2015, 2016; Giles‐Corti et al., 2015), challenges and
opportunities to achieve this translation from research
to policy are identified and discussed in the following
sections.
10.4.1. Challenges
Contrasting attributes and functions: The professional
environments of scientists and policy‐makers are very
different. Most scientific research takes place within an
academic environment of the institution of higher educa-
tion. The success and achievement of research is measured
by the novelty of the research, its validity, and acceptance
by fellow academics. In contrast, political success is mea-
sured by election or appointment to office which requires
policy‐makers to answer to a variety of interest groups
including stakeholders, constituents, the media, elected
officials, and the general public. Consequently, scien-
tists and policy‐makers are guided by different types
of information. Scientists judge the quality of their
research by its technical strengths, while policy‐makers
must also consider the social acceptability and finan-
cial feasibility of a proposed solution to a problem. As
a result, scientists can be frustrated when what appears
to be the “correct” answer based on scientific values is
overlooked for a more politically acceptable solution.
The traditional systems for according incentive and to
evaluate academics, measuring their success, are largely
incompatible with practitioners needs and often dis-
courage the integration of research into policy and prac-
tice. Scientists and researchers are bound to focus their
efforts on academic outputs rather than stakeholder
engagement activities, and they may have very limited
engagement with the decision‐makers following the com-
pletion of research meeting the academic requirement.
To reconcile the difference in attributes and functions is
one of the challenging tasks to be addressed for the suc-
cess of knowledge exchange and collaboration between
researchers and decision‐makers. The difference in attrib-
utes and functions are also reinforced by institutional
(dis‐)incentives and structures, further preventing and
undermining effective knowledge exchange and collabo-
ration among scientists and decision‐makers (Cvitanovic
et al.,2015).
Conventional approach to knowledge exchange: The con-
ventional approaches for communicating development
research to policy makers have long been to host a
workshop. As part of the knowledge exchange scheme,
decision‐makers are introduced to different conceptual
frameworks and in the process they receive guidance on
the latest development interests (whether it is climate
change, water and sanitation, or health care). It is typi-
cally a unidirectional knowledge transfer process and is
focused on traditional mode of communication to dis-
seminate scientific information through reports and
presentations. In doing so, these approaches fail to
acknowledge and integrate the diversity of social con-
texts among the stakeholders involved, preventing the
uptake of information into the decision‐making process.
How to facilitate a two‐way exchange of information, in
appreciation of the complex multi‐faceted and dynamic
relationships between science‐based knowledge and
decision‐making is a challenging task.

Inaccessibility of science to decision‐makers: Research
outcomes need to be translated into practical recom-
mendations clearly understandable by the policy‐makers
so that they can use them effectively for decision‐mak-
ing. Sometimes research is not designed to be relevant
to policy. Even if it is so designed, many times it fails
to have an impact because of problems associated with
timeliness, presentation, or manner of communication.
Sometimes (probably quite often) policy‐makers do not
see research findings as central to their decision‐making.
There could always be a mismatch between the timing
when the research is undertaken and the outcomes are
published, and the timing when the research input is
needed for the decision‐making. Research results pub-
lished in peer‐reviewed articles may often come in a
manner that is incomprehensible to many policy‐makers.
Shorter non‐technical outputs like policy briefs, blogs
and other forms of grey literature prepared in practical
form could be useful in this regard, but they are rarely
recognized or rewarded from an academic’s perspective.
Also there could be lack of skill and expertise among
decision‐makers to interpret and apply the knowledge in
decision‐making processes. Clearly, the inaccessibility of
scientific information to decision‐makers in a compre-
hensible form is a key factor undermining the integration
of science into the decision‐making process.
Personal perceptions: Personal perceptions and biases
can undermine effective knowledge exchange among
scientists and decision‐makers. Normally, the scientific
knowledge derived from research findings is presented
to decision‐makers through written reports and oral
presentations. The interpretation derived therefrom
by the decision‐makers is contained by their personal
knowledge and past experiences. This can be problem-
atic in situation dealing with sensitive issues like climate
change that attract significant media attention and public
interest, as individual decision‐maker may have pre-
conceived perceptions and beliefs that may prevent the
integration of research information into the decision‐
making process. This implies that knowledge, including
primary scientific knowledge, is inherently personal with
different individual interpreting the same information in
different ways, affecting the extent to which it is utilized
in decision‐making processes.
Program planning and resource mobilization: Proper
program planning at the initial design phase of research
to ensure up‐take of research findings in decision‐mak-
ing process is a challenging task. This requires research
questions being co‐developed or end‐users driven,
involvement of decision‐makers during the research pro-
cess and the generated knowledge at the conclusion of
research meets the knowledge needs of decision‐makers.
Also knowledge exchange processes and strategies are to
be clearly identified and planned for during the research
RESEARCH TO POLICY AND PRACTICE 163
program development. All these endeavors require mobi-
lization of adequate resources to undertake engage-
ment and knowledge exchange activities in a meaningful
manner.
10.4.2. Opportunities
Understand the “policy world”: Failure to translate
research into policy and practice may have less to do
with the evidence and more to do with “policy world”
realities that are inherently political and shaped by many
inputs, including public opinion. To have any impact, it
is important to understand the policy context and the
needs of the policymakers and practitioners responsible
for decision‐making. If researchers want “evidence‐based
policy and practice”, they need to produce “policy and
practice‐based evidence”. This highlights the need for
partnerships between interdisciplinary research teams
and policy makers/practitioners, and a research approach
explicitly designed to influence policy.
Establish links with policy‐makers and practitioners: A
stronger link of scientists and researchers with policy-
makers and practitioners is essential to facilitate research
translation to policy and practice. This needs to be devel-
oped all along the process starting with (initiation of
research) identifying and defining research questions
jointly, defining the research steps and evaluating the
progress together, maintaining close collaboration and
information exchange, timely relevance of the research,
and provision of research summaries containing policy
recommendations. Establishing close research–practice
relationships can result in a two‐way interaction and a
flow of information. Scientists and researchers become
aware of policy‐relevant research questions and practi-
tioners are kept up‐to‐date on recent research findings.
Researchers successful at influencing policy and practice
develop a “friendly and trusting” relationship with poli-
cymakers and practitioners. They see these relationships
as “critical for advancing research informed policy”.
Establish research agendas jointly with policymakers and
practitioners: Establishing joint research agendas requires
researchers to see the world through the eyes of policy-
makers and practitioners. What are the crucial policy‐rel-
evant questions that they need to be answered, and how
can researchers align their desire to advance scientific
knowledge with these policy imperatives? Co‐creating
the research questions in conjunction with policymak-
ers and practitioners before the research is undertaken
is an important starting step that can go a long way to
knowledge exchange.
Innovative and collaborative approach for knowledge
exchange: Decision‐makers are likely to use scientific
research findings in the decision‐making process when
it is considered salient, credible and legitimate. Salience
164 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
refers to the extent to which the outcomes of scientific
research are relevant to decision‐makers. For scientific
evidence to be credible it must be perceived by the user to
be accurate, valid, and of high quality. Finally, scientific
knowledge must be considered legitimate when there is
trust in information produced by the users, in particular
the decision‐makers. Some innovative and collaborative
approaches identified and reported in literature are:
•• Knowledge co‐production: It is the most widely used
approach in which managers and decision‐makers (or
their representatives) actively participate in scientific
research programs collaborating with the researchers
at every stage of the study including design, imple-
mentation and analysis. This ensures that decision‐
makers develop a strong understanding of the research
content, analysis and derived outcome. As well as by
going through the process, decision‐makers develop a
strong sense of ownership in the research, which they
can then communicate broadly within their organiza-
tion, raising the awareness of others.
•• Embedding scientists in decision‐making agencies or
embedding a decision‐maker within a scientific organiza-
tion: By embedding research scientists within agencies
dominated by decision‐makers will improve the
likelihood that priority knowledge gaps are answered,
with the information quickly spreading among
decision‐makers and informing decisions. On the other
hand, by embedding a decision‐maker within a scientific
organization, for example as a short‐term professional
development opportunity, will also create increased
opportunities for knowledge exchange to occur.
•• Using knowledge brokers: The knowledge brokers
can enhance collaboration and knowledge exchange
among scientists and decision‐makers. The exact role
and functions of knowledge brokers are dependent
on characteristics of development sectors and their
setting, however, the key feature of their role is to facil-
itate the exchange of knowledge between and among
various stakeholders, including researchers, practi-
tioners, and policy makers. To achieve this, knowledge
brokers are typically embedded within research teams
or institutions and act as intermediaries that develop
relationships and networks with, among and bet-
ween producers and users of knowledge, to facilitate
the exchange of knowledge among the groups of the
network.
•• Boundary organizations as a novel approach to improve
knowledge exchange among producers and users
of scientific knowledge: Like knowledge brokers,
boundary organizations facilitate communication
and knowledge exchange among diverse networks
of stakeholders. However, boundary organizations
are not typically embedded within research teams of
organizations as it happens with knowledge broker.
They are established as an independent entity, effec-
tively representing both sides across the boundary
of scientist and decision‐maker while maintaining
credibility in knowledge exchange function. This way,
boundary organization can unite groups that may
otherwise have a strained relationship to enhance evi-
dence‐based decision‐making.
10.5. SUMMARY AND MOVING FORWARD
The SDGs cover a wide range of complex social,
economic, and environmental challenges. In order to
address these challenges a multi‐pronged approach is
required and this includes education for sustainable
development and conducting scientific research address-
ing the development issues, translating research findings
into policy/practice, and developing a trained Community
of Practice to sustain the advances in the relevant sectors.
Education for sustainable development means including
key sustainable development issues into teaching and
learning for capacity development of the future profes-
sionals, decision‐makers and the society at large to face
the sustainable development challenges.
Universities and Institutions of Higher Education,
with their overall responsibility in creation and dissem-
ination of knowledge and their unique position within
society, have a critical role to play in the achievement of
the SDGs. They have to be proactive in adopting sus-
tainability policy and strategy in all phases of operation
and service provision. Only the aspects of learning and
teaching, and research are considered to indicate how
the traditional process of education and research be
reformed to address the need of training and expertise
developed to address sustainable development challenges.
By following the academic curriculum, students should
gather knowledge, skills, and motivation to understand
and address the sustainability issues in the development
process for the achievement of SDGs. Apart from hav-
ing a basic course on sustainability concept and princi-
ples, it is recommended to reform offering of different
disciplinary courses with a comprehensive integration
of sustainability themes in a holistic manner following
an interdisciplinary and/or transdisciplinary approach
to motivate sustainability awareness. Also, innovative
pedagogical approaches like PBL are to be adopted in
teaching and learning of sustainability principles and its
application in practice. As an example, the content of an
academic curriculum in water resources management is
provided and the thematic research areas with relevant
research questions are elaborated.
It is imperative that the outcome of academic research
and its findings are translated into the decision‐making
process to formulate policies and actions. However, this

translation process is quite complex as the professional
environments of scientists, researchers, and policy‐makers
are quite different. Challenges to achieve this translation
are identified as contrasting attributes and functions of
scientists and decision‐makers, ineffectiveness of conven-
tional approach to knowledge exchange, inaccessibility
of science to decision‐makers, personal perceptions, and
program planning and resource mobilization. A range of
options for overcoming these challenges and the enabling
conditions for the implementation of the translation pro-
cess are identified. Understanding the “policy world”,
establishing links with policy‐makers and practitioners,
establishing research agendas jointly with policy‐makers
and practitioners, and adopting innovative and collabo-
rative approaches for knowledge exchange are some of
the efforts that can facilitate effective knowledge transla-
tion from research to decision‐making.
Influencing public policy and practice should be
an explicit goal for applied research. Evidence‐based
research outcomes would have an implication for what
needs to be implemented to be effective. Academic
Institutions and/or Institutions of Higher Education at
national and regional levels should take a proactive role
initiating a “capacity development program” to prepare
the future professionals and citizens, who comprise the
trained Community of Practice for adopting SDG ini-
tiatives in practice. This can be achieved by aligning
academic curricula and research, and the policies that
support and guide them with the specific skills and pri-
orities needed to meet the emerging issues and challenges
of the SDG era and beyond. Research topics are to be
formulated meeting the needs of the local and national
governments to address and resolve the development
issues. The concerned authorities, decision‐makers, and
other practitioners, as needed, should be involved in the
design phase of research, briefed and consulted at differ-
ent stages as the research progresses for their view and
necessary input in order to ensure that the research is rel-
evant to their particular concerns. By involving the rele-
vant government officials and decision‐makers from the
research initiation to the final stage would certainly enable
the uptake of research findings and recommendations in
decision‐making processes translating to policy and prac-
tice, as has been pointed out in the earlier sections.
However, the question remains as to how Academic
Institutions and/or Institutions of Higher Education
can assume a proactive and leading role to foster part-
nerships with governments and communities in order
to address emerging issues and challenges in SDGs. To
do so, academic institutions need to move gradually
beyond the traditional mission of education and research
towards an added mission related to their ability to
partner with governments and communities to achieve
societal impacts. These types of partnership have mostly
RESEARCH TO POLICY AND PRACTICE 165
been through collaborative projects with a memorandum
of understanding among the parties involved. They are
on an ad‐hoc basis and are not sustainable. The need,
therefore, is a long‐term and sustainable partnership to
bring universities and/or institutions of higher education,
governments, and the communities they serve together in
addressing pressing challenges and transforming soci-
eties (El‐Jardali et al., 2018). El‐Jardali et al. (2018), in
a commentary in Health Research Policy and Systems,
provided the case for building, strengthening, and institu-
tionalising university partnerships with governments and
communities to achieve the SDGs. The authors called for
a change in mindset and culture in both academia and
government, and invited both parties to start the dialogue
if we are to rise up to the global challenge. The universities
and institutions of higher educations must strategically
re‐orient their academic and research programs as indi-
cated in Section 10.2 to provide knowledge, innovations,
and solutions to underpin the implementation of SDGs.
They must teach and train today’s students – tomorrow’s
decision‐makers – to think both critically and ethically, to
learn to cope with ethical dilemmas, and apply systems‐
thinking approaches to serious and complex societal
problems. On the other hand, government institutions
need to be responsible, ethical, honest, and impartial to
exercise public power, oversee policies fairly and take into
account their range, complexity and occasional incom-
patibility. They need to adhere to SDGs and targets in
country’s development process. They also need to recog-
nize the benefit of fostering partnership with universities
and institutions of higher education in addressing sus-
tainable development issues in national context.
Institutionalising a partnership of university and/
or institution of higher education with government and
community would, therefore, be an essential step to ensure
a long‐term and sustainable process of working together
in coherence for addressing the development issues.
However, the national governments should recognize the
benefit of this partnership, attach priority to this initiative,
and provide institutional support for its formation. Trust
and transparency on motivations for collaboration among
the partners involved, clarity on mutual benefits, shared
objectives and long‐term commitments are key elements in
forging an effective partnership. Additionally, appropriate
institutional strategies, structures, and measures are to be
in place for functioning of the process. This requires estab-
lishment of a centralized entity, such as a Government
and/or Community Relations Office, responsible for orga-
nizing and coordinating joint activities of university and
institution of higher education with the government and
community. A collaborative governance structure with
engagement of executives from the government and the
university and/or institution of higher education would
enhance opportunities for exchange and integration
166 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
needed to address the SDGs. Institutional mechanisms,
such as incentives and clear guidance, should support fac-
ulty engagement efforts as well as promote accountability
for such engagement. As well, proper incentive mechanisms
must be built in for government officials (like decision‐
makers) and community representatives to be actively
involved in the collaborative knowledge generation and
exchange process, as has been elaborated in Section 10.4.2.
A number of other challenging tasks are to be performed
and these include: (i) reform of academic curriculum
and research programs in institution of higher educa-
tion as discussed in Section 10.2, (ii) planning, preparing
and delivering need‐based training and extension pro-
grams for re‐training of the professionals and community
leaders for their capacity development jointly carried out
by academic institutes and government organizations,
and (iii) forging a productive link between researchers and
decision‐makers at all stages of the research process from
formulation of research project through its execution and
finalising the output for decision‐making purpose as dis-
cussed in earlier sections. The benefits of the partnership
of universities and institutions of higher education with
governments and communities are indicated in Table 10.1.
Finally, the over‐arching issue of mobilizing resources
to sustain the function of the established centralized entity
is the prime factor to be addressed to by all the parties
involved in the process. The universities and/or institu-
tions of higher education and governments need to pro-
mote a culture within their institutional systems whereby
collaborative activities of research, outreach and capacity
development, through the established centralized entity
of Government and/or Community Relations Office, are
recognized as core business, be endorsed appropriately.
Core capacities must be developed at three levels, namely
individual, institutional and financial, to carry out col-
laborative research, to support effective and efficient
knowledge exchange among scientists, researchers, and
decision‐makers and to provide extension services. At
the individual level, knowledge exchange processes can
be enhanced by ensuring that all participants have strong
communication skills and high levels of motivation to
actively participate in stakeholder engagement activities.
As such, at the institutional level there is a need to build
capacity of staff (scientists, researchers, or decision‐
makers) using innovative approaches to respond to this
need. Decision‐makers at both the individual and institu-
tional levels must make a concerted effort to move beyond
their typical focus on day‐to‐day operation to long‐term
implication of their decisions and development priorities.
Concurrently, scientists and researchers need to move
out of their exploratory domain to formally recognize
engagement and communication activities as essential
elements in knowledge exchange efforts. Finally, for all
of these to occur it is critical that the collaborative and
Table 10.1 Benefits of partnership of university/institution
of higher education with government and community.
University/Institution of Higher Education
•• Possibilities to market academic and research programs,
training courses and extension services
•• Prospect of working on transdisciplinary research in
collaboration with decision‐makers and communities
•• Access to data and information, and specialized facilities
in public sector for research
•• Access to legislations and policies in development, and
ability to inform their development and implementation
•• Possibilities to avail educational benefits provided by
government or community officials in the form of field
research or their involvement in academic activities as
adjunct faculty
•• Opportunities to faculty members for possible placement
in government offices
•• Enhanced role in socioeconomic development and
innovations
•• Funding opportunities for development related research
and innovation
Government and Community
•• Access to knowledge, skills, research services and
capacity building initiatives
•• Evidence‐based decision‐making and practice, and
improved service delivery
•• Placement opportunities for government or community
officials in the form of adjunct faculty in academic
programs
•• Understanding and appreciation of data analysis and
evidence‐based research leading to new perspectives and
insights into policy areas and priorities
•• Encouraged to involve in a complex and interacting
environment to address challenging issues for policy
decisions, not usually possible in traditional government
practice
Student
•• Opportunities to work on multidisciplinary and
transdisciplinary research addressing the socio‐economic
and environmental issues
•• Networking with government and community officials
and other researchers engaged in development aspects
and policy research
•• Gain education with field‐scale training and exposure
dealing with development issues
•• Opportunities for pursuing career after completion of
study and graduation
knowledge exchange activities are adequately financed
during the research program, and after its completion to
ensure accessibility of scientific knowledge and success-
ful knowledge management. Academic institutions and
government authorities need to allocate required funding
for the functioning of the entity and must be built into
the overall financial budget for the operation.

REFERENCES
Aaserud, M., Lewin, S., Innvaer, S. et al. (2005). Translating
Research into Policy and Practice in Developing Countries:
A Case Study of Magnesium Sulphate for Pre‐eclampsia.
BMC Health Services Research, 5, Article 68 (Open Access
Research Article) DOI:10.1186/1472‐6963‐5‐68.
Alnsour, J.A. and Meaton, J, (2015). The Use of University
Research in Planning Decision Making in Jordanian Munici-
palities. Habitat International, 49: 206–211.
Andrades Pena, F.J., Jorge, M.L., and Reyes de los, M.J.M.
(2018). Analysing the Incorporation of Sustainability
Themes into the University Curricula: A Case Study of a
Spanish Public University. International Journal of Sustain-
able Development & World Ecology, 25(7): 642–654.
Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F. et al. (2013). A Review of Trans-
disciplinary Research in Sustainability Science, Ecological
Economics, 92: 1–15.
Brown, L.E., Mitchell, G., Holden, J. (2010) et al. Priority
Water Research Questions as Determined by UK Practi-
tioners and Policy Makers. Science of the Total Environment,
409(2): 256–266.
Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A.J., van Kerkhoff, L. et al. (2015).
Improving Knowledge Exchange among Scientists and
Decision Makers to Facilitate the Adaptive Governance of
Marine Resources: A Review of Knowledge and Research
Needs. Ocean & Coastal Management, 112: 25–35.
Cvitanovic, C., McDonald, J., and Hobday, A.J. (2016). From
Science to Action: Principles for Undertaking Environ-
mental Research that Enables Knowledge Exchange and
Evidence‐based Decision‐Making. Journal of Environmental
Management, 183(3): 864–874.
Du, X., Su, L., and Liu, J. (2013). Developing Sustainability
Curricula using the PBL Method in a Chinese Context.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 61: 80–88.
Ellen, M.E., Lavis, J.N., Horowitz, E., and Berglas, R. (2018).
How is the Use of Research Evidence in Health Policy Per-
ceived? A Comparison between the Reporting of Researchers
and Policy‐Makers. Health Research Policy and Systems,
16(1): Article 64 (Open Access Research Article). https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12961‐018‐0345‐6
El‐Jardali, F., Ataya, N., and Fadlallah. R. (2018). Changing
Roles of Universities in the Era of SDGs: Rising up to the
Global Challenge through Institutionalising Partnerships
with Governments and Communities. Health Research Policy
and Systems, 16(1): Article 38, 5p (Open Access Commen-
tary). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961‐018‐0318‐9
Figueiro, P.S. and Raufflet, E. (2015). Sustainability in Higher
Education: A Systematic Review with Focus on Management
Education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106: 22–33.
Field, B., Booth, A., Ilott, I., and Gerrish, K. (2014). Using
the Knowledge to Action Framework in Practice: a Citation
Analysis and Systematic Review. Implementation Science,
9(1): Article 172, 14p (Open Access Systematic Review).
Giles‐corti, B., Sallis, J.F., Takemi, S. et al. (2015). Translating
Active Living Research into Policy and Practice: One Impor-
tant Pathway to Chronic Disease Prevention. Journal of
Public Health Policy; Basingstoke, 36(2): 231–243.
RESEARCH TO POLICY AND PRACTICE 167
Gosselin, D., Parnell, R., Smith‐Sebasto, N.J., and Vin-
cent, S. (2013). Integration of Sustainability in Higher
­Education: Three Case Studies of Curricular Implementa-
tion. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 3(3):
316–330.
Graham, I., Logan, J., Harrison, M. et al. (2006). Lost in
Knowledge Translation: Time for a Map? Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26: 13–24.
Guerra, A. (2017). Integration of Sustainability in Engineering
Education: Why is PBL an Answer? International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(3): 436–454.
Hossain, Md.S., Pogue, S.J., Trenchardd, L. et al. (2018). Identi-
fying Future Research Directions for Biodiversity, Ecosystem
Services and Sustainability: Perspectives from Early‐Career
Researchers. International Journal of Sustainable Development
& World Ecology, 25(3): 249–261.
Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R. et al. (2001). Sustainability
Science, Science, 292: 641–642.
Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U., Alves, F. et al. (2018). Reinvigo-
rating the Sustainable Development Research Agenda: The
Role of the Sustainable Development Goals. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25 (2):
131–142.
Mainali, B., Luukkanen, J., Silveira, S., and Kaivo‐oja, J.
(2018). Evaluating Synergies and Trade‐Offs among Sustain-
able Development Goals (SDGs): Explorative Analyses of
Development Paths in South Asia and Sub‐Saharan Africa.
Sustainability, 10(3): Article 815 (Open Access Article).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030815
McGibbon, C. and Van Belle, J‐P. (2015). Integrating Environ-
mental Sustainability Issues into the Curriculum through
Problem‐based and Project‐based Learning: A Case Study
at the University of Cape Town. Current Opinion in Environ-
mental Sustainability, 16: 81–88.
Morton, S., Wilson, S., Inglis, S. et al. (2018). Developing
a Framework to Evaluate Knowledge into Action Inter-
ventions. BMC Health Services Research, 18: Article133
(Open Access Research Article). https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12913‐018‐2930‐3
Oldekop, J.A., Fontana, L.B., Grugel, J. et al. (2016). 100 Key
Research Questions for the Post‐2015 Development Agenda,
Development Policy Review, 34(1): 55–82.
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) (2018). Financing Water: Investing in Sustain-
able Growth. Policy Perspectives, OECD Environment Policy
Paper No 11.
Shing, C.K. (2015). Sustainability Integration into Engineering
Curricula within Five Research Universities in Malaysia.
Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, 228p., Faculty of Science, Uni-
versity of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
SDSN (Sustainable Development Solution Network) Australia/
Pacific (2017). Getting Started with the SDGs in Universities:
A Guide for Universities, Higher Education Institutions, and
the Academic Sector. Australia, New Zealand and Pacific
Edition, Melbourne: SDSN–Australia/Pacific, 56p.
Thomas, I. and Depasquale J. (2016). Connecting Curriculum,
Capabilities and Careers. International Journal of Sustain-
ability in Higher Education, 17(6):738–755.
168 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization) (2017). Education for Sustainable Development
Goals: Learning Objectives. UNESCO Paris, France.
Uzochukwu1, B., Onwujekwe, O., Mbachu, C. et al. (2016).
The challenge of Bridging the Gap between Researchers
and Policy Makers: Experiences of a Health Policy Research
Group in Engaging Policy Makers to Support Evidence
Informed Policy Making in Nigeria. Globalization and
Health, 12(1): Article 67, (Open Access Research Article),
DOI 10.1186/s12992‐016‐0209‐1.
Vemury, C.M., Heidrich, O., Thorpe, N., and Crosbie, T. (2018).
A Holistic Approach to Delivering Sustainable Design Edu-
cation in Civil Engineering. International Journal of Sustain-
ability in Higher Education, 19(1): 197–216.
Watson, M.K., Lozano, R., Noyes, C., and Rodgers, M.
(2013). Assessing Curricula Contribution to Sustainability
more Holistically: Experiences from the Integration of Cur-
ricula Assessment and Students’ Perceptions at the Georgia
Institute of Technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61:
106–116.
 Section III
Sustainability in Practice
 11
Resilient Water Infrastructure for Poverty Reduction: Cases from Asia
and Middle East
Victor R. Shinde1 and Lovlesh Sharma2

ABSTRACT

Resilient water infrastructure is critical for public and environmental health, as well as for different economic
sectors. It is the one of the primary mediums through which the overall concept of resiliency is translated on
the ground. Therefore, the role of water infrastructure in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
cannot be over‐emphasized. It essentially cuts across most of the seventeen goals directly or indirectly. This
chapter elaborates and clarifies the linkages between water infrastructural solutions and various elements of
sustainable development through national level statistical analysis and five local case studies in Asia. It also
highlights issues and challenges in water infrastructure development and implementation that will have to be
addressed in order to make a meaningful contribution to the achievement of the SDGs.

11.1. INTRODUCTION the Indus Civilization, developed a robust and sophisti-

Water infrastructure is needed to supply citizens, com-
munities, businesses, and industries with potable water,
as well as to collect, treat and discharge wastewater to
manage storm water runoff, and to prevent flooding. The
vital role of water infrastructure in societal development
becomes even more crucial in light of climate change
effects that are already being experienced around the
world. The increasing frequency and magnitudes of
extreme weather conditions such as severe storms, floods
and acute drought, overtax infrastructure and make
water infrastructure more vulnerable.
Throughout history, civilizations have harnessed the
power of water through various infrastructural interven-
tions to fuel socioeconomic development. As reported by
Mays et al. (2007), there are several examples of urban
water systems from around the mid‐third millennium BC.
For example, Mohenjo‐Daro, a major urban centre of
1
Sector Coordinator for Water and Environment, National
Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, India
2
Sector Coordinator for Infrastructure, National Institute of
Urban Affairs, New Delhi, India
cated system for water supply and sewage. Archaeological
records of Mesopotamia indicate that the ancient city of
Eshnunna (80 km northeast of the present Baghdad) had
sewers constructed of brick, with laterals connecting to
houses. Similarly, a groundwater collection system known
as “qanat” was developed in Persia, which was a subter-
ranean system of tunnels connecting wells and dug using
vertical shafts, designed to collect and transport water,
sometimes over long distances, from highlands to low‐
lying farming land.
Resilient water infrastructure is critical for public and
environmental health, and for different economic sectors.
It is the conduit through which a resilient plan is trans-
lated into action on the ground. This accentuates the
role of water infrastructure in achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). It essentially cuts across
most of the seventeen goals directly or indirectly. Robust
and sustainable water infrastructure is, therefore, central
to the 2030 Developmental Agenda.
There are different types of water infrastructure,
depending upon the use for which they have been devel-
oped. The descriptions of these in context of sustainable
development are presented in Table 11.1.

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

171
Table 11.1 Types of water infrastructure and their implications for sustainable development.
Sl. No Type of water infrastructure
1 Water supply systems (comprising intake,
treatment, distribution, and collection).
2 Wastewater management systems
(comprising collection, treatment, and
disposal)
3 Irrigation systems (that include aqueducts,
canals, etc.)
4 Flood control systems (that include flood
control reservoirs, levees, detention
ponds, etc.)
5 Urban drainage systems (comprising
collection, treatment and disposal)
6 Hydropower systems (that include dams,
and related structures)
Implications for sustainable development SDGs contributed to
A very basic human need, access to clean water is at the
heart of sustainable development. Access to clean 6 CLEAN WATER
AND SANITATION
drinking water is still a major concern in several
countries. However, significant progress has been made
over the years.
This has multiple implications. The first is directly
concerned with providing people with adequate 6 CLEAN WATER
AND SANITATION 3 GOOD HEALTH
AND WELL-BEING
sanitation and hygiene, which was observed as a major
gap in the Millennium Development Goals
achievements. Countries in Sub‐Saharan Africa and
South East Asia are of particular importance in this
regard. The second implication is related to the proper
discharge of wastewater. This is a major concern in much
of the developing world.
This has direct implications on food security. The reliance
on rain‐fed agriculture— while still prevalent in some 2 ZERO
HUNGER 1 NO
POVERTY
parts of the world— is reducing. The significance of
irrigation systems in context of food security, therefore,
becomes very high.
Climate change is increasing the frequency, intensity and
duration of extreme events. Among these, extreme 11 SUSTAINABLE CITIES
AND COMMUNITIES 13 CLIMATE
ACTION
rainfall resulting in floods has the potential to cripple a
city (or area) and cause damage to both life and property.
Flood mitigation infrastructure is, thus, the need of the
hour in light of climate change concerns.
As countries move forward on the path towards economic
prosperity, there is a rapid change in the rate of 11 SUSTAINABLE CITIES
AND COMMUNITIES
urbanization. The hydrological landscape in urban areas
is quite different from that of other areas. Without
properly designed urban drainage systems, events like
flash flooding will bring the city to frequent standstills.
As the world makes steady efforts to move away from fossil
fuel‐based fuels, the role of hydropower as a source of 7 AFFORDABLE AND
CLEAN ENERGY 13 CLIMATE
ACTION
clean energy becomes very crucial in the sustainable
development landscape.
 RESILIENT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION 173

11.2. LINKAGES BETWEEN WATER The high income countries (Singapore, Hong Kong,
INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT Japan, South Korea, and Israel) have a greater number of
people using safely managed water services. Conversely,
Water infrastructure is vital to the overall development the lower income countries have a lesser number of people
of a country. This section presents the results of some using safely managed services. There can be two inferences
data analyses to depict the relationship between the two. here. First, because of their wealth, the richer countries
Per capita GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) has been have more money to spend on water services. Second,
used to represent development. Relevant data of twenty‐ safely managed water services lead to a better quality of
one countries is used for the analysis. The countries range life, which in turn contributes to the country’s economy.
between low income and high income countries, as pre- In both cases, it is apparent that safely managed water
sented in Figure 11.1. services have a bearing on the development landscape of
The first analysis depicts the relationship between the country.
people in the target countries that use safely managed The second analysis (Figure 11.3) looks to investigate
drinking water service vs. per capita GDP. As gleaned the relationship between mortality rate attributed to
from Figure 11.2, there is a strong positive correlation unsafe water and the per capita GDP. Like the previous
between the two. analysis, it is apparent here as well that the richer

100

80
Per Capita GDP as per Paurchasing

60
Power Parity (1000 USD)

40

20

-
Afghanistan

Bhutan

Iran

Australia

Israel
Nepal

Bangladesh

Cambodia

India

Indonesia

Lao PDR

Mongolia

Myanmar

China

Malaysia

Thailand

Turkey

Hong Kong

Japan

South Korea

Singapore
Low Lower Middle Income Countries Upper Middle Income High Income Countries
Income Countries
Countries

Figure 11.1 Countries considered for the analysis. Source: Data from World Bank (2019). World Bank Open Data.

120
Israel Japan Australia
Singapore
People using safely managed drinking

100
water services (% of population)

Iran Hong Kong

80 Malaysia South Korea

Bangladesh
60

40 Bhutan

Nepal
20
Cambodia

0
- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 1,00,000
Per Capita GDP (USD)

Figure 11.2 Relationship between economic development and safely managed water services. Source: Data
from World Bank (2019). World Bank Open Data.
174 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

countries have a much lower mortality rate resulting from and India, where the mortality rate due to unsafe water is
the use of unsafe water. Countries like Singapore, Hong as high as 15–20 per 100 000 population.
Kong, and Australia have hardly any causalities in this The third analysis (Figure 11.4) presents the plot of
aspect. On the other end of the spectrum are countries people using at least basic sanitation services (percentage
with lower per capita GDP such as Nepal, Afghanistan, of population) versus per capita GDP. Yet again, it is quite

25

20 Nepal
India
Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water

15
Afghanistan
(per 100,000 population)

Myanmar
Bangladesh
10 Lao PDR
Indonesia
Cambodia

5 Bhutan
Thailand South Korea
Mongolia Iran Malaysia
China Turkey Japan Australia Hong Kong Singapore
0 Israel
- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 1,00,000

–5
Per Capita GDP (USD)

Figure 11.3 Relationship between economic development and mortality rate attributed to unsafe water.
Source: Data from World Bank (2019).

120
People using at least basic sanitation services (%

110 Malaysia
Israel Japan Singapore
100 Thailand Hong Kong
South Korea Australia
Iran Turkey
90
of population)

80
Lao PDR China
Indonesia
70
Myanmar Bhutan
Mongolia
60
Bangladesh
Cambodia
50 Nepal
India
40
Afghanistan
30
- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 1,00,000
Per Capita GDP (USD)

Figure 11.4 Relationship between economic development and basic sanitation service coverage (by population).
Source: Data from World Bank (2019).
 RESILIENT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION 175

120000

Total renewable water resources (m3/capita/year)

Bhutan
100000

80000 Afghanistan
Indonesia Thailand

60000 Nepal
Lao PDR

40000 Cambodia Mongolia

Myanmar
Malaysia Australia
20000 India
Bangladesh South Korea
IranTurkey Japan Singapore
Israel
0
- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 1,00,000
Per Capita GDP (USD)

Figure 11.5 Relationship between economic development and per capita total renewable water resources.
Source: Data from FAO (2019). FAOSTAT.

evident that there is a strong positive correlation between evidence to suggest that efficient water infrastructure
the two variables. Countries with lower per capita income is crucial for a country’s economy, and should be an
(Afghanistan, Nepal, India, Cambodia, and Bangladesh) essential component of any poverty alleviation strategy.
have a lesser proportion of people using at least basic
sanitation services. The richer countries like Singapore, 11.3. EVIDENCES OF THE POSITIVE IMPACT
Japan, and Australia already have almost 100% of the OF WATER INFRASTRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS
population using these services. IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABLE
The fourth analysis (Figure 11.5) depicts the rela- DEVELOPMENT
tionship between the per capita total renewable water
resources and level of economic development. This section describes five case studies to demonstrate
Here, it is clear that having more renewable water the positive impacts of water infrastructure on different
resources does not necessarily result in increased economic aspects of the 2030 Agenda, addressing multiple SDGs.
development. Countries like Afghanistan, Bhutan, Each case study looks at a different type of water infra-
Lao PDR, and Nepal have abundant per capita water structure. These are:
resources, which is much greater than the Falkenmark’s
•• Infrastructure to maintain life (drinking water supply
threshold of 1700 per capita/year (Falkenmark, 1989).
infrastructure).
However, these feature among the countries with low per
•• Infrastructure to enhance livelihoods (irrigation
capita GDP. On the other hand, countries like Singapore,
infrastructure).
Japan, and Israel have very low per capita water avail-
•• Infrastructure to protect communities (flood resilient
ability but are still economically advanced. This points to
infrastructure).
the fact that optimal management of water resources is
•• Infrastructure to protect environment (river clean up
invariably associated with high economic growth.
infrastructure).
In addition to the primary analyses presented above,
•• Infrastructure to enhance productivity (mixed infra-
data from published literature (UNDP, 2011) as pre-
structural solutions).
sented in Table 11.2 suggests that there is a strong correla-
tion between economic development and disaster‐related
losses. Countries with high Human Development Index 11.3.1. Case Study 01: Water Infrastructure to improve
(HDI) suffer lesser. Investment in water infrastructure for the quality of life: A Case of Nagpur City (INDIA).
disasters can help boost economy.
The results of these analyses clearly indicate that there i) Background and context
is a very strong linkage between water infrastructure Nagpur is the third largest city and winter capital of
and economic development. There is enough statistical the Indian state of Maharashtra. It is the 13th largest
176 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Table 11.2 Disaster‐related casualties and costs, median annual values by HDI group.

Deaths Affected population Cost

(per million people) (per million people) (per cent of GNI)
Country Group 1971–1990 1991–2010 1971–1990 1991–2010 1971–1990 1991–2010
HDI Group
Very high 0.9 0.5 196 145 1.0 0.7
High 2.1 1.1 1,437 1,157 1.3 0.7
Medium 2.7 2.1 11,700 7,813 3.3 2.1
Low 6.9 1.9 12,385 4,102 7.6 2.8
World 2.1 1.3 3,232 1,822 1.7 1.0

Note: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistic composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita
income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development (very high; high; medium; and low)

Indian city by population. It was selected as one of the
hundred Smart Cities under the Smart Cities Mission
launched by the Government of India. The total area of
the city is 217.56 Sq.km and is home to a population of
about 2 Million, with an average density of 95 ­persons
per hectare. There are 439 slums in the city. Out of these
279 are notified (i.e. these slums have some legal status);
142 non‐notified (i.e. these slums do not have any legal
or administrative status); and 18 newly identified slums.
The number of households in slums is 209 000 and
the average household size is six (Nagpur Municipal
Corporation, 2012).
For years, the slums in Nagpur have been deprived of
safe drinking water and basic sanitation facilities. The
Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) provides water
to only 62% of the slums through individual water con-
nections. In the remaining 32%, the slum dwellers, espe-
cially women, spend between 2 to 2.5 hours a day in water
collection travelling approximately 3-4. Acute poverty and
unhealthy living conditions in these specific areas have
resulted in very low life expectancy and very poor human
development index (0.01––0.029) (Wankhede, 2015).
because many feared that the financial burden would be
too much to bear. Further, there were also apprehensions
about OCW’s ability to provide continuous water supply.
Community engagement and awareness campaigns by
OCW were instrumental in swaying support for the project.
iii) Results
The initiative has resulted in improved access to safe
water for slum areas and for the rest of the city. This
project increased the water availability for slum dwellers to
70 lpcd (Nagpur Municipal Corporation, 2015) through
individual piped connections. To ease the financial
burden on the slum dwellers, NMC also waived connec-
tion charges fees. This helped in identifying illegal con-
nections in unauthorised areas and bring those into the
consumer database, thereby reducing commercial losses.
As expected, the women in the slums no longer have to
travel long distances to fetch water. Although there is no
data on how these women currently spend their time, the
initiative has certainly given them an opportunity to uti-
lize their time more productively. Box 11.1 presents some
key outcomes of the project.

ii) Infrastructural solution iv) Lessons learnt

In order to address this skewed human development The case study shows the role of water infrastructure
index of the city, one of the initiatives taken by the city in directly contributing to SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 6
government was to increase the water supply coverage in (Clean water and sanitation), and SDG 8 (Decent work
the 32% of the slums that have no access to water. The and economic growth). Investments made in water infra-
premise for this initiative was that an efficient and reliable structure have the potential to enhance the quality of life
water supply would save productive person hours of the
slum dwellers, leaving them more time to engage in other
activities to boost their income. As part of a larger solu- Box 11.1 “Before” and “After” scenario of the Orange
tion for the city, a Public Private Partnership (PPP) model City Water Project, Nagpur, India.
was adopted to manage the water supply in Nagpur, result- Particulars Before After
ing in a special purpose entity, Orange City Water (OCW). Distance traveled by women to 3–4 km 0 km
Although the project was implemented at a pan city level, access clean water
the targets for the slums was an improved system of water Hours spent by women in slums to 2–3 hours 0 hour
with continuous access to tap water. The slum dwellers access clean water
needed to be convinced to opt for a service connection
 RESILIENT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION 177
on multiple fronts. While the objective is singular, the
benefits span across several areas. In most developing cit-
ies, the slum settlements typically receive little attention
from authorities because of their inherent “unautho-
rized” nature. However, unless the problems in these
unauthorized areas are addressed, a city can never truly
claim to be on the path towards sustainable development.
The case study shows that it is possible to address the
issues related to water supply in slum settlements through
sound planning and economic models.
11.3.2. Case Study 02: Water Infrastructure to enhance
livelihood: A Case of Case of Tufileh (Jordan). Source:
Adapted from Faruqui N. & Al‐Jayyousi O. (2002).
i) Background and Context
Tufileh is a town with a population of 27 559 people
in southern Jordan, located 183 kilometers southwest
of Amman. It has scarce water resources and a rapidly
growing population. The water scarcity problem has been
prevalent for more than two decades. This coupled with
high population growth over this period has pushed the
per capita water availability further down. The average
water consumption in the area is about 28 liters per capita
per day (lpcd). This is significantly lower than the low
Jordanian average of 135 lpcd. Under the circumstances
the first priority is given for drinking and domestic
purposes, not for agriculture. In fact, the Jordanian
government pays farmers $129 per ha as compensation
to not plant vegetables and annual crops, in order to pre-
serve water for drinking.
ii) Infrastructural Solution
CARE, Australia implemented a Permaculture Pilot
Project in Ain El Baida, a suburb of Tufileh, to dem-
onstrate confined space production techniques for both
plants and livestock that conserve soil and water. A fund
was introduced to loan money to 50 poor families in
the area to set up greywater reuse systems in their own
homes. The families used the greywater to irrigate vegeta-
bles, fruits and herbs.
iii) Results
The project allowed the community to offset food pur-
chases and generate income by selling surplus production,
saving or earning an average of 10% of its income. Had
the households used municipal sources for this supple-
mental irrigation, on average, they would have used 15%
more water and had 27% higher water bills. Moreover,
the project helped community members gain valuable
gardening, irrigation, and food preservation skills.
Women on the project reported feeling more independent
and proud because of the income they generated, the
skills that they gained, and their enhanced ability to feed
Box 11.2 Benefits of the Greywater reuse system
Particulars Before
Additional household income 15–40%
generated (10% average)
Reduction of food expenses at 10–15%
household level
Average net benefit per household $376
their families. The success of the incentive can also be
clearly identified by the fact that the status of loan repay-
ment was reported as 100%. Box 11.2 presents the key
achievements of the project.
iv) Lesson learnt
The case study shows the role of water infrastructure
in directly contributing to SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG
2 (Zero hunger), SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation),
SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth), and SDG
12 (Responsible consumption and production). This is a
wonderful example of optimizing the use of already scant
resources. It also accentuates the notion of converting
challenges into opportunities. Water infrastructural solu-
tions will have to be combined with other economic and
social instruments to bring about a noticeable difference
on the ground.
11.3.3. Case Study 03: Infrastructure to protect
communities against water‐related disasters: A Case
of Surat city (India. Source: Adapted from
Mavalankar, D. & Srivastava A. (2008). Desani P.
and Bansal N. (2017).
i) Background and context
Surat is a city in the Indian state of Gujarat. It used to
be a large seaport and is now a centre for diamond cutting
and polishing. It is the eighth largest city and ninth larg-
est urban agglomeration in India. The city is located
284 kilometers south of the state capital, Gandhinagar;
and 289 kilometers north of Mumbai. The city centre
is located on the Tapti River, close to the Arabian Sea.
Whenever the water level in the River Tapti rises, riverine
floods affect the city. The problem is compounded by
the increasing rate of urbanization in the city. In the last
hundred years, Surat has experienced more than twenty
floods. The flood in 2006 was particularly destructive,
killing more than 120 people, virtually bringing the city
to a standstill.
ii) Infrastructural solution
The 2006 floods were a tipping point in terms of
establishing an efficient disaster response mechanism.
178 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Several government and non‐governmental initiatives of extreme events in the future in most parts of the
were launched to ensure that a situation like 2006 did not world. Water infrastructure can, therefore, help alleviate
arise again. One such initiative was a collaborative effort the damage caused by these events, thereby providing a
between the Southern Gujarat Chamber of Commerce; positive impetus to the city’s development.
TARU leading Edge, a well‐known Indian consulting firm;
the Surat Municipal Corporation and other government
bodies; and the United States based Rockefeller 11.3.4. Case study 04: Water infrastructure
Foundation. The partnership led to the formation of the to protect environment: A case study of the
Surat Climate Change Trust, which played an impor- cleaning of the Singapore River and Kallang Basin
tant role in setting up a comprehensive end‐to‐end early in Singapore. Source: Adapted from Joshi Y.K,
warning system for flooding in the city. The system has Tortajada C. and Biswas A.K. (2012).
several infrastructural interventions required for the
project components, viz. installation of weather systems,
i) Background and context
data transfer mechanism from catchment to reservoir to
Today Singapore is widely considered a model for
city level, development of weather and flow prediction
environmentally friendly development. However, the
models, improvement of existing flood preparedness and
picture was very different in the 1960s and 1970s. In
formulation of action plans.
1965, when the city/state became independent, several
of its river systems were grossly polluted. Thousands
iii) Results
unauthorized dwellers lived in unsanitary conditions
The system was tested when the city was hit by riv-
near the rivers (particularly the 3 km long Singapore
erine floods in 2013. There was water in Surat’s streets,
River). Solid and liquid wastes from the hawkers, veg-
but not anywhere near as devastating as in 2006. The city
etable vendors and markets and unsewered areas were
authorities used this system for predicting floods caused
dumped indiscriminately into rivers. Additionally,
by extreme precipitation in Middle and Lower Tapi basin
almost 610 pig farms and 500 duck farms drained
as well as Khadi (tidal creeks) floods. Spatial maps to
untreated wastes into the waterways, especially into the
aid in Flood preparedness and management were devel-
Kallang Basin. In due course, the leadership realized
oped. Hence in 2013, Surat was fully cognizant of when
that protecting the environment was vital for Singapore’s
it was likely to rain heavily, how much water would be in
population to have an improved quality of life. Hence,
the dam, the rise of the water level and how much water
the philosophy was that economic development of the
should be released. This helped in planning for suitable
city–state could not be sustained and the quality of life
flood management responses. Box 11.3 present some key
of its people could not be significantly improved, unless
results related to mortality and economic loses before
environmental factors were considered as important as
and after the project.
development issues. As a result, in 1977, Prime Minister
Lee Kuan Yew gave a definite target to the Ministry of
iv) Lessons learnt
Environment to clean the Singapore River and Kallang
The case study shows the role of water infrastructure
Basin.
in directly contributing to SDG 3 (Good health and
well‐being), SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and commu-
ii) Infrastructural solution
nities), and SDG 13 (Climate action). The case study
A Master Plan for the clean‐up of the Singapore
demonstrates that a single water infrastructure solution
River and Kallang Basin was drafted in 1978, and the
can benefit the entire city. The implications of the study
Ministry of Environment became the coordinator of the
are very significant in context of climate change, which
action plan that was formulated jointly with the Drainage
is expected to increase both the intensity and magnitude
Department. The overall objective of the plan was to
restore the Singapore River and the Kallang Basin, so
that aquatic life could thrive. The plan was carried out
Box 11.3 “Before” and “After” scenario of the Flood
under five work packages:
Control Project, Surat, India. •• Removal or relocation of polluting sources and phas-
Particulars Before After ing out of polluting industries
•• Cleaning and dredging of the waterways
Mortality (2006 vs 2013 120 9
flood) •• Development of suitable infrastructure for those
Economic losses (2006 vs 2013 2400 Crore 500 Crore affected by relocation
flood) •• Awareness of the overall development programme
•• Strict law enforcement.
 RESILIENT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION 179
Infrastructural solutions were required to address the
first three packages. These solutions included phasing out
damaging measures such as nightsoil bucket latrines with
modern wastewater infrastructure (treatment plants and
sewer networks); construction of treatment plants for
industrial effluents; dredging infrastructure for desilting
and solid waste collection; and providing adequate water
supply and wastewater management infrastructure for
relocated communities.
iii) Results
Within a span of 10 years, the project had made mas-
sive strides in achieving its objectives. The pollution in the
river dropped drastically, which led to a great improve-
ment in the aquatic habitat. The project had several
tangible and intangible benefits. It heralded a flurry of
development‐related activities that transformed the face
of Singapore, and made it a model city in urban planning
and development. The demand for land along the water-
courses increased. This resulted in an escalation in the
value of these land parcels. Massive investments were
then made to attract tourism, recreation and related‐
business activities. It is, therefore, quite evident that the
clean‐up activities in the river have had a central role to
play in the economic development along the banks of the
Singapore River.
iv) Lessons learnt
This case study shows the role of water infrastructure
in directly contributing to SDG 3 (Good health and well‐
being), SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), and SDG 11
(Sustainable cities and communities). There is a clear
link between water infrastructure solution and economic
prosperity. Far too often, there is a belief that economic
development comes at the cost of the environment. This
case study clearly disproves this notion and suggests that
the converse is true—protecting the environment is vital
for sustained economic development.
11.3.5. Case study 05: Water infrastructure to
improve economic productivity: A case study
of Salamieh District, Syria. Source: Adapted from
Al‐Zein A. (2015).
i) Background and context
Salamieh is a city and district in western Syria, in the
Hama Governorate. It is located 33 kilometers southeast
of Hama, 45 kilometres northeast of Homs. The
population of the city is 66 724. Until some time back,
the farmers of the Salamieh District were the victims
of the negative impacts of water shortage that caused
poor yields of crops. This led to plummeting incomes,
uncontrolled and high unemployment rate, which
collectively caused poverty and widespread migration.
The main causes for water shortage in Salamieh District
were attributed to dry climate, increased demand, and
the poor management of resources. The majority of
the arable cultivable land is rain fed (91.5%) and the
remainder is irrigated. There is a heavy reliance on
full irrigation during the summer for the production
of summer vegetables and supplemental irrigation is
widely used on trees and on winter crops as a method to
improve and stabilize yields during the winter growing
period.
ii) Infrastructural solution
The Aga Khan Foundation undertook a project
“Sustainable Water Management Project (SWMP)”
from 2005–2010 to alleviate adverse impacts of water
shortage on quality and yield of crops and the quality
of human life in the district. The project had five major
components, each of which required infrastructural
interventions:
•• Adopting highly efficient techniques for irrigated
areas.
•• Transfer technology and spreading new techniques in
water sector.
•• Increasing agricultural productivity and improving its
quality
•• Maximizing income per unit of water.
•• Stop over‐pumping and stabilising the ground water
table.
The project strategy utilized the principle of gradual
expansion in villages. Every year some new villages were
added in order to, gradually, cover 90––95% of the total
irrigated area in Salamieh district by 2010 with an active
community participation.
iii) Results
The project interventions resulted in several achieve-
ments, including minimized water consumption, yield
improvements, increased water use efficiency and higher
incomes, along with groundwater table stabilization in
most of the villages. An economic assessment showed
that the first season’s income could cover the cost of the
network, which had a lifespan of at least five years. The
income from per cubic meter of water went up exponen-
tially while the area irrigated with a similar volume of
water available also increased several times during the
period of the project. From an environmental point of
view, there was more water available for maintaining
natural features since water abstracted for anthropo-
genic activities was reduced significantly. Materials used
for the network were collected and recycled by farmers
and biodiversity was considered during the whole project.
Box 11.4 presents some key results.
180 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

be explored. This creates a relatively risk‐free premise for

Box 11.4 “Before” and “After” scenario of the SWMP
Project, Syria
scaling up pilot studies.

Particulars Before After

Irrigation efficiency 35–40% 80–94%
Before: (Traditional gravity
(surface) irrigation) Vs After:
(Sprinkler, drip system or
pressurized irrigation
technique)
Water productivity Increased by 100–300%
Area under drip irrigation 33.8 ha 120.8 ha
iv) Lessons learnt
The case study shows the role of water infrastructure
in directly contributing to SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG
2 (Zero hunger), SDG 8 (Decent work and economic
growth), and SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and
production). It also highlights the role of technology in
water management. This role is only going to increase
in the future and different stakeholders must be ready
to leverage on this. The case study also highlights the
importance of bringing communities onboard in order
for infrastructural solutions to have their intended effect.
These case studies have shown that water infrastructure
has an important role in helping meet the SDGs, espe-
cially that on eliminating poverty. Each of these studies
were carried out in different contexts, different condi-
tions, and using different interventions. Yet, the end result
is more or less the same – improved livelihoods, reduction
in poverty, better quality of life. This essentially suggests
that if there is intent, there are several solutions that can
11.4. THE WAY FORWARD: CHALLENGES
AND GOOD PRACTICES
11.4.1. Challenges
Understandably, one of the biggest challenge would
be financing water infrastructure. Investments in infra-
structure will be instrumental in meeting the SDGs.
By creating jobs and economic activity, infrastructure
enables development. It also provides the services that
underpin the ability of people to be economically pro-
ductive. As gleaned from Figure 11.6, investments of
1% GDP in infrastructure can generate a huge boon
in employment opportunities, thereby improving the
economic productivity.
In 2015, the World Bank carried out a study to inves-
tigate the initial investments required in infrastructure
in developing economies to meet the infrastructural
needs between 2014––2020, in line with the SDG targets
(Figure 11.7). Infrastructure investment gaps are already
an issue in many emerging and developing markets, total-
ling US$452bn over 2014––20, with actual spending
of an estimated US$259bn dwarfed by requirements
of US$711bn. South Asia is clearly the critical region
with investment gaps four times the current level of
investment. The G20‐backed Global Infrastructure (GI)
Hub estimates that investments of US$94trn in infra-
structure will be needed by 2040. More than half of these
investment needs are in Asia, according to GI Hub (The
Economist, 2019).

3.5

2.5

2
Million

3.4
1.5

1
1.5
1.3
0.5 0.7

0
India US Brazil Indonesia

Figure 11.6 Additional direct and indirect jobs created if infrastructure investment was increased by 1% of GDP.
Source: Based on McKinsey Global Institute (2013).
 RESILIENT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION 181

350

300

(US$ bn)
250 Actual spending Gap to Meet Requirements

200 241

150

100 100
52 1
50 27 30
68
41 35 35 52
28
0
South Asia Lattin East Asia & Europe & sub-Saharan Middle east
America & Pacific Central Asia & Africa & North
caribbean Africa

Figure 11.7 Infrastructural investment requirement, actual spending and investment gap in emerging markets and
developing economies 2014––2019. Source: Based on World Bank (2015).

Specifically, for water infrastructure, the World Bank
(2016) reports that for SDG 6 — availability and sus-
tainable management of water and sanitation for all —
demands investments in infrastructure are at least
US$114bn a year.
Another challenge (and in some ways, opportunity)
would be to scale up successful pilots. As attempts to
scale up pilots begin, a complex network of interactions
and influences come in to the picture, which should be
taken into account in order to ensure scaling‐up success.
11.4.2. Good Practices
The last decade or so have provided many opportu-
nities for learning. The knowledge about water infra-
structure and its linkages to sustainable development
has expanded both horizontally (lateral coverage) and
vertically (in‐depth coverage). Some notable good prac-
tices and policies have clearly emerged from this body of
knowledge. Some of these are discussed hereafter:
11.4.2.1. Balancing Traditional Infrastructure
With Green Infrastructure
Green infrastructure is an approach to water
management that protects, restores, or mimics the natural
water cycle. Green infrastructure aims to enhance nature’s
ability to deliver multiple valuable ecosystem goods and
services, potentially providing a wide range of environ-
mental, social, climate change adaptation and mitiga-
tion, and biodiversity benefits. There is an increasing
focus on shifting away from traditional infrastructure
(grey infrastructure) that usually has a single objective
to multi‐objective green infrastructural solutions. For
example, a typical green infrastructure for flood mitiga-
tion is the creation of green spaces and wetlands so that
the floodwater is naturally absorbed into the ground.
This is considered a better solution than creating dikes
and floodwalls that are typical grey infrastructural solu-
tions. While the green solutions have obvious benefits
over grey infrastructure, their implementation in highly
urbanized regions is a challenge. In the previous example,
the extent of open spaces available for implementing the
green solutions may be limited. This aspect becomes even
more crucial when considering the fact that the rain-
fall intensities in many parts of the world are likely to
increase because of climate change. Therefore, the infra-
structure will have to manage a higher volume of runoff.
Hence, some degree of grey infrastructure will always
be required. Future development should seek to have an
optimal balance between the two.
11.4.2.2. Climate‐proofing Water Infrastructure
Most water infrastructures have long life spans, e.g.
the service life of a well‐designed, well‐constructed
and well‐maintained and monitored embankment and
concrete dams can easily reach 100 years. It is, therefore,
important that such infrastructures are able to address
climate change threats, which are already tangible and
will only exacerbate in the future. In many developing
countries, evolving infrastructure can be particularly
climate‐sensitive and therefore highly vulnerable to
the destruction that occurs due to natural disasters.
Climate proofing refers to the explicit consideration
and internalization of the risks and opportunities that
182 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
alternative climate change scenarios are likely to imply
for the design, operation and maintenance of infra-
structure. In other words, integrating climate change
risks and opportunities into the design, operation, and
management of infrastructure (UNDP 2011). Climate
proofing infrastructure is becoming more of a norm
than an exception. In 2010, ADB defined its priorities
for action to assist member countries in addressing cli-
mate change. In particular, these priorities included
assisting countries in climate‐proofing projects to
ensure their outcomes are not compromised by climate
change and variability or by natural hazards in general
(ADB, 2010). In support of this overall objective to cli-
mate proof investment projects, ADB has recently insti-
tutionalized a climate risk and vulnerability assessment
approach. The approach is a process that aims to screen
all ADB investment projects for their exposure and
vulnerability to climate risk. It is initiated with a cli-
mate risk screening, and leads to the undertaking of a
detailed climate risk and vulnerability assessment if the
screening process reveals the project to be at medium or
high climate vulnerability (ADB, 2015).
11.4.2.3. Financing Water Infrastructure
As already highlighted, the investments required in
water infrastructure are huge. Fortunately, there are var-
ious mechanisms in place to finance these based on differ-
ent models. The World Bank, Asian Development Bank,
African Development Bank, and Inter‐American Bank
are among the common and popular sources. However,
in light of climate change concerns there are a number
of other funding sources that have emerged over the
years. The largest of these is the Green Climate Fund
(GCF, www.gcf.org), which is a fund established within
the framework of the UNFCCC as an operating entity
of the Financial Mechanism to assist developing coun-
tries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter
climate change. The Fund’s investments can be in the
form of grants, loans, equity, or guarantees. Water is cited
as a part of the adaptation action in 93% of countries’
Nationally Determined Contributions. Hence, GCF is
a prospective source for financing water infrastructural
solutions.
11.4.2.4. Adopting a Systems Approach
for Infrastructural Planning
Knowledge about the intricacies within the water sec-
tor has increased by leaps and bounds over the years.
There is hardly any aspect within the water sector that
has not been studied carefully and exhaustively in var-
ious contexts and settings. Through all these studies,
it is very clear that a systems approach will have to be
adopted to design large‐scale water‐related interventions.
Because many of these interventions are directly related
to infrastructure, a systems approach for infrastructural
planning — that considers the linkages between multiple
components of the water system — is vital. Even today
in many places, the planning for infrastructure is done
in “silos”. For example, the planning for a wastewater
treatment plant will usually focus on safely discharg-
ing the treated effluent as per the applicable standards.
Conversely, a holistic plan (using systems approach)
would also look to influence other areas such as aug-
menting the water supply network by reuse of treated
effluent. Similarly, the wastewater effluent and treated
sludge (resulting from the treatment process) could also
be used to reduce stress on existing water resources, and
improve agricultural productivity respectively.
The water infrastructure needs are huge. Fortunately,
an enabling environment for meeting these needs is being
created at both international and national scales in most
countries. Access to finance and state‐of‐the‐art tech-
nology is becoming easier. As climate change concerns
escalate by the day, water infrastructure will have a vital
role to play in the overall sustainable development of
humankind.
REFERENCES
ADB (2015). Economic analysis of climate‐proofing
investment projects. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/
publication/173454/economic‐analysis‐climate‐proofing‐
projects.pdf
Al‐Zein A. (2015). Sustainable water management project in
Salamieh District. In proceedings of the 2015 UN‐Water
Annual International Zaragoza Conference. https://www.
un.org/waterforlifedecade/waterandsustainabledevelopm
ent2015/pdf/Al_Zein_Siria_CaseGDG.pdf
Desani P. and Bansal N. (2017). Case study of flood risk evalu-
ation in Surat City. International Journal of Trend in Scientific
Research and Development; ISSN No‐2456––6470.
Falkenmark M. (1989). The massive water scarcity now threat-
ening Africa: Why isn’t it being addressed? Ambio; 18:
112–118.
FAO (2019). FAOSTAT. Accessed from http://www.fao.org/
faostat/en/ in March 2019.
Faruqui N. and Al‐Jayyousi O. (2002) Greywater Reuse in Urban
Agriculture for Poverty Alleviation, Water International,
27:3, 387–394, DOI: 10.1080/02508060208687018
Joshi Y.K, Tortajada C., and Biswas A.K. (2012). Cleaning of
the Singapore River and Kallang Basin in Singapore: Human
and Environmental Dimensions. Ambio; 41(7): 777–781.
Mavalankar, D. and Srivastava A. (2008). Lessons from Massive
Floods of 2006 in Surat City: A framework for Application
of MS/OR Techniques to Improve Dam Management to Pre-
vent Flood. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad,
Research and Publication Department, IIMA Working Papers.
Mays, L.W., Koutsoyiannis D., and Angelakis, A.N (2007).
A brief history of urban water supply in antiquity. Water
Science & Technology Water Supply; 7 (1): 1–12,
 RESILIENT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION 183
McKinsey Global Institute (2013). Infrastructure produc-
tivity: How to save $1 trillion a year, https://www.mckinsey.
com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Capital%20Projects%20
and%20Infrastructure/Our%20Insights/Infrastructure%20
productivity/MGI%20Infrastructure_Executive%20
summary_Jan%202013.ashx.
Nagpur Municipal Corporation (2012). Development Plan of
Nagpur City Report–– 1986––2011. Accessed from NMC
website in February 2019.
The Economist (2019). The critical role of infrastructure for
the sustainable development goals. https://content.unops.
org/publications/The‐critical‐role‐of‐infrastructure‐for‐the‐
SDGs_EN.pdf ?mtime=20190314130614
UNDP (2011). Human Development Report 2011. Sustain-
ability and Equity: A better future for all. Accessed from
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/271/hdr_2011_
en_complete.pdf in March 2019.
Wankhede, D. (2015). Human Development of Slum Dwellers
in Nagpur City: Geographical Perspective. International E
Journal of Social Science and Interdisciplinary Research.
World Bank (2019). World Bank Open Data. Accessed from
https://data.worldbank.org/ in April 2019.
World Bank (2016). The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable
Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and
Hygiene: Summary Report. https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/bitstream/handle/10986/23681/K8632.pdf?sequence=4
World Bank (2015), “Infrastructure Investment Demands in
Emerging Markets and Developing Economies”, http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/%20en/141021468190774181/
pdf/WPS7414.pdf
 12
High Efficiency Irrigation Technology As a Single Solution
for Multi‑Challenge: A Case of Pakistan
Hafiz Qaisar Yasin1,*, Malik Muhammad Akram2, and Muhammad Naveed Tahir3

ABSTRACT

Irrigated agriculture is indispensable for the economic growth of Pakistan. It is an earning source of 25 million
economically active people and producing 90% of total agriculture output. Despite its huge significance, the
sector has not performed to its potential because of water shortage, low irrigation efficiency, climate change and
lack of technology. During recent years, the emergence of high efficiency irrigation technology (HEIT), such as
drip and sprinkler systems, has, however, delivered multiple positive results in terms of water saving (50%), fer‑
tilizer use reduction (40%), crop productivity enhancement (20–100%), and crop diversification. The technology,
although, like in neighboring countries is getting popular day‐by‐day, it is facing challenges of high initial cost,
less awareness and paradigm shift in cropping cultivation. The HEIT has enormous potential to contribute to
meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate‐resilience targets by overcoming challenges
through hard and soft interventions.

12.1. INTRODUCTION irrigated agriculture represents just about 20% of total

Agriculture is the mainstay of economic development
in most of the Asian countries; Pakistan is not an
exception. Agriculture is crucial to Pakistan’s economy as
it contributes to about 19% in national Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) and over 42% of the labor force is
employed in this important economic sector (PES, 2018).
Agriculture is the only source of income of about 70%
population living in rural remote areas. It also serves as
an engine of growth for other economic sectors by
providing raw materials to industrial, manufacturing and
services sectors. Unlike rainfed agriculture, farming in
Pakistan is totally dependent on irrigation. Even though
1
Deputy Director, Directorate General Agriculture (Water
Management), Agriculture Department, 21‐Davis Road,
Lahore, Pakistan
2
Director General Agriculture (Water Management),
Agriculture Department, Lahore, Pakistan
3
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand
*Corresponding author
cultivated land in the World (FAO, 2018), over 87% (19.28
million ha) of the total cultivated area is irrigated in
Pakistan (PDS, 2017).
12.1.1. Significance of Irrigated Agriculture to Pakistan
Irrigated agriculture is indispensable for Pakistan’s
economic growth. It uses almost 95% of the country’s
freshwater resources (NWP, 2018) and a key driver for the
economic uplift of the rural community. Irrigated agricul‑
ture is the earning source of about 25 million economically
active people (CIAT; World Bank, 2017). Irrigated fields
produce over 90% of total agriculture output (Bhatti
et al., 2009) and the remaining 10% generate by rainfed
agriculture. Major crops are wheat, rice, cotton, sugarcane,
and maize. Vegetables and fruits are also grown to meet the
domestic demand and for the export purpose on a consid‑
erable area. The cultivation of these crops on about 23.16
million ha (PDS, 2017) is largely dependent on irrigation.
Water is delivered through an integrated irrigation
system comprising of rivers, barrages, headworks, canals,

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

185
186 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
nal
Ca
Watercourse
Irrigation F
Figure 12.1 Schematic layout of a typical contagious irrigation network.
distributaries, minors and watercourses (see Figure 12.1)
for irrigating crops. With the decreasing surface water
supplies, groundwater is playing a key role in sustaining
irrigated agriculture. Both canal and groundwater are
used for irrigating crops either through the rotational
application or conjunctive use. The irrigated area of
about 19.28 million ha (PDS, 2017) is categorized into six
classes, i.e. canal‐tube wells (45%), canals (30%), tube
wells (20%), wells (2%), canal‐wells (2%) and other
sources (1%) (ASP, 2017). These irrigation sources have
played a significant role in the development of irrigated
agriculture in Pakistan despite inefficient irrigation prac‑
tices prevalent for decades.
12.1.2. Existing Approaches to Irrigated Agriculture
Despite the utmost importance of irrigated agriculture
in the economic development of Pakistan, its growth has
gone through several dips in the past due to various
inherent, structural and practical challenges. An inherent
characteristic of irrigation system is its supply‐based
water delivery as canal water is supplied through a fixed‐
term weekly rotation system called “warabandi”. Every
week, each grower in the command of a watercourse gets
its allocated share of irrigation water based on land‑
holding irrespective of the fact either crop needs water at
this stage or not.
There are huge water losses during its conveyance from
canals to watercourses and to the fields because of the
r
ve
Ri
Ba adw
He
rra or
ge k s
/
D ino
is r
M
tri C
bu an
ta al
ry
/
ields
century‐old irrigation system. The irrigation efficiency is
as low as 50% (NWP, 2018) as half of the diverted water
does not reach to fields for its consumptive use by the
crops.
An in‐depth analysis of Pakistan’s water budget (see
Figure 12.2) discloses inefficiencies at each tier of the irri‑
gation system. The annual surface water availability is
about 95 million acre‐feet (MAF) out of which about 24
MAF is lost in canals (75% efficiency) due to deferred
maintenance leaving 71 MAF at the watercourse outlet.
About 21 MAF get lost in watercourses during its con‑
veyance from the outlet to fields (70% efficiency) because
of their poor maintenance and aging. The remaining 50
MAF of surface water at the farm gate is insufficient to
meet the crop water requirements.
Farmers abstract almost an equal amount of water
from groundwater through tube wells to meet the defi‑
ciency of canal water but this water is much costlier than
the canal water. The canal water is almost free as its
charges are one dollar per annum as compared to ground‑
water abstraction, which costs about 10 USD for one irri‑
gation in terms of diesel cost for tube wells operation.
The unregulated huge abstraction (about 42 MAF) of
groundwater has caused mining of aquifers and deterio‑
rates the quality of underground water. Due to a lack of
modernization in irrigation methods, about 32 MAF of
water is also lost during its application (65% efficiency).
Flood irrigation is the most common method that has
been used by farmers for decades. Overall, about 73 MAF
 HIGH EFFICIENCY IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY AS A SINGLE SOLUTION FOR MULTI‑CHALLENGE 187

Canal Diversions
(average last 10 years)
95 MAF
Losses in Canals (25%)
24 MAF

Losses in Watercourses (30%)

21 MAF Water Availability
Improved (108,787) = 16 MAF (25%) at Mogha
Unimproved (35,377) = 5 MAF (40%) 71 MAF

Available at
Farm Gate
50 MAF
Field Losses (35%)
32 MAF
Groundwater Abstractions
(average last 10 years)
42 MAF
Total Available at Field Level
92 MAF
Rainfall
contribution Net Available at Field Level
13 MAF 60 MAF
Available for
Crop Use
73 MAF
Actual Crop Water Requirements
98 MAF

Figure 12.2 Water Budget of Pakistan (Approximations). Source: Adapted from Directorate General Agriculture
Water Management (DGAWM), 2017.

6000 250

5260 225
5000 215
205
Per Capita Water Availability (m3)

200
180
4000 4160

Population (Million)
150
143
3000
2838
111
2130 100
2000 84
63 1610
1260 50
1000 43 1000 910
34 830 800

0 0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Figure 12.3 Trends in per capita water availability in Pakistan. Source: Adapted from QureshiA. S. (2011).

water remains available for crop consumptive use against
98 MAF of irrigation requirements according to the
current cropping pattern.
On the other side, the analysis of per capita water avail‑
ability portrays rather more alarming facts. With per
person water availability of over 5000 m3/year in 1950,
Pakistan currently stands at less than 1000 m3/year, below
the threshold of physical water scarcity (see Figure 12.3).
Under the business‐as‐usual scenario, this will keep
decreasing and soon approaching the economic water
scarcity level.
Climate change has emerged as one of the biggest chal‑
lenges to irrigated agriculture due to geographic, climatic,
and economic settings of the country. During the last
decade, climate change incidents (mostly floods) have
damaged over 1.33 million hectares of standing crop
188 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
valued at USD 1.6 billion (World Bank, 2018). More
recently, the water shortage has made a substantial nega‑
tive impact on the productivity of the agriculture sector.
However, lack of modernization in irrigation operations
to tackle the emerging challenges remains the main
impediments in achieving higher productivity.
Another important issue is the lack of crop diversifica‑
tion and high‐value agriculture. Major crops wheat, rice,
cotton, maize, and sugarcane are grown on over 80% of
the cropped area (PDS, 2017) with almost no crop diver‑
sification over the years. Fruits and vegetables are grown
on relatively less area despite massive potential due to
non‐availability of an efficient technology solution that
optimizes the input costs and enhances productivity
under the current scenario of water scarcity and high
production costs.
12.1.3. Context of SDGs
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a new set
of global agenda aimed at alleviating poverty in the world
by 2030. SDGs cover almost all socio‐economic issues
including agriculture and water. SDGs have 169 indica‑
tors under 17 specific areas. Indicator 2.4 of SDG‐2 “by
2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and
implement resilient agricultural practices that increase pro‑
ductivity and production. . .” and indicator 6.4 of SDG‐6
“substantially increase water‐use efficiency. . .” (UN,
2016) inspire to have efficient irrigated agriculture
systems.
In irrigated agriculture‐dependent economies like
Pakistan, efficient use of precious agriculture inputs,
especially water and fertilizers play a key role in improving
productivity. For so many years, Pakistan struggled to
adopt different technologies that optimize crop produc‑
tion inputs and enhance crop productivity. At the same
Hydrocyclone Filter Control Valve
Motor Pump
Water
Fertilizer
Figure 12.4 Typical layout of drip irrigation system. Source: Directorate General Agriculture Water Management
(DGAWM). (2017). © Government of Punjab.
time, efforts have been made for promoting high‐value
agriculture to make agriculture profitable. However, find‑
ing an economically viable, technically feasible and
socially acceptable solution always remained a challenge.
During recent years, the adoption of “high efficiency irri‑
gation technology (HEIT)” has given a new trend to the
irrigated agriculture in Pakistan.
12.1.4. Objectives and Scope of Chapter
The main objective of this chapter is to succinctly
introduce HEIT, its emergence in Pakistan including the
major developments, involvement of the World Bank for
promotion of HEIT in the country, current strategy for
its promotion, its linkage with national policies, its
impacts on water saving and enhancement of crop yields
along with other multiple benefits, challenges, opportu‑
nities and the way forward for the accelerated adoption
of technology in Pakistan.
12.2. HEIT IN PAKISTAN
The HEIT is the drip and sprinkler irrigation and other
allied systems, which assist the judicious use of precious
inputs, especially water and fertilizers. Drip irrigation is
the most efficient technology amongst the HEIT. A typ‑
ical drip irrigation system includes a motor, pump, fertil‑
izer tank, filters, control valves, pressure gauges,
connecting fittings, underground main pipeline, laterals/
drip lines, emitters etc. (see Figure 12.4). The sprinkler
irrigation system is the overhead watering somewhat like
rain, comprising of almost the same equipment other
than sprinklers units attached to hydrants or hose (see
Figure 12.5).
HEIT enables spoon‐feeding of moisture and nutrients
directly to individual plant’s root zone despite variable
Pressure Gauges
Disc Filter
Main Lines
Venturi Injector Drip Line
 HIGH EFFICIENCY IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY AS A SINGLE SOLUTION FOR MULTI‑CHALLENGE 189

SPRINKLER (FIXED) IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Figure 12.5 Typical layout of sprinkler irrigation system. Source: Based on On Farm Water Management (OFWM).
(2016). © Government of Punjab.

irrigated area is under HEIS in the world, including

N
P
K
Ca
N
K more profitable and resilient agriculture. In an effort to
Fe
Mg
Figure 12.6 Spoon‐fed water and nutrient applications through
HEIT.
soil conditions, undulating terrain, odd field geometry,
long lengths of run etc. as shown in Figure 12.6. It is a
complete shift from the traditional flood irrigation to a
new level of sophistication in irrigated agriculture. The
efficiency of HEIT is as high as 90% (FAO, 1989).
HEIT offers crop diversification as technology is more
feasible for growing vegetables and orchards. Drip and
sprinkler irrigation systems have been innovated in the
1960s and since then successfully adopted by many
counties in the world including the USA, China, Mexico,
New Zealand, and India, among others. HEIT grew
slowly in developing nations. Over 52.63 million ha of
24.29 million ha in the developed countries and
28.34 million ha in the rest of the world (ICID, 2019).
These systems are offering a transformation from tradi‑
tional to a smart irrigated agriculture.
Pakistan has so long been experiencing the dwindling
water resources, lack of technology for crop diversifica‑
tion, rising crop production costs and the mighty climate
change. These challenges have forced to think out‐of‐the‐
box solutions to shift the conventional way of farming to
overcome the emerging challenges, HEIT was introduced
to the farmers in 2012 with assistance from the World
Bank as a part of the Punjab Irrigated‑agriculture
Productivity Improvement Project (PIPIP). It has been
designed to promote drip and sprinkler irrigation systems
on 48,000 ha by installing the systems on farmer fields
(OFWM, 2016). The key objective of the PIPIP is to pro‑
mote HEIT amongst farmers for optimal utilization of
resources, enhancement of crop productivity and attract
farmers towards high‐value agriculture.
Installation of HEIT was carried out by the private sec‑
tor supply and service companies under technical super‑
vision by the PIPIP staff. On‐farm water management
(OFWM) wing of the Punjab Agriculture Department is
the implementing agency responsible for overall supervi‑
sion and coordination of the PIPIP. There are four players
in the implementation of HEIT, namely the department,
private sector supply, and service companies, consultants
190 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Private Sector
Department Suppl and Service Consultants Farmers
Companies

Survey, Design,
Quantification, Cost Survey & Design
Application
Social Mobilization of Estimation, Approval, Quality
Submission, Financial
Farmers, Technical Construction, Assurance, Third
Contribution,
Support, Installation, Party Validation
Execution Support,
Coordination, Post-installation (Physical & Financial)
Operation &
Supervision Follow-up Support and Impact
Maintenance
(engineering & Assessment
agronomic)

Figure 12.7 HEIT implementation approach. Source: Adapted from On Farm Water Management (OFWM). (2016).

and the farmers with given roles (see Figure 12.7). It is a
private sector‐led approach for creating an enabling envi‑
ronment for the private companies to invest in HEIT
business for their promotion on a large scale and on the
fast track. There were only four private firms at the start
of the PIPIP in 2012 and now there are more than 20
firms in HEIT business.
HEIT is though not entirely new in Pakistan but taking
it out from labs to farmers’ field was quite challenging.
HEIT has given a new heave to the irrigated agriculture in
Pakistan by providing solutions to optimizing water, fer‑
tilizers and other input costs as well as diversifying crops
from a wheat‐rice based cropping system to high‐value
agriculture. It is, in fact, a shift from conventional irri‑
gated agriculture to modern, profitable, sustainable and
climate resilient farming. After going through the teething
problems during the initial years, HEIT is now a well‐
accepted technology. It has links with the SDGs, climate
change, water shortage, and national policies.
12.3. HEIT IMPACTS AND CHALLENGES
HEIT are new and challenging technologies being
introduced for the first time on a large scale in Pakistan.
The installation of drip and sprinkler irrigation, herein
called as HEIT, has been completed on about 18 350 ha
all over the Punjab province (Agriculture
Department, 2018). The crop‐wise distribution of HEIT
reveals that orchards covered a maximum 58% of total
installed systems, vegetables and row crops occupied
about 19%, and field crops cover 23% (see Figure 12.8).
This highlights that HEIT has mostly been installed for
high‐value crops, including fruits and vegetables.
12.3.1. Multi‐dimensional Impacts of HEIT
HEIT has created a multi‐dimensional tangible impact
in irrigated agriculture in terms of water saving, reduction
4% Row Crops (Cotton,
Maize etc.) (735 ha)
20% Field Crops
(Wheat, Rice etc.)
(3,670 ha)
58%
Orchards
(10,642 ha)
18%
Vegetables
(3,303 ha)
Figure 12.8 Cropping trend of HEIT.
in fertilizer use, productivity enhancement, crop diversifi‑
cation, private sector business development, and
employment generation. Water productivity under HEIT
is as high as 100% as compared to the non‐HEIT farm
(see Figure 12.9). Fertilizer use reduction evaluated by
Asif et al. (2016) is about 66% as compared to conven‑
tional flood irrigation mainly because of fertilizer appli‑
cation in the plant root zone through the drip system.
Crop yield enhancement is as high as 100% as reported by
the World Bank Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) con‑
sultants in their annual impact assessment report. The
M&E consultants have carried out the impact assessment
of HEIT and non‐HEIT farms and reported multiple
benefits of HEIT in their annual report of 2018, which is
summarized in Table 12.1. Ashraf and Yasin (2012) also
reported 50% water savings and productivity enhance‑
ment of 34, 39, and 105% for potato, sugarcane, and
citrus, respectively, as compared to crops cultivated under
conventional methods.
HEIT has played a paramount role in crop diversifica‑
tion and fruits like olive, grapes, peach, and papaya have
been grown successfully under HEIT. The technology has
 HIGH EFFICIENCY IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY AS A SINGLE SOLUTION FOR MULTI‑CHALLENGE 191

35

30 27

(PKR/Cubic meter)
Water Productivity
25

20

15 12
10

0
Non-HEIT HEIT
Farm Type

Figure 12.9 Comparison of water productivity.

Table 12.1 Impact of HEIT.
Evaluating parameter Value
Water savings 50%
Crop yield enhancement 20–100%
Fertilizer use reduction 40%
Orchards maturing earlier 1–2 years
Early picking of vegetables 10–15 days
Crop diversification fruits and vegetables
replacing grains
Net farm income increase per PKR 95,000 (US$ 600)
acre per annum 35%
EIRR
Source: Data from Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
Consultants of World Bank. (2018).
played a major role in converting the pothohar region of
Punjab into an olive valley. Drip irrigation is facilitating
the conversion of the undulated barren lands into fruiting
baskets. HEIT is a pressurized system that allows water
and fertilizer to be applied to the crops even in an undu‑
lated lands in contrast to traditional irrigation systems.
The fruits produced under HEIT usually have better
physiochemical characteristics. Size is the most common
and impressing factor used for assessing fruit quality. The
fruit produced under drip irrigation is intact, sound,
clean, and more importantly of the uniform size. The
average weight, size, and juice%age are contributing
factors in improving fruit quality under drip irrigation
which ultimately led to the higher sale price of the
orchard. OFWM is regularly assessing the impact of
HEIT by conducting farmer interviews and developing
success/impact stories. All these success/impact/feature
stories are available at http://ofwm.agripunjab.gov.pk/
info_heis_stories.
A major impact of the promotion of HEIT is in private
sector development as over 30 private companies have
started their business in the import of HEIT equipment.
Procurement of locally available items as well as the
engagement of requisite professionals/ technicians for the
supply of material, installation of equipment and provi‑
sion of post‐installation services have been started, which
stimulated the rural economy by employment generation.
HEIT (drip and sprinkler irrigation systems) are giving
hope for taking Pakistan’s irrigated agriculture to the
next pedestal.
Many researchers in the past have revealed the benefits
of drip and sprinkler irrigation herein called HEIT in
Pakistan. For example, Ahmad and Ahmad (1993) evalu‑
ated different irrigation systems and found that 80% of
water saving in case of drip irrigation. Similarly, another
research study established 50% water saving with drip
irrigation system in comparison to surface (flood) irriga‑
tion (Moshabbir et al. 1993). Zaman et al. (2000) carried
out a research study to evaluate the potential of water
saving and crop productivity with modern irrigation
system/ HEIT in semi‐arid areas and found 34% water
saving and 12% increase in crop yield as compared to
border irrigation. Previous studies were, however, limited
to the evaluation of water saving only. One of the latest
study conducted by Tahira (2010) found that water saving
with drip/trickle irrigation as compared to conventional
irrigation system was 50, 47 and 43% for cotton, sugar‑
cane, and chilies, respectively whereas energy saving was
26% in cotton, 22% in sugarcane, and 25% in chilies.
More recently, a comparison of results of drip and fur‑
row irrigation systems was carried out by Qureshi et al.
(2015) and revealed 56% water saving and 26% increase in
yield under drip irrigation as compared to furrow irriga‑
tion. The study also found that water productivity was
three times higher under drip irrigation system than fur‑
row irrigation. The study concluded that HEIT such as
drip irrigation technology has the potential for enhancing
the cultivated area and crop productivity as well as it may
be helpful in food security and poverty alleviation.
Asif et al. (2016) found that drip irrigation increased
the yield of vegetables by 24% with a substantial reduction
in inputs as water saving was 65%, fertilizer use reduction
192 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
was 55% and use of pesticides was reduced by 19% as
compared to the furrow irrigation system. Increase in
water productivity was up to 64%. Resultantly, the study
found that net profit increased by 52% under drip irriga‑
tion system in comparison to a conventional irrigation
system for vegetables. The benefit‐cost ratio was 2.33 for
vegetable cultivation under drip irrigation/ HEIT.
HEIT has been emerging as the single‐solution tech‑
nology addressing multiple‐issues of farm‐level water
security, water productivity, input cost reduction, crop
diversification, and climate change adaptation. Few
glimpses of the installed HEIT in Punjab province of
Pakistan are shown in Figure 12.10. HEIT has been proven
technology in irrigated agriculture economies. In India, for
example, HEIT also called as micro‐irrigation has made a
significant impact in terms of optimal u ­ tilization of the
resources, increase in crop yield and enhancing farm pro‑
ductivity (Kumara and Palanisamib, 2010).
For awareness creation and the capacity development
of stakeholders in HEIT, a comprehensive capacity
building program was implemented for project stake‑
holders including the OFWM staff, private sector com‑
Figure 12.10 Crops under HEIT in Punjab province of Pakistan.
panies, and the consultants through specialized training
courses on design, parts, successful operation, crop culti‑
vation and operation and maintenance of HEIT. Besides,
an awareness creation program for the farming community
was run through widespread publicity and dissemination
of information about HEIT technologies. Farmers’ field
days, roadshows, and field demonstration programs were
organized along with the development of publicity mate‑
rials both in English and local language (Urdu).
12.3.2. Inevitability of HEIT for Pakistan
In view of the promising results of HEIT under various
challenges, this technology seems to be inevitable for the
sustainability of irrigated agriculture in Pakistan. New
Agriculture Policy approved in 2019 is evolving around
high‐value agriculture, productivity enhancement, use of
technology, crop diversification, and climate resilient agri‑
culture. HEIT almost provides solutions to all these antic‑
ipated goals and targets. National Water Policy (2018)
targets enhancing water use efficiency by 30% that is only
possible with the HEIT in the stipulated timeframe.
 HIGH EFFICIENCY IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY AS A SINGLE SOLUTION FOR MULTI‑CHALLENGE 193
Generally, many countries in the world and in particular
Pakistan’s neighboring countries China and India have
made remarkable progress in the agriculture development
using HEIT/ micro‐irrigation technologies. However,
Pakistan lacks behind in the effective utilization of these
technologies (Latif et al. 2016). In China, over 9.0 million
ha area is under HEIT, whereas the same is 4.9 million ha
in India (ICID, 2010) as compared to Pakistan, where
only 20 000 ha are under HEIT. If Pakistan has to effec‑
tively harness the emerging opportunities like the China
Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and make the agri‑
culture competitive, it needs to promote the HEIT at a
more rapid pace. Pakistan can not afford to continue with
the traditional methods of flood irrigation for growing
surplus grains; rather it has to shift towards more profit‑
able farming and exports. Nevertheless, this shift is almost
impossible without large scale adoption of HEIT in
Pakistan.
12.3.3. Current Technology Adoption Challenges
HEIT though giving dividends, yet is facing many chal‑
lenges in its large scale acceleration like any other new
technology. The following challenges are hindering adop‑
tion of HEIT by the farmers at the optimal pace (Asif
et al., 2016; OFWM, 2016; Usman et al., 2016).
Technical and capacity
•• HEIT is a new technology in Pakistan and involves a
complete paradigm shift from inexact to exact agricul‑
tural practices.
•• Inadequate capacity of the private sector in terms of
manpower and inventory to cater even whatever
demand is available.
•• Lack of awareness amongst the stakeholders, espe‑
cially farmers.
•• Inadequate back‐up agronomic and engineering
support services to the farmers after system
installation.
•• Imported material, no local manufacturing.
Economic and institutional
•• Initial cost of HEIT equipment is high and most
farmers cannot afford.
•• Availability of highly subsidized canal water is hin‑
dering adoption of water‐saving technologies like
HEIT.
•• Lack of integrated approach.
•• Agriculture market issues as growers suffer from
significant market uncertainties.
Despite the installation of HEIT on about 4.9 million
ha, India is still facing similar challenges in the adoption
of technology. However, the installation of HEIT in
Pakistan has started gaining some momentum and
farmers’ acceptance and awareness both have increased
over the years. Comprehensive awareness creation and
capacity building program has been implemented for
project stakeholders, including the private sector,
department staff and farmers through specialized
training courses under the PIPIP. Strenuous efforts are
made to encourage the private sector in investing in
HEIT, but there is still a long way to go.
12.3.4. Potential Opportunities
In view of agro‐climatic conditions and challenges like
water shortages, low productivity, and climate change,
HEIT offers huge potential opportunities for transform‑
ing the irrigated agriculture and making it competitive
and profitable. In fact, there has been some moderniza‑
tion in every agricultural operation in Pakistan starting
from tillage to threshing except in irrigation in spite of
being the most critical activity in crop production.
Uncontrolled surface flooding is a common method of
water application, which results in over‐irrigation during
the initial crop growth stage and under irrigation at its
maturity/ fruit development.
The world market for fruits, vegetables, potatoes, and
maize is expanding. Although there has been a consider‑
able increase in area, production and yield of fruits and
vegetables in Pakistan during the last few years, yet there
still exists a huge potential, especially under the CPEC
scenario. It can be argued that the current cultivated area
of about 780 000 ha of fruit and 275 000 ha of vegetables
(MNFSR, 2019) is the potential targeted area for HEIT
in Pakistan. Pakistan can capture the China and Middle
East markets easily. However, to harness the opportu‑
nities, Pakistan has to rely on technological advancement
like HEIT (drip and sprinkler irrigation) as it can signifi‑
cantly increase crop yields and reduce input costs as well
as enhance produce quality.
Pakistan can meet the international and national com‑
mitments like SDGs, climate resilient farming, and
National Water Policy goals by adopting HEIT at a large
scale with a more focused approach by overcoming the
challenges. However, it will take a long time to reach the
momentum.
12.4. WAYS FORWARD
There are various methods and technologies employed
in developing countries like Pakistan for the enhance‑
ment of land and water productivity. These practices
mainly include bed and furrow irrigation, border irriga‑
tion, LASER land leveling, and tunnel farming. However,
in recent years, the most emerging technology is HEIT
with substantial benefits over other irrigation methods
194 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
and technologies. The significant benefits of HEIT in
terms of water saving, fertilizers use reduction, increase
in crop productivity have been realized with currently
over 52 million ha area under HEIT/ micro irrigation in
the world (ICID, 2019). The leading nations are the USA,
China, and India. In China, micro‐irrigation systems/
HEIT were introduced in the 1970s, and after almost five
decades of continuous advancements and research, these
systems are now a revolutionary landmark for the trans‑
formation of irrigated agriculture in China (Li, 2019).
Similarly, India has made momentous achievements in
the promotion of micro irrigation/ HEIT during the last
two decades through government‐sponsored schemes.
Jain Irrigation, one of the world’s leading HEIT manu‑
facturers, is based in India.
India though considering HEIT as an innovative tech‑
nology for sustainable agriculture but at the same time
adoption of HEIT by the farmers at the targeted pace is
still a concern (Sharma, 2019). According to Water
Resources Group Report published in 2009, HEIT in the
form of drip irrigation has the potential of increasing
annual revenues by USD 30 billion if 37 million ha area is
brought under HEIT by 2030. The 40% of it may result
from a reduction in fertilizer and the remaining 60% from
an increase in crop yields.
In Pakistan, HEIT is still new and less than one% of
farmers have adopted this innovative technology despite
huge potential. In 2012, a report on a Productive and
Water‑Secure Pakistan from the Task Force of Democratic
Pakistan prepared by experts supported by the Asian
Development Bank recommended drip and sprinkler irri‑
gation systems as one of the strategic interventions for
high performing agriculture. Similarly, Punjab Growth
Strategy, National Water Policy, National Climate
Change Policy, and other policy documents envisage the
use of HEIT as productivity enhancement technology
under scarce resources.
In view of challenges in the adoption of HEIT in devel‑
oping countries and especially in Pakistan, the following
strategies may be adopted for the accelerated espousal of
these technologies. Some of these measures/strategies are rec‑
ommended by the researchers and policymakers in the 9th
International Micro Irrigation Conference (9IMIC) held in
Aurangabad, India and Ashraf and Yasin (2012). The way
forward for the HEIT in Pakistan would, therefore, be;
Governance and Policy
•• Continued government support is critical for acceler‑
ated adoption of HIET. There is an urgent need that
government‐sponsored projects/ programs should
continue to support farmers with an enhanced scope
until an acceptable level of penetration of HEIT.
•• The high capital cost to install HEIT is a major con‑
cern amongst the growers. The financial capacity of
the majority of farmers in developing countries is
poor and hence they are unable to adopt HEIT and
grow high‐value crops. Low‐cost HEIT may be devel‑
oped by promoting research and development. Low
cost localized HEIT solution for about one hectare is
needed to be developed in Pakistan to assist small
farmers in technology adoption.
•• Special credit line may be introduced by the State and
Commercial Banks for farmers who are willing to
adopt HEIT for speedy growth.
•• An enabling environment for the private sector is
needed to be created to encourage them to invest
heavily in the promotion of HEIT/ micro‐irrigation.
The private sector may set up local manufacturing
plants, establish demonstration sites, and develop
agronomic packages to help in the adoption of HEIT
at a large scale. The government may support the
private sector to set up a manufacturing plant by facil‑
itating in taxes/ duties.
•• One of the key challenge in non‐adoption of HEIT even
in water shortage areas is the availability of highly sub‑
sided water. Given water is an economic good, a proper
water pricing mechanism may attract the growers to opt
for high efficiency irrigation technologies.
•• Under the climate change scenario, use of solar energy
for operating HEIT may be experimented carefully
considering that solar irrigation may not lead to over‑
exploitation of groundwater and misuse of water with
free energy.
Capacity Building and Awareness Creation
•• Follow‐up advisory support services are extremely help‑
ful for technology transfer, particularly at initial stages of
the introduction of any new interventions so as HEIT.
Currently, the lack of information about the operation &
maintenance of HEIT is a major reason for its less adop‑
tion. Agriculture extension network in most of devel‑
oping countries is mainly operated by the government,
which is not playing due role in helping farmers in tech‑
nology dissemination. There is a dire need to train the
extension staff in operation & maintenance of HEIT by
involving private sector manufacturers and suppliers so
that they can provide adequate services to the farmers in
the successful operation of HEIT.
•• Awareness Creation amongst farmers about HEIT is
crucial. Current Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) offer a wide range of opportu‑
nities to launch awareness creation and publicity cam‑
paigns that were not possible a few years ago. The
latest ICTs platforms like mobile phones, TV, social
media, etc. may be used for awareness creation and
information dissemination about HEIT benefits in
terms of input savings, yield increase and overall
economic impacts on farmer’s farm returns.
 HIGH EFFICIENCY IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY AS A SINGLE SOLUTION FOR MULTI‑CHALLENGE 195
•• Training and capacity development of farmers is
essential for successful crop cultivation with HEIT. It
is made mandatory for private sector companies and
the government departments to provide training to
farmers after system installation. Training pertaining
to system parts, their function, operation, mainte‑
nance, crop water requirements, irrigation schedule,
fertigation, etc. aspects is crucial for sustainable
system operation.
•• Simple to understand instructional material in the
local language is a readily accessible source of
guidance for the growers in technology adoption. A
booklet developed in local language envisaging
complete production technology of crops to be grown
by the farmer with drip irrigation may be very helpful
for fast rack adoption of the technology.
REFERENCES
Agriculture Department. (2018). World Bank Implementation
Review Mission Position Paper. On Farm Water Management
(OFWM), Agriculture Department.
Agriculture Statistics of Pakistan (ASP). (2017). Ministry
of National Food Security and Research: Economic Wing
(2016–17). http://www.mnfsr.gov.pk/frmDetails.aspx
Ahmad, M. and Ahmad, R. (1993). Advanced Irrigation
Application Techniques and their use in Balochistan. USAID,
ISMR Project Report, P&I Directorate (South), WAPDA.
Report # 389.
Ashraf, M.C. and Yasin, Q.H. (2012). Drip Irrigation for
Sustaining Irrigated Agriculture in Punjab, Pakistan: Issues
and Strategy. In: Proceedings of Irrigation Show and Education
Conference. Orlando, Florida, USA 2–6 November 2012.
ISBN: 978‐1‐62748‐147‐2.
Asif, M., Akram, M., and Ali, A. (2016), Multi‐locational trials
to compare the relative water use and vegetable crops produc‑
tivity by drip irrigation and conventional furrow irrigation
systems in district Toba Tek Singh, Pakistan. Science Letters
4(1). pp 60–65.
Bhatti, A.M., Suttinon, P., and Nasu, S. (2009). Agriculture Water
Demand Management in Pakistan: A Review and Perspective.
Society for Social Management Systems. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/237804430_AGRICULTURE_
WA T E R _ D E M A N D _ M A N A G E M E N T _ I N _
PAKISTAN_A_REVIEW_AND_PERSPECTIVE
CIAT; World Bank. (2017). Climate‐Smart Agriculture in
Pakistan. CSA Country Profiles for Asia Series. International
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); The World Bank.
Washington, D.C. 28 p.
Directorate General Agriculture Water Management
(DGAWM). (2017). Water Management Issues in Pakistan.
Briefing Paper for Secretary Agriculture, Government of the
Punjab, Pakistan.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO). (1989). Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation
Scheduling. Technical Manual No. 4. http://www.fao.org/3/
T7202E/t7202e08.htm.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO). (2018). World Food and Agriculture ‐ Statistical
Pocketbook 2018. Rome. 254 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/
ca1796en/CA1796EN.pdf
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID).
(2010). Sprinkler and Micro Irrigated area in the World.
http://www.icid.org/sprinklerandmircro.pdf
Kumar, D.S. and Palanisamib, K. (2010). Impact of Drip
Irrigation on Farming System: Evidence from Southern
India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. Vol. 23.
pp 265–272.
On Farm Water Management (OFWM). (2016). Project
Document of Punjab Irrigated‑Agriculture Productivity
Improvement Project (PIPIP). Agriculture Department
Govt. of the Punjab. http://ofwm.agripunjab.gov.pk/
Latif, M., Haider, S.S., and Rashid, M.U. (2016). Adoption of
High Efficiency Irrigation Systems to Overcome Scarcity of
Irrigation Water in Pakistan. Pakistan Academy of Sciences.
53 (4): pp. 243–252.
Li, J.. (2019). Microirrigation in China: History, Current
Situation, and Future. In; Proceedings of 9th International
Micro Irrigation Conference (9IMIC). Aurangabad, India
pp.127–137.
Moshabbir, P.M., Ahmad, S., Yasin, M., and Ahmad, M.M.
(1993). Indigenization of Trickle Irrigation Technology. In:
Proceedings; USAID‐ISMR Symposium, IIMI, Lahore.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Consultants of World
Bank. (2018). Punjab Irrigated‑agriculture Productivity
Improvement Project (PIPIP). Government of the Punjab.
Agriculture Department. Impact Assessment Report 2018.
MNFSR (Ministry of National Food Security and Research).
(2019). Fruit, Vegetables and Condiments Statistics of
Pakistan 2017–18. http://www.amis.pk/files/Fruit%20&%20
Vegetable%20Condiments%20of%20Pakistan%202017‐18.pdf
Pakistan Economic Survey (PES). (2018). Government of
Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Economic Survey (2017–18):
Chapter‐2 Agriculture. http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/
chapters_18/02‐Agriculture.pdf
Punjab Development Statistics (PDS). (2017). Planning and
Development Department, Government of the Punjab:
Annual Report (2017). http://bos.gop.pk/system/files/
PDS%202017_0.pdf
National Water Policy (NWP). (2018). Government of
Pakistan, Ministry of Water Resources April 2018. https://
mowr.gov.pk/wp‐content/uploads/2018/06/National‐Water‐
policy‐2018‐2.pdf
Qureshi, A.L., Gadehi, M.A., Mahessar, A.A. et al. (2015).
Effect of Drip and Furrow Irrigation Systems on Sunflower
Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Dry Area of Pakistan.
American‐Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 15 (10): 1947–
1952. DOI: 10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2015.15.10.12795.
Qureshi, A.S. (2011). Water Management in the Indus Basin
in Pakistan: Challenges and Opportunities. Mountain
Research and Development, 31(3): 252–260. DOI: 10.1659/
MRD‐JOURNAL‐D‐11‐00019.1.
Sharma, S.K. and Suhirid. M. (2019). Micro‐Irrigation an
Innovative Technology‐ Its Importance, Challenges & Present
Scenario in India. In; Proceedings of 9th International Micro
Irrigation Conference (9IMIC). Aurangabad, India. pp 88–96.
196 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
United Nations (UN). (2016). Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300
Usman, K.M., Muhammad, T., Majid, M.et al. (2016). Drip
Irrigation in Pakistan: Status, Challenges and Future
Prospects. RJOAS, 8(56). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18551/
rjoas.2016‐08.15.
Water Resources Group Report (2009). Charting Our Water
Future. International Finance Corporation (IFC), the
World Bank Group and McKinsey & Company. http://
www.2030wrg.org/wp‐content/uploads/2014/07/Charting‐
Our‐Water‐Future‐Final.pdf
World Bank Group. (2018). Assessing the Potential for Large‐
scale Agricultural Crop and Livestock Insurance in Punjab
Province, Pakistan: A Feasibility Study. http://documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/906921547616572396/pdf/133553‐
WP‐P162446‐PUBLIC‐Punjab‐Crop‐Insurance‐Web.pdf
Zaman, Z.W., Arshad, M., Rana, M.A., and Sabir, S.M.
(2000). Water Saving and Crop Yield Potential of Modern
Irrigation Methods in the Semi‐arid Area. Pakistan Journal
of Agricultural Sciences, 3 7(3–4).
 13
Irrigation Scheduling and Management for Improved
Water Productivity
Birendra KC1, Henry Wai Chau2, Magdy Mohssen3, Keith Cameron2, Ian McIndoe1, Helen Rutter1,
Channa Rajanayaka4, Patricia Anthony5, Bart Schultz6, and Krishna Prasad7

ABSTRACT

Agriculture is responsible for the vast majority of global freshwater withdrawals, yet food insecurity and water
scarcity remain as issues of concern. With population growth and increasing standards of living, water demand
for domestic and industrial sectors is rising, leaving less water for irrigation to produce more food, and resulting
in increased demand for improvements in irrigation water productivity. This chapter highlights various
approaches for irrigation scheduling and presents a case study in Canterbury Region, New Zealand, focusing on
irrigation scheduling improvements by evaluating existing and potential irrigation strategies. Irrigation strat-
egies in Canterbury Region tend to result in more water being applied to crops than they actually require, result-
ing in high drainage. Improved irrigation scheduling will contribute to sustainable food production, makes more
water available for the environment, and thus contributes to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
related to water, food and environment. Technological improvements, institutional and regulatory arrange-
ments, raising awareness, and capacity building are all potential ways forward to implement improved irrigation
scheduling strategies.

13.1. INTRODUCTION land or increasing productivity. Agricultural land can be

To address global hunger and increasing food demand,
crop yields need to be increased by at least 1% per year
(Grafton et al., 2015). The two general alternatives to
raise food production are either increasing agricultural
1
Aqualinc Research Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand
2
Department of Soil and Physical Sciences, Lincoln
University, Christchurch, New Zealand
3
Otago Regional Council, Dunedin, New Zealand
4
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research,
Christchurch, New Zealand
5
Department of Informatics and Enabling Technologies,
Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand
6
Land and Water Development IHE Delft, Delft, the
Netherlands
7
Irrigation and Water Resources Management Consultant,
Janakpur, Nepal
extended in various ways, for example through deforesta-
tion, or by modifying wetlands and dry lands into pro-
ductive farms. These are no longer feasible options due to
the negative impacts on the environment (Trewavas,
2001). Therefore, it is essential that the majority of the
required increase in food production is realized on exist-
ing cultivated land (Schultz et al., 2007).
Globally, a large proportion of the current cultivated
area is not equipped with irrigation systems; therefore
crops can face occasional water stress, resulting in pro-
duction loss. As yields from irrigated land can be three‐
fold higher than from non‐irrigated land, irrigation of
farm land warrants greater attention (Goklany, 1998).
However, many irrigation schemes around the world are
performing below their potential levels, highlighting the
need to improve irrigation water productivity (KC et al.,
2017; Kumar et al., 2011).

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

197
198 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Irrigation efficiency can be improved in three ways:
(i) upgrading existing irrigation infrastructure for
improved water acquisition, allocation, distribution and
application, (ii) improving management of the existing
irrigation systems, and (iii) a combination of both. The
lowest cost way is usually by improving the management.
Improving management of existing irrigation systems
can help save water and thus address the increasing
water demands from different sectors (e.g., irrigation,
domestic, municipal, industrial, and environmental)
(Kumar et al., 2011; Schultz et al., 2009). De Fraiture
et al. (2007) estimated that improvements in irrigation
water productivity could secure up to 75% of the addi-
tional global food demand by 2050, by minimizing the
gap between existing and potential productivity.
Efficient use of available water, which can be achieved
through optimum irrigation scheduling, may lead
towards more food, income, better livelihoods and eco-
system health (Molden et al., 2010).
In addition, optimum irrigation scheduling has the
benefit that it will help minimise under‐ or over‐­irrigation,
while maintaining adequate soil moisture levels in the
plant root zone (KC, 2016a; KC et al., 2016c). Therefore
making the most efficient use of available water for
securing potential yield, without the environmental dete-
rioration caused by excessive leaching from the root zone
(Rawnsley et al., 2007). Under‐irrigation creates water
stress for crops, and in turn reduces the yield. Over‐­
irrigation wastes large volumes of water through surface
runoff and percolation, and limits water availability for
other water users.
Over‐irrigation – particulalry in pasture‐based open
grazing dairy farming practices all over the world,
including New Zealand ‐ may also lead to environmental
externalities. In open grazing systems, stocks are grazed
outside almost all year round, which spreads dung and
urine randomly on the grazing land. In fact, urine is the
main source of nitrogen (N) that results in nitrate (NO3‐)
leaching. The N loading rate under a urine patch is about
1000 kg N ha‐1 (Di and Cameron, 2002), which is more
than pasture’s absorption capacity (Haynes and Williams,
1993; Jarvis et al., 1995). Therefore, pasture cannot utilize
all available N and the surplus N, when converted to NO3‐
is prone to leaching if there is excess of water in the soil.
Pasture provides only around half of the required
nutrients for cows in many countries across the globe,
although, in New Zealand, it provides almost 100% of
the needed nutrients (McGuffey and Shirley, 2011). The
New Zealand dairy industry is a world leader, and dairy
farming is an important pillar of the country’s economy
(DairyNZ, 2013). New Zealand is focused on boosting
dairy farming to be the food bowl of Asia, where prevail-
ing dairy demand is higher than production (Partners,
2012). A large proportion of arable land in New Zealand
is being converted to dairy farming, due to the expanding
dairy industry, causing increasing pressure on water
resources while also contaminating groundwater and sur-
face water sources (Cameron et al., 2012; Jay, 2007).
Current efficiency levels in many irrigation schemes in
New Zealand are below their potential. For example, a
performance assessment test of six newly established
centre pivot irrigators conducted under the supervision
of Irrigation New Zealand in different parts of
Canterbury Region showed a distribution efficiency of
less than 75%, which is considered to be poor for this type
of irrigation systems. This highlights the need and scope
for more efficient use of agricultural water for sustainable
dairy farming. Along with other concerned agencies,
farmers, scientists, and researchers in New Zealand are
keen to explore the options for optimising water use,
including precise irrigation scheduling, to avoid shortages
(DairyNZ, 2013; George et al., 2000; Mannini et al.,
2013).
Efforts are underway to vary the amount of water
applied, based on crop growth stage, changing weather
and soil moisture availability in the plant root zone
(Hedley and Yule, 2009). However, in spite of being able
to measure soil–water–plant–atmosphere parameters in
various ways, prevalent irrigation scheduling still lacks
taking into account precipitation and evapotranspiration
uncertainties, which in turn, greatly impacts on net irriga-
tion requirements (Belaqziz et al., 2014). There have been
very few studies that estimate irrigation and drainage
under a range of irrigation management strategies and
crop coefficients using long term climatic data to account
for climatic variability. Estimation of trigger points to
start and stop irrigation for rotational grazing systems is
still inept in many parts of the world.
This chapter, therefore, highlights various options for
irrigation scheduling, and presents a New Zealand case
study, focusing on how enhanced irrigation scheduling
can help improve water productivity. It sheds further light
on learnings from the case study as well as challenges,
opportunities and ways forward to determine and imple-
ment enhanced irrigation scheduling. This improved irri-
gation scheduling will eventually contribute towards
sustainable development of the dairy farming industries
in New Zealand and beyond. As many of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) are environmentally focused,
improvements in irrigation water productivity through
irrigation scheduling may contribute to achieving several
SDGs. For example, agriculture will be the primary
means of achieving SDG1 (End poverty in all its forms
everywhere: reduce by half the proportion of people
living in poverty by 2030) and SDG2 (End hunger, achieve
food security and improved nutrition and promote sus-
tainable agriculture: ensure year‐round nutritious and
sufficient food to all people by 2030). Similarly, efficient
 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED WATER PRODUCTIVITY 199

Table 13.1 Different methods of irrigation scheduling.

Measured
Method parameter Equipment needed Advantages Disadvantages
A. When to start irrigation
Feel and Soil moisture Spade Simple to undertake, Not scientific, less accurate
appearance of content by feel low cost
the soil in field
Gravimetric soil Soil moisture Auger, oven, weighing Good accuracy, Hard to obtain undisturbed sample,
moisture content by equipment simple to undertake sampling not repeatable, time gap
sampling taking samples between sampling and irrigation
event
Volumetric soil Soil moisture Neutron probe, soil High accuracy Represents very small area, high cost
moisture content moisture sensor
sampling
Soil water Soil moisture Tensiometers High accuracy, quick Require regular maintenance, narrow
potential tension/ response measurement range
pressure
Crop water stress Moisture content Visual observation Simple to undertake Costly, irrigation application after
monitoring in plant leaf or thermal image plant get stresses, hard to ensure
optimal yield
B. How much water to apply
Water balance Estimating soil Climate station of Same tool can be used Calculation cumbersome without
monitoring moisture deficit available rainfall for many fields, can computer, need calibration as it is
and PET data forecast future only estimation
irrigation needs
Crop growth Crop coefficient Climate station of Good accuracy, high Hard to apply irrigation to match
stage available climate cost dynamic crop growth stages due to
monitoring data, lysimeter irrigation system’s constraints
(application depth and return
interval)

Source: Broner. (2005). KC, B., Breneger, S., and Curtis, A. (2016b).

use of limited water resources will assist in making water
available to achieve SDG6 (Ensure availability and sus-
tainable management of water and sanitation for all).
Furthermore, optimum irrigation scheduling also reduces
nutrient leaching from agricultural farms into the ground-
water and surface water systems, which will contribute
towards conserving biodiversity, as envisioned in SDG14
(Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and
marine resources for sustainable development) and
SDG16 (Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sus-
tainable development, provide access to justice for all and
build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at
all levels) as well.
13.2. APPROACHES FOR IMPROVING
IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
Irrigation scheduling refers to a process of both deter-
mining when to start irrigation, and how much water to
apply, to meet actual crop water needs. Estimation of the
water balance in the root zone, monitoring crop growth
stage, and accounting for potential precipitation are some
of the criteria used to decide how much water to apply,
though soil moisture content and soil moisture tension
are the two most common criteria used to decide when to
start irrigation. In addition, irrigation water supply needs
to be such that salt accumulation is prevented. Detailed
information about these irrigation scheduling criteria is
available in Broner (2005), Abubaker (2009), Harrison
(2012), and KC et al. (2016b). Their key aspects are sum-
marized in Table 13.1.
Some of the commonly used soil wetness measurement
methods for scheduling irrigation are discussed further
below.
13.2.1. Feel and Appearance of the Soil
Visual observation and feel of the soil is used to mon-
itor moisture levels on farms based on soil’s ability to sus-
tain plant growth can be judged. It involves obtaining a
soil sample, squeezing it by hand and observing how
much water is displaced (Rowe, 2018). This is easy but a
subjective approach to estimate soil moisture content,
and less accurate.
200 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
13.2.2. Gravimetric Soil Moisture Sampling
This refers to how much water is available in the soil on
a weight basis. It involves taking a soil sample, weighing
it, and drying it (Rowe, 2018). The weight difference of
the soil sample before and after oven drying provides the
water content of the soil, based on which an irrigation
decision is made. One problem associated with this
method is that, it is very hard to get an undisturbed
sample. Furthermore, there is a significant time lag bet-
ween soil sampling and obtaining the data on which the
actual irrigation event is initiated, meaning the approach
has limited use.
13.2.3. Volumetric Soil Moisture Sampling
This method helps to quantify the fraction of the total
volume of water contained in the total volume of soil in
the root zone, which helps to decide how much water to
apply based on soil’s water holding capacity and the
required leaching. Several types of equipment are avail-
able to measure volumetric water content in soil, such as
Neutron probe and soil moisture sensors (e.g. Aquaflex),
which are described in Charlesworth (2005). A Neutron
probe works based on the interaction of high‐energy
(fast) neutrons and the hydrogen atoms in the soil water.
Aquaflex works based on the time delay transmission
(TDT) principle to measure soil dielectric, which is used
to determine soil moisture content. One problem associ-
ated with soil moisture monitoring techniques is the need
to install soil moisture measurement tools on farm.
Currently, many farms are not equipped with such
devices, making it hard to implement irrigation decisions
based on soil moisture levels.
13.2.4. Soil Water Potential Monitoring
The soil tension (or suction or negative potential) is an
indication of the amount of work the plant roots have to
do to get water from the soil (Charlesworth, 2005). Plant
roots must overcome soil water tension in order to with-
draw and use water. Tensiometers are instruments that
can measure soil water tension (i.e. the attraction that soil
particles have for water in the soil) and therefore provide
a guide to maintaining soil water suction within the
correct range such that the crop is not stressed
(Charlesworth, 2005). However, tensiometers do not
work well in high salinity conditions and at high temper-
atures (Harrison, 2012).
13.2.5. Crop Water Stress Monitoring
A plant leaf contains a particular amount of water per
unit area, which varies with water deficiency (Fitzgerald
et al., 2006). The concentration of water in plant leaves
greatly influences the light reflected by a plant
(Haboudane et al., 2002). Well‐hydrated plants strongly
reflect infrared wavelengths (Gates et al., 1965) but as the
plant tissues dehydrate, the reflectance decreases (Pinter
et al., 2003). Therefore, it is possible to investigate the irri-
gation needs of a crop by analysing the colour change of
a plant leaf. However, by the time we notice water stress
in a leaf, the plant would already be water stressed. Thus,
irrigation planning/scheduling based on crop water stress
monitoring can be risky.
13.2.6. Water Balance Monitoring
The water balance approach estimates the current soil
water deficit by accounting for all water additions (irriga-
tion and rainfall) and depletions (evapotranspiration and
drainage) within the root zone, such that adequate water
is maintained for the plant (Andales et al., 2011). This
approach can contribute to irrigation scheduling improve-
ments by manipulating the irrigation application, based
on the estimated soil water deficit (George et al., 2000).
Irrigation scheduling based on soil water balance mon-
itoring can be more efficient if it can consider potential
rainfall, because rainfall in semi‐humid environments can
contribute a significant proportion of the plant water
needs. Only the remaining needs should be supplied
through irrigation. The use of rain (weather) forecasts in
irrigation scheduling was recommended in the early 1970s
(Rochester and Busch, 1972). Variability in weather and
available water resources, and the impact of intensive irri-
gation on the environment, especially on water quality,
are further emphasising the need to incorporate future
rain in irrigation planning (Cabelguenne et al., 1997).
If rain is predicted, it may be desirable not to fill the soil
profile to field capacity but leave some room to utilize
future rainfall (Broner, 2005). If irrigation is applied to fill
the soil profile to field capacity without leaving any space
for future rainfall. Should any rainfall occur, loss of nutri-
ents through surface runoff and drainage could result.
However, if no rain is expected, it may be wise to refill the
soil profile to field capacity, if required with some excess
for leaching, to extend the non‐irrigation interval, which
may reduce the cost of irrigation by decreasing the number
of applied irrigations. Such regulation in irrigation appli-
cations is possible through soil moisture and water balance
monitoring (George et al., 2000).
13.2.7. Crop Growth Stage Monitoring
Crop growth stage monitoring can be used to help
estimate crop irrigation requirements. The crop coeffi-
cient (Kc) is a ratio of actual evapotranspiration (ETa) to
reference evapotranspiration (ETr) (Allen et al., 1998).
 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED WATER PRODUCTIVITY 201
Adequate knowledge of crop coefficients to match an
actual crop and its development stage is essential to
estimate the correct crop irrigation requirements. It can
contribute to improve irrigation scheduling and thus
increase on‐farm irrigation‐water productivity levels
(Levidow et al., 2014; Morris, 2006). By estimating ETr
and ETa at different stages of crop growth, Kc can be
developed to match the growth stage of a crop, to be used
in real time irrigation scheduling. Variations in plant
growth stages across a farm are a reality, especially in a
pasture‐based farm that comprises several small blocks
called “paddocks” where livestock can graze rotationally
in different paddocks on a regular interval. Thus, crop
water demand varies in paddocks, because crop growth
stages affect crop canopy and on crop‐water require-
ments. One problem associated with crop growth stage
monitoring based on irrigation scheduling is that it is
very difficult to match irrigation applications to the
dynamic growth stages of crops. In addition, the necessary
weather data to estimate realtime ETr may not be avail-
able for many agriculture farms.
13.3. CASE STUDY – IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
IN CANTERBURY REGION, NEW ZEALAND
13.3.1. Context
Canterbury Region is located on the east coast of the
South Island of New Zealand (Figure 13.1). The irrigated
Canterbury
N6
N5
N4
N3
S8
N S5
Legend
Paddock boundary
250 0 250 500 meters
Figure 13.1 Location of Lincoln University Dairy Farm in Canterbury Region, New Zealand. N and S stand for
the north and the south block, respectively.
area in the Canterbury region accounts for about two‐
thirds of the total irrigated area in New Zealand and
accounts for 58% of the total annual freshwater with-
drawal in New Zealand (Van Housen, 2015). Due to
increased water demand from different sectors, including
dairy farming, many water resources in the Canterbury
region are at or are approaching their allocation limits.
Irrigated pasture is the dominant freshwater consumer
and accounts for around 75% of the total irrigated area in
Canterbury Region (Van Housen, 2015), which faces
mounting pressure to conserve water. The Canterbury
region is not only the largest water user, but also the
region with the highest dependency on irrigation. The cli-
mate in Canterbury Region can vary dramatically from
season to season, with a high probability of long dry
spells in the summer causing frequent drought conditions
(Saunders and Saunders, 2012). Evapotranspiration in
the region is generally higher than rainfall during summer,
and therefore irrigation is essential to enable intensive
pastoral land use (Martin et al., 2006). It has been esti-
mated that, with irrigation, pasture production in
Canterbury Region can be increased by more than 5000
kg Dry Matter (DM)1/ha/year, which is almost twofold
more than the non‐irrigated production (Ministry for
Primary Industries (MPI), 2016; Rockpoint Corporate
Finance Limited, 2012).
Efficient irrigation scheduling approaches can poten-
tially optimize water use and save a significant amount of
water. Evaluation of existing irrigation strategies and
N7
N8
N9
N1
N10
N2 N11
S9 S2
S3
S1
S4
S7
S6
S10
202 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
other potential irrigation strategies provides an entry
point to that endeavour. Therefore, a pastoral survey was
conducted with numerous Canterbury dairy farmers. The
irrigation strategies obtained from the survey were
applied at the Lincoln University Dairy Farm (LUDF)
(40.26 S, 172.44 E), to analyze the impact of different irri-
gation management strategies on irrigation water require-
ments and related drainage. LUDF is a 160 ha area of
irrigated pasture land located in Canterbury Region,
New Zealand (Fig. 13.1). The LUDF consists of two
blocks; North block (N) with 11 paddocks; and South
block (S) with 10 paddocks. Perennial ryegrass pasture
(Lolium perenne) is the grass sown on the farm, which is
the main pasture grass used to provide nutrition to dairy
cows throughout New Zealand (Lee et al., 2010;
Monaghan et al., 2008).
13.3.2. Approach Used
To improve irrigation water productivity, it is essential
to understand the current irrigation strategies and eval-
uate their effectiveness. Therefore, a pastoral survey,
using a mixed mode approach, was conducted among
Canterbury dairy farmers, in order to understand
farmers’ current irrigation management strategies during
different seasons, irrigation requirements and drainage
discharge from irrigation.
i) Mixed mode survey
A survey approach that incorporates two or more survey
methods, termed a mixed‐mode method (Baum et al.,
2012), was used to collect data. In this study, a question-
naire was emailed to the participating farmers so that they
were aware of the questions, and then followed by a phone
call to complete the survey. The questionnaire was designed
to collect information on various aspects of irrigation
practices. The preliminary questionnaire was improved
gradually by consulting with several scientists as well as
pre‐testing with selected farmers. The final form of the
questionnaire is available in KC (2016a). As the focus was
on better management of irrigated pasture, only farmers
utilizing pasture‐based dairy farming were considered as
potential respondents. In addition, as centre‐pivot irriga-
tion is the dominant system in Canterbury Region, growers
with other irrigation methods were excluded.
ii) Irrigation and percolation estimation
IrriCalc, a daily water balance model developed by
Aqualinc Research Ltd, New Zealand (Bright, 2009), was
used to estimate irrigation water requirements and perco-
lation. Primarily, all calculation procedures used in the
model are based on the FAO guidelines as described in
Publication No 56 (Allen et al., 1998). The model requires,
as input, a daily time series of crop coefficient (Kc) values
for a one‐year period, and daily rainfall and reference
evapotranspiration (ETr) data for the simulation period.
The model estimates the net irrigation requirement as the
difference between actual crop water need (AET) and
effective rainfall. AET is equivalent to the multiplication
of ETr and Kc. Effective rainfall refers to the amount of
rainfall that is stored in the root zone, which is the
difference between total rainfall and percolation,
assuming no surface runoff as per field observations. The
amount of total rainfall/irrigation that results in soil
moisture exceeding field capacity in the daily soil water
balance is accounted for as percolation, as surface runoff
due to overland flow was assumed to be negligible.
The model evaluates daily changes in the root zone’s
soil water content in response to daily rainfall, irrigation,
AET and percolation events using the following soil water
balance equation:
St 2 St1 Pt 2 t1 It2 t1 Dt 2 t1 AETt 2 t1 (13.1)
Where St2 = soil water content at time t2, St1 = soil water
content at time t1, Pt2‐t1 = rain between time t1 and t2,
It2‐t1 = irrigation between time t1 and t2, Dt2‐t1 = percola-
tion between time t1 and t2, AETt2‐t1 = actual evapotrans-
piration between time t1 and t2. Equation (13.1) was
applied for one day intervals. Units of all variables of
Equation (1) are in mm.
The model calculates daily soil moisture status over the
simulation period. If soil moisture drops to the user‐
defined refill point, a user‐specified amount of irrigation
water is supplied. Different options are available in the
model to regulate irrigation planning. This study adopted
the option that regulates irrigation application based on
user‐defined soil moisture limits, i.e. irrigation start and
stop points as defined percentages of plant available
water (PAW).
iii) Irrigation scheduling strategies evaluation
Irrigation water requirements and drainage depth were
estimated for 14 irrigation seasons (2001/2002 to 2014/2015)
based on two Kc alternatives: (i) variable Kc values com-
prising 0.6 and 1.0 correspondingly for post and pre graz-
ing conditions, as derived by KC (2016a and KC et al.
(2018a); (ii) the most commonly used constant value of 1.0.
Under each Kc option, 49 potential irrigation strategies
were adopted with irrigation starting at 50, 55, 60, 65, 70,
75 and 80% of PAW and stopping for each starting trigger
at 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, and 100% of PAW correspond-
ingly. In addition, irrigation and drainage were also esti-
mated for the existing irrigation strategies as obtained
from the survey.
Based on analysis of the available daily climatic data,
the maximum daily ETr was identified over the period of
analysis. The optimal irrigation “trigger level” (the
 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED WATER PRODUCTIVITY 203

minimum soil moisture content at which an irrigation
application is initiated) was identified, to ensure there
was a buffer for the maximum daily ETr. Optimal irriga-
tion “targets” (the maximum soil moisture content at
which an irrigation application is stopped) were identi-
fied, to account for potential rain and therefore, to reduce
the net irrigation requirement and percolation.
Daily climatic data (rainfall and evapotranspiration)
for 14 irrigation seasons were taken from Broadfield
weather station, located 3 km north‐east of the LUDF, to
account for temporal variability in weather. A pasture
root depth of 500 mm was considered in the estimation
based on field observations. Plant available water (PAW)
of 140 mm (28% volume), as estimated for the experi-
mental plot, including other five PAW (40, 60, 80, 100
and 120 mm) were used in the analysis, to cover a wide
range of soil types available in Canterbury Region.
13.3.3. Findings
i) Existing irrigation strategies during different seasons
The irrigation season in Canterbury Region generally
extends from September to May, with September to
October and March to May known as shoulder seasons.
November to February (summer months in New Zealand)
is termed the peak irrigation season. Different irrigation
approaches are adopted for shoulder seasons and the
peak irrigation season, due to weather variations.
However, even within the same irrigation season, farmers
adopt different trigger soil moisture levels to start and
stop irrigation. More interestingly, farmers with the same
irrigation starting strategies have quite different irriga-
tion stopping approaches. For example, during shoulder
seasons, the majority of the respondents (57%) start irri-
gation when PAW is depleted by 50%. However, 50, 37.5
and 12.5% of the farmers stop irrigation at 80, 90, and
100% of PAW, respectively (Table 13.2).
Farmers’ irrigation approaches vary also during the
peak irrigation season. As can be seen in Table 13.3, a
large proportion of the respondents (64%) start irrigation
before soil moisture is depleted by 50% of PAW. All the
respondents reported that they maintained the soil mois-
ture level above 50% of PAW, indicating farmers’ concern
to secure full production. However, during shoulder and
peak irrigation seasons, 57 and 36% of farmers, respec-
tively, wait for soil moisture to drop to 50% of PAW to
start irrigation. This can be risky, especially in hot
weather, as it may push soil moisture below stress level
leading to yield losses (United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), 1997).
During the peak irrigation season, the majority of the
farmers (57%) fill soils up to 100% PAW, leaving no space
for potential precipitation. According to the (United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1997), this is
not justifiable, because in this way farmers cannot take
advantage of any rain event that might occur. As such, if
precipitation follows the irrigation event, there is a high
possibility of percolation. Apart from wasting water, this
would leach nutrients away from the root zone, leaving
less for the plant, and consequently reducing crop yield
and deteriorating the environment, especially the water
quality of groundwater and nearby rivers.

Table 13.2 Irrigation starting and stopping strategies based on plant available water (PAW) during shoulder season.
Irrigation stopping points (% of respondents who stop irrigation at the following
Irrigation starting point % of PAW)
at % PAW % of respondents 70% PAW 80% PAW 90% PAW 100% PAW
50 57 0 50 37.5 12.5
60 14 50 50 0 0
70 29 0 37.5 25 37.5

Source: KC, B. (2016a). KC,. B, Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2018b).

Table 13.3 Irrigation starting and stopping strategies based on plant available water (PAW) during the peak irrigation season.
Irrigation stopping points (% of respondents who stop irrigation at the
Irrigation starting point following % of PAW)
100%
at % of following PAW % of respondents 70% PAW 80% PAW 90% PAW PAW
50 36 0 20 30 50
60 21 0 33 0 67
70 43 0 17 25 58

Source: KC, B. (2016a). KC,. B, Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2018b).
204 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

ii) Evaluation of existing irrigation strategies Over the 14 irrigation seasons, if the same irrigation
Figure 13.2 and Figure 13.3 show IrriCalc estimates for strategy that was adopted for the shoulder season, was
irrigation and drainage, respectively for two dominant applied for the whole irrigation season, it would reduce
irrigation management strategies as reported by the irrigation by 13% and percolation by 22%, compared
survey farmers. That is: irrigation starts at 50% of PAW with applying different irrigation scenarios for shoulder
and stops at 80% of PAW during the shoulder season, and peak irrigation seasons. Over the 14 irrigation sea-
and irrigation starts at 70% of PAW and stops at 100% of sons the current irrigation strategy would have resulted in
PAW during the peak irrigation season. 3287 mm of percolation, which is equivalent to an average

700
Irrigation (mm/irrigation season)

600

500

400

300

200

100

5
9

4
7

3
6

2
3

0
8
2

/1
/0

/1
/0

/1

/1
/0

/1
/0

/0

/0

/1
/0
/0

14
08

13
06

10

12
05

11
02

03

04

09
07
01

20
20

20
20

20

20
20

20
20

20

20

20
20
20

Irrigation seasons

Ista 50% PAW - Isto 80% PAW (whole irrigation season)

Ista 50% PAW - Isto 80% PAW (shoulder season), Ista 70% PAW - Isto 100% PAW (peak season)

Figure 13.2 Irrigation demand estimates from IrriCalc for 14 irrigation seasons (2001/2002 to 2014/2015) under
two irrigation management strategies. Ista stands for irrigation starting and Isto stands for irrigation stopping points
as percentages of PAW. Source: KC, B. (2016a). KC,. B, Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2018b).

600
Drainage (mm/irrigation season)

500

400

300

200

100

0
5
9

4
07

3
6

2
03

04

05

0
8
02

/1
/0

/1
/1

/1
/0

/1
/1
/0
/
/

/
/

14
08

13
06

10

12
05

11
02

03

04

09
07
01

20
20

20
20

20

20
20

20
20

20

20

20
20
20

Irrigation seasons

Ista 50% PAW - Isto 80% PAW (whole irrigation season)

Ista 50% PAW - Isto 80% PAW (shoulder season), Ista 70% PAW - Isto 100% PAW (peak season)

Figure 13.3 Percolation estimates from IrriCalc for 14 irrigation seasons (2001/2002 to 2014/2015) under two
irrigation management strategies. Ista stands for irrigation starting and Isto stands for irrigation stopping points as
percentages of PAW. Source: KC, B. (2016a). KC,. B, Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2018b).
 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED WATER PRODUCTIVITY 205

percolation of 235 mm/irrigation season, ranging bet- and shoulder irrigation periods over 14 irrigation sea-
ween 40 and 550 mm/irrigation season. This highlights a sons. Annual irrigation and drainage estimates were
need for improvements in current irrigation strategies, found to vary significantly with adopted irrigation
especially for the peak irrigation season, to account for management strategies. In general, estimates of irrigation
potential rainfall. and drainage for both peak and shoulder irrigation sea-
sons showed similar trends, but the higher PAW‐based
iii) Evaluation of other potential irrigation strategies irrigation trigger points resulted in higher irrigation
This section describes the impact of different irrigation requirements and drainage. Over the 14 irrigation sea-
management strategies and crop coefficients (Kc) on irri- sons, the first irrigation strategy (where irrigation starts
gation water requirements and drainage. Irrigation water at 50% of PAW and stops at 70% of PAW), produced the
requirement and drainage depth was found to be highly lowest percolation totals, with a total of 2432 mm,
influenced by Kc and irrigation management strategies, equivalent to 174 mm per year. Over the same time span,
but less so by the soil’s PAW. Irrigation and drainage with the last irrigation strategy (irrigation starts at 80% of
a constant Kc of 1.0 resulted in 15% more irrigation water PAW and stops at 100% of PAW), produced the highest
required compared to applying Kc = 0.6 and 1.0, respec- percolation totals, with a total of 4343 mm resulting in an
tively for post and pre‐grazing conditions. For the detailed annual average percolation depth of 310 mm. Therefore,
analysis, the following scenarios were assessed: comparing these two strategies, the last irrigation strategy,
which does not allow any room for the storage of poten-
•• Variable crop coefficient values comprising 0.6 and
tial rainfall, will use 1.4 times more irrigation water and
1.0, respectively for post and pre‐grazing conditions.
will result in nearly double percolation compared to the
•• PAW as 140 mm.
first strategy. This indicates that a substantial percolation
•• Seven irrigation strategies with irrigation starting at
reduction and water saving could be achieved by regu-
50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75 and 80% of PAW and stopping
lating irrigation strategies.
correspondingly at 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, and 100% of
For several cases, rainfall during the whole season was
PAW.
greater than the actual crop water requirements, which
This test was undertaken to investigate net irrigation resulted in unavoidable percolation. Even for the first irri-
requirements and drainage when irrigation aimed to fill gation strategy, which allows sufficient space for poten-
the same soil moisture depth but at different triggers. tial rainfall, on average 30% of the total rainfall resulted
Figure 13.4 and Figure 13.5 show the combined irriga- in percolation. In fact, it is not possible to irrigate farms
tion and drainage estimates, respectively, for both peak without some water losses due to percolation. Because of

700

600
Irrigation (mm/irrigation season)

500

400

300

200

100

0
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Irrigation seasons
Ista 50% PAW - Isto 70% PAW Ista 55% PAW - Isto 75% PAW Ista 60% PAW - Isto 80% PAW Ista 65% PAW - Isto 85% PAW

Ista 70% PAW - Isto 90% PAW Ista 75% PAW - Isto 95% PAW Ista 80% PAW - Isto 100% PAW

Figure 13.4 Irrigation estimates from IrriCalc over 14 irrigation seasons (2001/2002 to 2014/2015) under seven
different irrigation management strategies. Ista stands for irrigation starting and Isto stands for irrigation stopping
points as percentages of PAW. Source: KC, B. (2016a). KC, B., Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2016c).
 206 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
700
600
Drainage (mm/irrigation season)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04
Ista 50% PAW - Isto 70% PAW
Ista 65% PAW - Isto 85% PAW
Ista 80% PAW - Isto 100% PAW
Figure 13.5 Percolation estimates from IrriCalc over 14 irrigation seasons (2001/2002 to 2014/2015) under seven
different irrigation management strategies. Ista stands for irrigation starting and Isto stands for irrigation stopping
points as percentages of PAW. Source: KC, B. (2016a). KC, B., Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2016c).
this salt accumulation in the root zone is not a problem in
Canterbury Region. However, percolation events could
be minimized by maximizing effective rainfall by imple-
menting an optimum irrigation strategy.
Yearly differences in irrigation and percolation
estimation are attributed to differences in annual rainfall
amounts and their distribution. For example, during the
2014/2015 season, total rainfall was 394 mm, which pro-
duced less percolation than during the 2013/2014 season
with rainfall totalling 738 mm. However, in every irriga-
tion season, irrigation and percolation estimates increased
significantly when irrigation filled more than 80 and 90%
of PAW, respectively during shoulder and peak irrigation
season.
iv) Optimal irrigation range
Irrigation and percolation estimates indicated that irri-
gation applications that fill soil moisture above 80 and
90% of PAW, respectively, during the shoulder and peak
irrigation seasons create significantly higher percolation.
Analysis of the available climatic data over 14 irrigation
seasons (2001/2002 to 2014/2015) showed that the
maximum daily reference evapotranspiration (ETr) was 7
and 10 mm, during shoulder and peak irrigation seasons,
respectively. Irrigation applications at 55 and 57% of
PAW, during shoulder and peak irrigation seasons, would
provide a sufficient soil‐moisture buffer for these
maximum daily ETr values. However, from a practical
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Irrigation seasons
Ista 55% PAW - Isto 75% PAW Ista 60% PAW - Isto 80% PAW
Ista 70% PAW - Isto 90% PAW Ista 75% PAW - Isto 95% PAW
point of view, irrigation starting at 60% of PAW during
the peak irrigation season would be more applicable, as
farmers mostly regulate irrigation at 5% increments of
PAW. Thus, using minimum soil moisture limits to start
irrigation at 55 and 60% of PAW, respectively, for the
shoulder and peak irrigation seasons, and using maximum
soil moisture limits to stop irrigation correspondingly at
80 and 90% of PAW (as shown in Fig. 13.6), would be
optimal in terms of addressing both precipitation and
evapotranspiration uncertainty.
Irrigation that fills soil moisture to 90% of PAW allows
for 14 mm of rainfall harvesting. This is equivalent to
almost three days’ irrigation under centre‐pivot irriga-
tion, which applies approximately 5 mm of irrigation
water per day. Similarly, irrigation that fills soil moisture
to 80% of PAW, provides space for 28 mm of rainfall,
which is equivalent to nearly six days’ irrigation water
under centre‐pivot irrigation. The proposed optimal irri-
gation range would reduce percolation by 12% (207 mm/
year vs 235 mm/year) compared to the commonly applied
irrigation strategy on New Zealand dairy farms, where
irrigation starts at 50% of PAW and stops at 80% of PAW
during the shoulder season, and irrigation starts at 70%
of PAW and stops at 100% of PAW, during the peak irri-
gation season. Maintaining irrigation within the sug-
gested range, may allow for the mitigation of both
environmental risk, caused by percolation, and the pro-
duction risk caused by soil moisture stress.
 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED WATER PRODUCTIVITY 207
Field Capacity,
100% of PAW
SM to stop
irrigation, 80 &
90% of PAW
Irrigation range
= 35 & 42 mm
SM to start
irrigation, 55 &
60% of PAW
Critical point,
50% of PAW
Sep - Oct Nov - Feb
Figure 13.6 Optimal irrigation range for rotational grazing systems based on LUDF field experiments. Source:
KC, B. (2016a). KC, B., Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2016c).
13.3.4. Lessons Learned
The findings from this case study highlight a need to
account for a correct crop coefficient, soil moisture, water
balance, and future weather in irrigation scheduling. It
has clearly demonstrated promising outcomes in terms of
saving irrigation water, without compromising either
yield or the environment. The key learnings are:
•• Current irrigation strategies adopted by the majority
of the Canterbury dairy farmers can be improved
for optimal water productivity. The current strat-
egies consume more irrigation water than the crops
actually need, and result in unnecessary high
percolation.
•• Irrigation scheduling that accounts for the correct
crop coefficient (Kc) contributes to irrigation water
productivity improvements. Irrigation requirements
with variable Kc of pasture, can save 15% of water,
compared with using the commonly adopted single
crop coefficient value of 1. This would further reduce
leaching of nutrients without yield loss.
•• In the case study area, the optimum minimum soil
moisture levels to start irrigation are 55 and 60% of
PAW, for the shoulder and peak irrigation seasons,
respectively. Similarly, the maximum soil moisture
levels to stop irrigation are correspondingly at 80 and
90% of PAW.
•• Proposed optimal irrigation scheduling would
reduce drainage, and thus nutrient leaching, from
the farm to local water bodies. It would help
improving environmental quality, therefore achiev-
ing several SDGs related to environment land, and
lives/biodiversity.
Space for rain,
14 – 28 mm
With root depth = 500 mm and
Plant Available Water of 28% (vol.)
Readily available water = 70 mm
(50% of PAW)
Buffer for ETr,
7 – 14 mm
Mar - Apr
13.4. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Some of the challenges envisage implementation of the
suggested irrigation scheduling strategies are discussed
hereunder:
•• Some of the irrigation system’s design parameters and
return interval will constraint the implementation of the
proposed irrigation strategy. The strategy proposed in
the aforementioned case study is applicable for centre‐
pivot irrigation systems that apply approximately
5 mm of irrigation water for a one‐day return interval,
or 15 mm of irrigation water for a three‐day return
interval. Therefore, other types of irrigation systems
may have lower benefits from this strategy. However,
in New Zealand, centre‐pivot is the dominant irriga-
tion water application method, and therefore the pro-
posed strategy is likely to benefit a large proportion of
the country’s producers. Irrigation system design
parameters; the irrigation return period (days) and the
irrigation application depth (mm/day) of other irriga-
tion systems, may be higher compared to centre‐pivot
irrigation.
•• Scenario‐specific modelling is required to develop a pro-
posed irrigation strategy for other areas. The crop, soil
and climatic data used in this specific research are
likely to vary at other locations. Therefore, to cus-
tomize this approach for other climatic regions and
crop/soil types, further scenario‐specific modelling
would be required in order to determine the actual
trigger points to start and stop irrigation in those
areas.
•• There will be little benefit to implement this irrigation
scheduling strategy for soils of low water holding
208 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Table 13.4 Drainage estimate from irrigated area with centre pivot under existing and proposed irrigation strategies.
Drainage under existing
irrigation strategy
Irrigated area under
Region centre pivot (ha) mm/year
New Zealand 281,400 235
Canterbury 224,480
Region
capacity and/or areas where summer rainfall is
extremely low. Undertaking this exercise for areas
with higher incidence of summer rainfall and in soils
with a high water holding capacity would likely be
extremely beneficial, as this will help to better manage
the percolation. In contrast, there is little benefit in
undertaking this exercise for soils with low PAW and
low summer rainfall, as the change in trigger point (in
terms of soil moisture content) is relatively small.
•• The proposed irrigation strategy might not be replicable
in developing countries due to lack of soil moisture mon-
itoring. To maintain irrigation water applications
within the specified range, soil moisture needs to be
monitored regularly. However, in developing coun-
tries, soil moisture measurement equipment is lacking
at many agricultural farms. Therefore, it is difficult to
accurately identify when to start and stop irrigation to
maintain the specified irrigation range.
Water savings made through implementation of appro-
priate irrigation scheduling strategies enable water utili-
zation for other uses. The proposed optimal irrigation
range in the presented case study has the potential to
reduce average annual drainage to 207 mm from a current
value of 235 mm.
The results from this study are applicable to centre‐
pivot irrigation systems. As a simple approach, we esti-
mated the reduction in average drainage under
centre‐pivots at regional and national levels by extrapo-
lating the estimated drainage values at the LUDF to
Canterbury Region and New Zealand. However, climate
and soil in other regions can be different from Canterbury
Region. Therefore, running the model using site specific
climate and soil data, and extrapolating to regional and
national level is a gross simplification. Accepting this, the
model was run, and the results are shown in Table 13.4.
Extrapolation of LUDF result indicates that by adopting
the proposed optimal irrigation strategy, 79 million m3/
year drainage water could be prevented at the country
level, of which 80% would be prevented in Canterbury
Region. This huge amount of water saving could be used
to produce additional food, which could support meeting
SDG1 and SDG2, focused on hunger and poverty. In
addition, by reducing percolation, nutrient leaching from
Drainage (mm/year) under proposed Drainage
irrigation strategy reduction
million m3/ million m3/ million m3/
year mm/year year year
661 207 583 79
528 465 63
agricultural farms to groundwater and surface water
resources would be reduced, which will support SDG6
focused on clean water and sanitation, and SDGs 14 and
15 focused on conserving biodiversity.
It is understandable that irrigation efficiencies in New
Zealand are superior to those in developing countries. This
is because the dominant irrigation systems in New Zealand
are sprinklers, whose typical efficiency level is about
70–90%, while in developing nations flood irrigation is
more common, where efficiency levels are around 40–50%.
From this fact it can be inferred that in developing nations
there is greater opportunity for irrigation water produc-
tivity improvements, with consequent water savings, and
thus, contributing to meeting the above‐mentioned SDGs.
•• Findings of the study can contribute to global food and
water security. The findings show that there are prom-
ising possibilities for improving agricultural water
management strategies around the world.
Improvements in irrigation water management strat-
egies generally lead to water saving without compro-
mising yield. The savings can be utilized to increase
the irrigated area resulting in increased overall food
production and eventually improving global food
security. In addition, water savings made through
implementation of proposed irrigation scheduling
strategies can contribute to global water security by
enabling water utilization for other uses.
13.5. WAYS FORWARD
Combinations of approaches are recommended as
potential ways forward to implement irrigation sched-
uling strategies in developed and developing countries:
•• Technical improvement. Irrigation scheduling can be
implemented more efficiently by selecting the right irri-
gation system to help control the flow rate and the dis-
tribution of water in the field (Abubaker, 2009).
However, many farmers, especially in developing coun-
tries are not in a position to choose more efficient
sprinkler irrigation systems due to the high cost, lack
of skills, and knowledge to manage high‐tech ­irrigation
systems. Surface irrigation is the dominant irrigation
 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED WATER PRODUCTIVITY 209
technology in developing countries, which is less effi-
cient, partly due to lack of flexible water allocation
structures in canal systems (KC et al., 2011; KC et al.,
2017). Therefore, establishment of sufficient, and suit-
able, flow control structures in different locations of
the canal networks that support effective water control
mechanisms, is essential to help implement irrigation
scheduling. In addition, the installation of a reputed
soil moisture monitoring system is essential to help
implementing an irrigation scheduling strategy. An
irrigation application system, able to apply relatively
small amounts of water (e.g. <= 15 mm), and with a
short return period (e.g. <= 3 days), will also help to
implement the proposed strategy. To implement irriga-
tion scheduling, the irrigation water supply needs to be
very reliable. Therefore, the biggest barrier is possibly
the construction of a reservoir, which would be
essential to facilitate reliability of water and flexibility
of its delivery and help to balance supply and demand.
•• Institutional arrangements. In developing countries
large scale irrigation schemes are controlled and oper-
ated jointly by government and farmers, and small to
medium‐ scale irrigation schemes are generally oper-
ated by the farmers (KC, 2008; KC et al., 2017).
However, in many cases there are no specific institu-
tional arrangements for implementing irrigation oper-
ation and maintenance in practice and there are no
specific rules about irrigation management within the
irrigation schemes. For example, canal tail end farmers
often get less water than their demand. This necessi-
tates an efficient institutional arrangement including
all of the concerned stakeholders to make efficient use
of the available water. There should be clear mecha-
nisms about O&M sharing arrangements based on
capacity, and the understanding of farmers about
O&M activities (one common set of arrangements
can not fit everywhere). This would greatly help to
implement irrigation scheduling efficiently.
Institutional leadership is essential to provide
legislative requirements to set out a framework for
implementing water productivity. A legal framework
often requires water managers and regulators to
deploy catchment or regional water planning frame-
works. One of the key constraints to manage water in
many countries is inadequate estimates of water bud-
gets at catchment scales (Grafton et al., 2018). While
it is at early stages of implementation in New Zealand,
freshwater accounting under the National Policy
Statement for Freshwater Management is designed to
achieve freshwater objectives and limits at appropriate
spatial scales for freshwater accounting and
management (Ministry for the Environment (MfE),
2013). It is paramount that institutions in all coun-
tries, especially in countries where water productivity
is low, develop appropriate policy frameworks and
capacity to manage water.
While legal and policy frameworks are essential in
achieving good water productivity, a collaborative
approach with water users provides a pragmatic and
long‐lasting operational pathway – that also provides
ownership to the water uses. This institution could work
in conjunction with irrigation water users to develop
tools (e.g. software) and supply data (e.g. weather and
soil’s water holding capacity) to assist them in devel-
oping suitable irrigation schedules for their farms.
Software tools can also assist farmers in estimating rea-
sonable monthly and seasonal water use based on cli-
mate data for the period, soil type, crop and irrigated
area (Anthony and KC, 2017). This is important, as rea-
sonable irrigation water demand varies between seasons
due to climate (Figure 13.2 and Figure 13.4).
•• Regulatory arrangement. The government can con-
tribute to implementing irrigation scheduling by for-
mulating several regulatory measures such as
incentives for users who choose the advised irrigation
scheduling, while penalising users who do not imple-
ment the advised irrigation scheduling. It should be
mandatory for farmers to start and stop irrigation at
defined percentages of soil moisture levels, leaving
sufficient space for potential precipitation. In the
same vein, government and other agencies can support
farmers by providing weather data so that farmers can
implement efficient irrigation management.
While a national level policy framework could set
out the legal requirements for water management for
efficient water use, regional/catchment level policy
makers and regulators would have to develop and
implement useable water management structures that
are appropriate for the region/catchment within the
national policy. For example, the water allocation
framework for each region needs to be suitable for the
area so that irrigators could employ irrigation sched-
uling and management practices to optimize water
productivity. Both daily and seasonal irrigation water
allocation limits need to be appropriate and sufficient
to encourage irrigators to deploy water productivity
practices. Local irrigation water allocation limits
would have to be set out using local climate and soil
information such that the limits are appropriate for
local irrigation scheduling.
•• Awareness raising and capacity building. Farmers
rarely use available irrigation water productivity
improvement technologies (soil moisture measurement
equipment, crop coefficient estimation, accounting
for potential rain, etc), because anecdotal evidence
suggests that farmers may not be aware of the benefits
of adopting such technologies in their irrigation
planning. In a recent survey in New Zealand, about
210 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
60% of the farms had soil moisture sensors installed
but, fewer than half actually used soil moisture data in
their irrigation scheduling. Therefore, awareness and
capacity building of farmers to understand and prac-
tice the measures that improve irrigation scheduling is
essential. This can be done by involving farmers at all
levels of the project activities, including planning,
designing and implementing irrigation systems. In
addition, to help farmers to understand irrigation
scheduling strategies, different training can be applied.
Further, it is essential to empower and encourage
farmers to be involved in income generating activities
to improve their purchasing power. To understand
irrigation scheduling one needs to have knowledge on
crop water requirements and yield responses to water.
Therefore, some field‐level training is important to
show a relationship between irrigation application
depth and crop yield. For the farmers with less
technical equipment and expertise it is essential to
provide them with simple irrigation scheduling
calendars that they can use. A sponge demonstration
can be used to illustrate that soil can hold only specific
amounts of water, and that any additional water
supply will leach below the plant root zone and there-
fore not play any role in food production. Visual
observation and feeling the soil can be used to identify
soil texture, which leads to quantifying the water
holding capacity of the soil. Digging holes across
farms can help farmers to judge available soil mois-
ture on the farms, which they can use to decide when
next to irrigate. All of the above‐mentioned irrigation
strategies are easy and simple to undertake.
•• Improved version of water productivity measurement at
field level in developing countries. It is a must to measure
seasonal irrigation application depth and crop produc-
tion to enable water productivity estimation. Therefore,
application of sufficient and appropriate flow control
and measurement structures at the farm gate is essential.
Water productivity can be assessed in three ways: (i)
measure seasonal irrigation application depth, (ii) mea-
sure crop production (kg) and divide it by the seasonal
irrigation application depth converted into m3, (iii) cal-
culate the ratio of production (kg) per unit of land (ha).
All three methods can be compared with benchmarking
values obtained from similar farms.
A fourth method is to calculate the ratio of crop
production to evapotranspiration. However, the
majority of the existing irrigation schemes in devel-
oping countries lack irrigation application and evapo-
transpiration measurement systems, and so in most
cases this method cannot be applied.
•• Salinity management. Excess water needs to be applied
to leach salt from the root zone. Otherwise, salt
accumulation could ultimately affect production.
Therefore, the volume of irrigation application should
be more than the actual crop water requirement. The
amount of additional irrigation application depends
on soil texture, available salt in the soil, salt sensitivity
of the crop, and salinity of the irrigation water applied.
However, salinity management was out of the scope
of this paper therefore, was not really a part of the
analysis. However, the irrigation application rates and
the rainfall patterns are such that salinity accumulation
will not take place.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their appreciation to the South
Island Dairying Development Centre (SIDDC) for access
to the field site and equipment; to Mr. Ron Pellow
(Executive Director LUDF), Mr. Peter Hancox (Dairy
Farm Manager), Mr. Trevor Hendry and Mr. Warwick
Hill (technicians) for their assistance in the field. The
authors also acknowledge the support of farmers
involved in the project. The authors would also like to
acknowledge the funding provided by Lincoln University,
Lincoln, New Zealand, in completing the study.
NOTE
1 Dry matter (DM) of pasture is what remains after all of the
water is evaporated out from fresh pasture. It is an indicator
of the amount of nutrients available to the animal in
pasture.
REFERENCES
Abubaker, J. (2009). Irrigation scheduling for efficient water
use in dry climates. MSc thesis, Swedish University of Agri-
cultural Sciences, Department of Soil Sciences, Ultuna,
Uppsala, Swedish.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. (1998). Crop
evapotranspiration‐Guidelines for computing crop water
requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO,
Rome, Italy
Andales, A.A., Chávez, J.L., and Bauder, T.A. (2011). Irrigation
Scheduling: The Water Balance Approach, Colorado State
University, Colorado, USA.
Anthony,. P, KC, B. 2017. Improving irrigation water
management using agent technology. New Zealand Journal of
Agricultural Research, 60 (1–15).
Baum, H.M., Chandonnet, A., Fentress, J., and Rasinowich,
C. (2012). Mixed‐Mode Methods for Conducting Survey
Research. Data Recognition Corporation, Minnesota, USA.
Retrieved from http://www.datarecognitioncorp.com/survey‐
services/Documents/Mixed‐Mode‐Methods‐for‐Conducting‐
Survey‐Research.pdf
Belaqziz, S., Mangiarotti, S., Le Page, M.et al. (2014). Irriga-
tion scheduling of a classical gravity network based on the
 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED WATER PRODUCTIVITY 211
Covariance Matrix Adaptation – Evolutionary Strategy
algorithm. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 102(0),
64–72.
Bright, J.C. (2009). Estimation of seasonal irrigation water
use – Method development, prepared for Irrigation New
Zealand. Aqualinc Research Limited, Christchurch, New
Zealand. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_
storage/www.irrigationnz.co.nz/ContentPages/637352887.
pdf
Broner. (2005). Irrigation Scheduling, Fact Sheet No 4,708.
Irrigation Scheduling, Fact Sheet No 4,708, Colorado State
University, Colorado, USA, Retrieved from http://www.ext.
colostate.edu/pubs/crops/04708.pdf
Cabelguenne, M., Debaeke, P., Puech, J., and Bosc, N.
(1997). Real time irrigation management using the EPIC‐
PHASE model and weather forecasts. Agricultural Water
Management, 32(3), 227–238.
Cameron, K.C., Di, H.J., and Moir, J.L. (2012). Nitrogen
losses from the soil/plant system: a review. Annals of Applied
Biology, 162(2), 145–173.
Charlesworth, P. (2005). Soil water monitoring an information
package 2nd edition, Land and Water Australia on behalf of the
National Program for Sustainable Irrigation, Canberra, Austra-
lia. Retrieved from http://www.publish.csiro.au/book/5079/
DairyNZ. (2013). Making Dairy Farming Work For Everyone,
Strategy for Sustainable Dairy Farming, 2013–2020. Ham-
ilton, New Zealand: DairyNZ. Retrieved from http://www.
dairynz.co.nz/media/209786/strategy‐for‐sustainable‐dairy‐
farming.pdf
De Fraiture, C., Wichelns, D., Rockstrom, J.et al. (2007).
Looking ahead to 2050: scenarios of alternative investment
approaches: International Water Management Institute
(IWMI) Book Reports H040196.
Di, H. J., and Cameron, K.C. (2002). The use of a nitrification
inhibitor, dicyandiamide (DCD), to decrease nitrate leaching
and nitrous oxide emissions in a simulated grazed and irri-
gated grassland. Soil Use and Management, 18(4), 395–403.
Fitzgerald, G., Rodriguez, D., Christensen, L. et al. (2006).
Spectral and thermal sensing for nitrogen and water status in
rainfed and irrigated wheat environments. Precision Agricul-
ture, 7(4), 233–248.
Gates, D.M., Keegan, H.J., Schleter, J.C., and Weidner, V.R.
(1965). Spectral properties of plants. Applied optics, 4(1),
11–20.
George, B.A., Shende, S.A., and Raghuwanshi, N.S. (2000).
Development and testing of an irrigation scheduling model.
Agricultural Water Management, 46(2), 121–136.
Goklany, I.M. (1998). Saving habitat and conserving biodiver-
sity on a crowded planet. BioScience, 48(11), 941–953.
Grafton, R.Q.,Williams, J.,Perry, C.J. et al. (2018). The paradox
of irrigation efficiency. Science, 361(6404), 748–750.
Grafton, R.Q., Williams, J., and Jiang, Q. (2015). Food and
water gaps to 2050: preliminary results from the global food
and water system (GFWS) platform. Food Security, 7(2),
209–220.
Haboudane, D., Miller, J. R., Tremblay, N.et al. (2002).
Integrated narrow‐band vegetation indices for prediction of
crop chlorophyll content for application to precision agricul-
ture. Remote sensing of environment, 81(2), 416–426.
Harrison, K. (2012). Irrigation Scheduling Method. Bulletin
974, the University of Georgia, Department of Biological
and Agricultural Engineering, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Haynes, R.J., and Williams, P.H. (1993). Nutrient cycling and
soil fertility in the grazed pasture ecosystem. Advances in
Agronomy, 49, 119–199.
Hedley, C.B., and Yule, I.J. (2009). A method for spatial pre-
diction of daily soil water status for precise irrigation sched-
uling. Agricultural Water Management, 96(12), 1737–1745.
Jarvis, S.C., Scholefield, D., and Pain, B. (1995). Nitrogen
cycling in grazing systems. In “Nitrogen fertilization in the
environment” (Ed. PE Bacon) pp. 381–419. New York, USA
Jay, M. (2007). The political economy of a productivist agri-
culture: New Zealand dairy discourses. Food Policy, 32(2),
266–279.
KC, B. (2008). Improvement in land and water productivity of
the irrigated area in emerging and least developed countries
for food security. Master thesis, UNESCO‐IHE Institute for
Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands.
KC, B. (2016a). Irrigation scheduling: a Soft Adaptor to Weather
Uncertainties and Irrigation Efficiency Improvement Initiatives.
PhD thesis, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand.
KC, B., Breneger, S., and Curtis, A. (2016b). Soil moisture mon-
itoring. Irrigation New Zealand, Christchurch, New Zealand,
Retrived from https://www.irrigationnz.co.nz/Members%20
Only/good%20management%20practice/Book11‐SoilMM.
pdf
KC, B., Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2016c). Determining the
Optimal Irrigation Strategy for Rotational Grazing Systems.
In: Proceedings 2nd World Irrigation Forum, Chiang Mai,
Thailand, 6–8 November 2016.
KC,. B, Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2018a). Impact of Rota-
tional Grazing Systems on the Pasture Crop Coefficient for
Irrigation Scheduling. Irrigation and Drainage, 67(3), 441–453.
KC,. B, Mohssen, M., Wai, C.H. et al. (2018b). Irrigation Strat-
egies for Rotational Grazing Pasture in Canterbury, New
Zealand, and Impacts on Irrigation Efficiency. Irrigation and
Drainage, 67(5), 779–789
KC, B., Schultz, B., and Prasad, K. (2011). Water management
to meet present and future food demand. Irrigation and drain-
age, 60(3): 348–359.
KC, B., Schultz, B., and Prasad, K. (2017). Impact of irriga-
tion management practices on land and its productivity in
addressing hunger and poverty. Journal of Development Inno-
vations, 1(2): 15–28.
Kumar, R., Shankar, V., and Kumar, M. (2011). Development
of Crop Coefficients for Precise Estimation of Evapotranspi-
ration for Mustard in Mid Hill Zone‐India. Universal Journal
of Environmental Research and Technology, 1(4).
Lee, J. M., Donaghy, D. J., Sathish, P., and Roche, J. R. (2010).
Perennial ryegrass regrowth after defoliation – physiological
and molecular changes. Proceedings of the New Zealand
Grassland Association
Levidow, L., Zaccaria, D., Maia, R. et al. (2014). Improving
water‐efficient irrigation: Prospects and difficulties of inno-
vative practices. Agricultural Water Management, 146, 84–94.
Mannini, P., Genovesi, R., and Letterio, T. (2013). IRRINET:
Large Scale DSS Application for On‐farm Irrigation Sched-
uling. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 19 (0), 823–829.
212 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Martin, R. J., Thomas, S. M., Stevens, D. R.et al. (2006).
Improving water use efficiency on irrigated dairy farms
in Canterbury. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland
Association, (Vol. 68, p. 155).
McGuffey, R. K., and Shirley, J. E. (2011). Introduction | His-
tory of Dairy Farming. Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences
(Second Edition) (pp. 2–11). San Diego: Academic Press.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/B9780123744074005409.
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). (2016). Methodology
and implications of incorporating irrigation into New Zea-
land’s Inventory. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Wel-
lington, New Zealand, technical Paper 2017/55.
Ministry for the Environment (MfE). (2013). National Policy
Statement for Freshwater Management 2014. Ministry for
the Environment (MfE), Wellington, New Zealand.
Molden, D., Oweis, T., Steduto, P. et al. (2010). Improving agri-
cultural water productivity: Between optimism and caution.
Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), 528–535.
Monaghan, R.M., de Klein, C.A.M., and Muirhead, R.W.
(2008). Prioritisation of farm scale remediation efforts for
reducing losses of nutrients and faecal indicator organisms
to waterways: A case study of New Zealand dairy farming.
Journal of Environmental Management, 87(4), 609–622.
Morris, M. (2006). Soil Moisture Monitoring: Low‐Cost Tools
and Methods. Retrievedfrom http://irrigationefficiency.co.nz/
assets/Uploads/ATTRA‐1.pdf
Partners, P. (2012). Greener Pasture: The Global Soft Com-
modity Opportunity for Australia and New Zealand. Aus-
tralia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, Victoria,
Australia. Retrieved from http://media.corporate‐ir.net/
media_files/IROL/24/248677/ANZ_insight_3_Greener_
Pastures.pdf
Pinter, J., Paul J, Hatfield, J.L. et al. (2003). Remote sensing for
crop management. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing, 69(6), 647–664.
Rawnsley, R.P., Donaghy, D.J., and Stevens, D.R. (2007). What
is limiting production and consumption of perennial ryegrass
in temperate dairy regions of Australia and New Zealand? In
“Proceedings of the 3rd Dairy Science Symposium”, the Uni-
versity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Rochester, E.W. and Busch, C.D. (1972). An irrigation sched-
uling model which incorporates rainfall predictions. The
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 8(3),
608–613.
Rockpoint Corporate Finance Limited. (2012). Irrigation
in New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved
from http://www.rockpoint.co.nz/pdfs/Irrigation‐in‐New‐
Zealand‐2012‐Rockpoint.pdf
Rowe, R. (2018). Soil Moisture, Biosystems Engineering.
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, United States.
Saunders, C., and Saunders, J. (2012). The economic value of
potential irrigation in Canterbury. Agribusiness and Eco-
nomics Research Unit, Lincoln University, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Schultz, B., Tardieu, H., and Vidal, A. (2009). Role of water
management for global food production and poverty allevia-
tion. Irrigation and drainage, 58(S1), S3–S21.
Schultz, B., Zimmer, D., and Hofwegen, P. v. (2007). Agricul-
ture food water: concept note in preparation for 5th World
Water Forum. Marseille, France.
Trewavas, A.J. (2001). The population/biodiversity paradox.
Agricultural efficiency to save wilderness. Plant Physiology,
125(1), 174–179.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1997).
National Engineering Handbook. Retrieved from http://
directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/FC01D391‐099B‐4C31‐925
1‐8C67A6DE2EA3/FinalDownload/DownloadId‐8932
48D977F8919998CCFB59B4CC8DAD/FC01D391‐099
B‐4C31‐9251‐8C67A6DE2EA3/OpenNonWebContent.
aspx?content=17837.wba
Van Housen, J. (2015). Modelling the Temporal and Spatial
Variation of Evapotranspiration from Irrigated Pastures in
­
Canterbury. PhD thesis, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New
Zealand.
 14
Urban Water Security for Sustainable Cities in the Context
of Climate Change
Soni M. Pradhanang1 and Khurshid Jahan1

ABSTRACT

Urban development and growth cycle are the primary drivers of environmental change on a local to regional
scale. Change in land use/cover, biodiversity, water resources use and availability, biogeochemical cycles are
some of the examples of the shift that could be expected from urban growth. This chapter focuses on a few case
studies to highlight the status of urban growth and their impacts on water use and availability, in general, water
security of the region. Urban water security is one of the goals of sustainable cities, but water resources are
under dire threat due to the burgeoning population and urban development. The examples presented in this
chapter could be used as a lesson to plan forward and manage small and large‐sized cities that are facing the
urban plight in the context of climate change.

14.1. INTRODUCTION the world population by 2050 (Figure 14.1). In contrast,

Urban development is a phenomenon whereby popula­
tions move from rural to the urban area for a better life
and opportunities. Urbanization results as more people
and more developed areas for a better lifestyle, access to
resources, including housing, education, and security.
Urbanization usually contributes to the development of
land for use in commercial and industrial properties,
institutions for social benefits and services, transporta­
tion, and residential with better facilities. When such
activities start putting pressure on resources, several
urbanization‐related issues arise. The promise of jobs
with high salaries and prosperity drags people into cities
as urban living is associated with advanced levels of
literacy and education, better health services, and better
opportunities for cultural and political contribution or
participation (UNDESA, 2014). Almost 50% of the
global population are now city dwellers, and the
movement of the larger population towards the cities and
the trend of movement will be increased in two‐thirds of
Department of Geosciences, University of Rhode Island,
1 waste‐disposal problems, and high energy consumption.
USA
the population in rural areas is projected to decline by
150 million near 2050 (Figure 14.1) due to the loss of
human resources moving out of the rural areas.
Generally, the intensity and expansion of urbanization
differ by region, and it is apparent in the developing coun­
tries, mostly in Latin America and Asia. Among devel­
oping countries, Latin American countries (LAC) have
the highest proportion of their population living in urban
areas. Nearly four out of every five LAC citizens live in
cities (IDB, 2016). East and South Asian countries are
projected to have the fastest growth rates of population in
the next 30 to 50 years. The increasing trend indicates that
the future world population growth will be in large towns
and cities undoubtedly. According to Seto et al. (2010)
and Angel et al. (2011), the increasing rate of urban areas
is twice as fast as urban populations all over the world. As
a result, the increasing trend in urbanization will accel­
erate two potential big issues; poverty, and environmental
degradation. Increasing population intensity and the
demands of the urban environment both are the cause of
poor air and water quality, decreasing water resources,
The present urban cycle accelerates environmental change

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

213
214 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
7000
6000
Population (millions)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1950 1960
Figure 14.1 Global population of urban and rural, 1950 – 2050. Source: Modified from United Nations,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2014).
on a local to regional scale, shifting land use and land
cover, biodiversity, hydro systems, biogeochemical cycles,
and climate (Grimm et al., 2008). To manage and miti­
gate the rapidly increasing problems and other diffi­
culties, robust and sustainable planning needs to be
emphasized. Since 1990, sustainable water resource
management has started getting the attention of the
researchers, policymakers, and leaders (Hoekstra et al.,
2018). The world’s leaders are now planning their cities in
the way the urban issues such as water insecurities, infra­
structure, and climate change are dealt with appropriate
management and technologies. There are many cities
declared as sustainable cities. Copenhagen, Denmark;
San Francisco, California; Vancouver, Canada; Stockholm,
Sweden; and Singapore (Figure 14.2), to name a few
(Hoekstra et al., 2018). These example cities could be
used as a lesson to move forward to plan and manage
large and small‐sized cities that might face urban plight
in the context of climate change. Sustainable cities are
declared based on the urban sustainability indicator
framework developed by the European Foundation
(Indicators for Sustainable cities, 2015 (revised 2018)).
All the indicators and criteria are arranged in the follow­
ing Table 14.1.
Few tools are available to the planners, managers, and
researchers that are used as water planning tools for
urban cities. One of the tools that have received large
attention is “City Blueprint” (Phillip et al., 2011). City
blueprint is a tool developed by Waternet in Amsterdam
and the Kiwa Water Research (KWR) Water Cycle
Research Institute in the Netherlands. It is capable of
generating or creating a quick scan and baseline
assessment of water sustainability in a city. This tool has
been used and implemented in European cities for
integrated urban water management. City blueprint con­
sists of 24 indicators under eight broad themes: (i) water
Urban Rural
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
security following the water footprint approach d ­ eveloped
by Hoekstra and Chapagain (2005a, 2005b), (ii) water
quality, which includes surface water and groundwater,
(iii) drinking water, (iv) sanitation, (v) infrastructure,
(vi) climate robustness, (vii) biodiversity and attractive­
ness, and (viii) governance.
Urban water security is one of the goals of sustainable
cities, but water resources are under threat due to the
rising trend of urbanization. The global water consump­
tion rate is twice higher than the rate of population
increase, and future water demand is projected to be
increased by more than 50 % than the present time by
2050. Individually rapid urbanization and climate change
both are responsible for urban water securities. Issues of
water security will be aggravated under unplanned or
under‐planned urban development coupled with climate‐
induced extreme events such as flood, drought, and water
quality changes, among others. Furthermore, climate
change adversely impacts water availability and water
demand, causing serious implications on water security,
particularly in an urban region having a high concentration
of population. Urban infrastructures, if built with
planning, should to be resilient to extreme weather condi­
tions, such as heavy and limited precipitations, that can
cause acute and flash floods, and drought (Barroca et al.,
2006; Huong and Pathirana, 2013; Smith and Handmer,
1984). Population growth rate and socio‐economic activ­
ities have continually increased both water demands and
vulnerability to floods and droughts in urban areas
(Cutter, 1996; Hallegatte et al., 2013; Hanasaki et al.,
2013; Hejazi et al., 2014; Mokrech et al., 2015). Also, cli­
mate change has altered the water cycle elements and
exaggerated water accessibility (McDonald et al., 2011;
Vörösmarty et al., 2000), water demand, and water pota­
bility (Hanasaki et al., 2013; Hejazi et al., 2014). As men­
tioned, climate change results in changes in extreme
 URBAN WATER SECURITY FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 215

Non Declared Country

Denmark
Singapore
Sweden
British Columbia / Colombie-Britannique
California

Figure 14.2 Five Sustainable cities in the World. Source: Modified from The Climate Reality Project (2017).

Table 14.1 Urban Sustainability Indicators.

Indicator Data Components/Measure
Global climate The total emission of CO2, CH4, N2O, and CFCs
Air Quality The number of incidence exceeding alarm levels and traffic circulation is stopped.
Acidification Deposited amount of SO2, NO2 and NH3 per hectare.
Ecosystem toxification The total amount of emitted toxic elements, i.e., cadmium, polyaromatic hydrocarbons,
mercury, dioxin, epoxyethane, fluorides and copper, and radioactive substances, and
their remaining time in the environment
Urban mobility/clean transport Total number of trips, their duration and distance by private cars for communicating and
basic needs.
Waste management The total amount of disposed waste per year (domestic, industrial, retail and service waste)
Energy consumption Percentage of energy uses for domestic, industrial and the private and public sector
Water consumption Total volume (cubic meter) of water for each inhabitant per year
Nuisance Number of affected people by noise, odour or vision pollution
Social justice Number of underprivileged people in the area of poverty, unemployment, lack of education
Housing quality Percentage of people affected by the lack or degrades the quality of housing
Urban safety Percentages of accident or crime in the society per year
Economic urban sustainability Individual income and deficits of each city
Green, public space and heritage Percentage of green spaces or local heritage
Citizen participation Number of active citizens who works for urban improvement and quality of life
Unique sustainability Urban sustainability with its environmental, social, and economic dimensions

Source: IN‐DEPTH REPORT: Indicators for Sustainable Cities, November 2015 (revised March 2018) Issue 12. European Union
2018. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

precipitation magnitude, duration, and frequency of pre­
cipitation and local water availability (Mirhosseini et al.,
2013; Pradhanang et al., 2013; Rodríguez et al., 2014;
Schreider, Smith, and Jakeman, 2000; Simonovic et al.,
2016;). As the local water availability or accessibility is a
prime source of water supply, since water scarcity occurs
in the urban areas or cities where water demand is very
high (Daniel et al., 2016) the situation worsens during the
dry season when water demand is relatively higher in
urban cities (e.g., Parkinson et al., 2016). The impacts of
the extreme rainfall events in urban areas are directly
linked to the urban infrastructures and their management,
for example, stormwater management, and local drainage
systems. Appropriate detailed policies and designs are
216 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

required for equitable water supply. It is essential to

encourage potential water storage at all levels, improve
water quality, control the energy dependency, and ensure
stakeholders’ rights and connections in the sector. Also,
tested and more appropriate climate change adaptation
strategies should be implemented for a sustainable and
equitable water system such as top‐down and bottom‐up
approaches (Nazemi and Wheater, 2014). Such methods
have effectively applied in regional water resource
management (Hassanzadeh, et al., 2016; Hassanzadeh
et al., 2015; Nazemi et al., 2013).
With the goals of addressing water security in the con­
text of climate change, the following three broad themes
are addressed in subsequent sub‐sections of this chapter.
•• Urbanization impact on water security in the context
of climate change.
•• Urban water security issues in different aspects and
regions.
•• Approaches to deal with urban water security.
14.2. CHARACTERIZING URBAN WATER (IN)
SECURITY – THEORETICAL ASPECTS
Urban water (in)security is one of the biggest chal­
lenges of the twenty‐first century. It is generally charac­
terized by the four main themes as shown in Figure 14.3.
Welfare Focus Equity Focus
Development
Focus
Sustainability Focus Risk Focus
Figure 14.3 Different focuses of water insecurity.
As populations grow, humanity faces the prospect of
uncertain future water supplies due to climate change,
land use/cover change and high water/resource demand.
Generally, the concept of urban water security is different
from the water security concept based on urban water
management systems and demand in urban areas. Urban
people undoubtedly depend on the surrounding area for
water supply and the pressure grows as the competition
to access potable water increases. Such a situation often
results in transporting water from different districts and
farther away from the catchment areas. Figure 14.4
explains the drivers of the urban water (in)securities that

Urban
Water
Insecurity

Impacts
Drivers

Socio Economic Environment Society

Management
Climate
Political Globalization
Change
Ecological
Hydrological Governance
Change Regimes

Figure 14.4 Drivers and impacts of urban water insecurity.

 URBAN WATER SECURITY FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 217
directly and indirectly impact the environment, humans,
and society.
Moreover, they operate within a broader context of
interfaces between these impacts. These drivers are split
into four main segments (i) socio‐economic, (ii) manage­
ment, (iii) political, and (iv) ecological (SMPE). Socio‐
economic driver deals with the urban areas that are highly
vulnerable to water demand, water stress, and the water
deficit. Water demand, stress, and deficit control the life­
styles of an urban livelihood. Best management and
monitoring systems and proper planning help deal with
sustainable water infrastructure and flood protection
measures. Best management practices of the water infra­
structures and distribution also help minimize the insecu­
rities associated with water quantity and quality. Political
drivers are essential drivers that shape and re‐shape the
urban growth pattern, land use/cover regulation, and
proactive and reactive water risk mitigation and
adaptation responses (Lankao and Gnatz, 2016). Socio‐
economic, management, and ecological drivers influence
planning for policy formation and implementation.
Ecological drivers include the water and land quality that
impacts directly on the biodiversity and local ecology.
Urban water security is linked to all four drivers. It could
be redefined as the limited capacity to maintain a sustain­
able availability of water quantity and quality maintain­
ing water demands through the water communities and
the ecosystems. Sustainable availability of adequate
quantities and qualities of water, and the resilient urban
communities and ecosystems, therefore, become compo­
nents of these four drivers that impact urban water
security.
Since the early twenty‐first century, the world’s leader,
various organizations, academic institutions have assessed
small and large scale water security issues using several
indicators and frameworks. Depending upon stake­
holders and communities, size, and socio‐economic status
of the urban areas, the indicators in the framework may
vary. A case study of Bangladesh is presented in the fol­
lowing sub‐chapter elaborates on the ways for ensuring
urban water security in cities.
14.3. ADDRESSING URBAN WATER INSECURITIES:
A CASE OF DHAKA, BANGLADESH
Urban water security impacts of global urban land use/
cover and changes in future land use/cover pattern has
been studied and debated. Poor distribution and land
fragmentation due to future land use/cover changes have
not been overlooked (WaterAid, 2012). The poor
management of land use/cover is most prevalent in devel­
oping countries.
In many parts of Sub‐Saharan Africa, South Asia,
Latin America, and Oceania, water resources may be
present but not where or when they are needed most; they
may be contaminated, located at a great distance from
households or inaccessible because of difficult terrain; or
they may have been depleted by uncontrolled abstraction
(Mekonnen et al., 2016). According to Figure 14.5, water
scarcity is acute in mostly Africa and the South Asian
continent. There is an increasing trend of urbanization
and the rate of increase is faster than the other regions
and are expected to become 56 and 64 percentages urban
respectively, by 2050 (Figure 14.6). Therefore, water secu­
rity issues are expected to be more prominent in the
future. In developing countries, poor, or socially or
politically excluded groups are often ignored when the
investment is made in water supply service extension.
They may also be prevented from using existing services.
Both children and adults suffer high morbidity and
mortality rates as a result of drinking contaminated water
or having insufficient water for basic hygiene. These prob­
lems exacerbate poverty, stifle human development, leave
people exposed to pressures on their health and liveli­
hoods, increase the workload of women, lead to migra­
tion15 and prevent people from living with dignity
(UNWUR, 2014). The water security problem affects
both developing and least developing countries. Water
security issues and a case study on Bangladesh is pre­
sented below.
14.3.1. Context
Bangladesh is a country of 158.9 million people,
whereas about 16 million people live in Dhaka city, the
capital of Bangladesh (BBS, 2017). Dhaka is the second‐
largest city for having a massive amount of population.
This dense population puts this city under enormous
pressure in terms of water demand. Unplanned urbaniza­
tion, poor maintenance of water resources, lack of social
awareness and economic development, as well as a large
population, are the significant causes of water insecu­
rities for the Dhaka city. The ever‐increasing urban
population has imposed serious pressure on water
resources. Water demand and water deficit are both
increasing over time (Figure 14.5). Lack of water use
data, withdrawal data, has resulted in some of the large
water supply and management non‐transparent. These
issues, in turn, also make planning and management of
this scarce resource difficult, especially putting in the
context of climate change. About 1000 private wells are
actively abstracting groundwater mostly for industrial
purposes (Islam, 1999, 2000).
Surface water resources are limited during the dry
season, and quality is also questionable, and this is the
reason groundwater is abstracted ignoring the safe yield.
Over‐abstraction puts the groundwater table too far below
the ground surface during the dry season. A recent
218 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

(a)
40
Demand of Water
35
Demand / Supply of Water (× 100 million liter) Supply of Water
30

25

20

15

10

0
1963
1970
1980
1990
1996

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1998
1997

Year

(b)
5000 30

Water Demand, MLD

25
4000 Population
Water Demand, MLD

20

Population, million
3000

15

2000
10

1000
5

0 0
2000 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year

Figure 14.5 (a) Demand, supply and deficit of water in Dhaka city (b) Present and future water demand scenario
in Dhaka city. Source: Modified from Hossain, N., & Bahauddin, K.Md. (2013).

research indicated that the groundwater table in Dhaka 10 mm in 24 h during the rainy season creates water log­
city dropped by 20–30m during the last three decades ging in various parts of the city and stored water stands
(Murtaza, 2004). Figure 14.5 (a) demonstrates the for three to five days, based on the rainfall amount. The
demand–supply and deficit trend for Dhaka city since city’s infrastructure lacks green and open spaces. The need
1963. The total water demand for Dhaka city has increased for land that could be categorized as a water body to
about 350 million liters (ML) from 1963 to 2010. maintain biodiversity and a healthy environment was real­
Waterlogging is the other concern in Dhaka city. City life ized by the environmentalists and planners (WaterAid,
becomes uninhabitable due to waterlogging from improper 2012). Despite such realization and policy guidelines,
sewerage management, particularly during the rainy most of the water bodies in and around the city are filled
season (June to October). The average rainfall above up for construction such as industries, housing, and
 URBAN WATER SECURITY FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 219
Identification of Problems and
Issues
Formulation of objective and
constraints
Design of Strategy
Identification of scenarios
Generation of water management
options
Prediction of impact on water
Resource
Figure 14.6 The Conceptual Framework for Integrated Water Resource Methodology.
commercial infrastructure. This has led to the disappear­
ance of water resources and sources of water supply.
Murtaza (2004) noted that many water bodies in the city
had been contaminated by unplanned developments of
industries, mills, and. Water demand has increased due to
the increase in population, and at the same time, the urban
population is also dealing with degraded water quality.
Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, and Rajshahi are the four
major cities in Bangladesh, and about 60% of the urban
population are staying there. According to Bangladesh
Bureau Statistics (BBS, 2001), about 35% of urban popu­
lations are carried by Dhaka city, having a 7% population
growth rate annually. Climate change impacts and high
urbanization rates make the Dhaka city very vulnerable.
Each of the parts of Bangladesh is going through differ­
ent climate change impacts. Central Bangladesh part is
affected by the sudden flood, waterlogging, and quality
issues; the Northwestern part has a drought problem.
During the dry season, the water level declined which
resulted in a water deficit. The southern part is affected
by saline intrusion problems. Both surface water and
groundwater become saline and people do not get water
for drinking. Irregular rainfall patterns, increasing tem­
perature, and sea‐level rise; all of these climate change
effects are making water scarcity worse.
14.3.2. Access to Water – a Key to a Sustainable City
The major challenges in developing cities such as
Dhaka are economic, social, and ecological sustainability
Prediction of impacts on national
development objectives
Ranking of strategies & options by
MCA
Selection of preferred water
management option
(Orishimi 1982). The country is also undergoing political
insecurity. Brocherhoff (2000) urged that there is a need
for multiple disciples, including social and political, to
come together to address issues related to urban demo­
graphic changes and the quest for sustainability. So, the
overwhelming growth of the urban population in LDCs
will pose a threat to the sustainability and development.
For a developing country like Bangladesh, it is quite
extremely difficult to increase the service provisions
against the people’s demand such as water, sanitation,
waste disposal, and housing sectors. Also, the natural and
man‐made hazards combined enhance the negative in the
context of poor governance and management policies.
Safe and sufficient water is fundamental to human rights.
In Bangladesh, Water Supply and Sewerage Authority
(WASA), Department of Public Health and Engineering
(DPHE) and Local Government and Engineering
Department (LGED) are the main service providers.
Additionally, some in‐government organizations are
involved in water and sanitation. Despite many govern­
ments and non‐government working together to provide
service, the services are found to be unsatisfactory.
Dhaka, one of the megacities of Bangladesh, in particular,
suffers access to safe water and sanitation at a reasonable
cost (Rana, 2011; Islam et al., 2003).
Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority
(DWASA) provides water and sanitation services in
Dhaka city, and different local government agencies (city
corporations) are responsible for connecting the house­
holds to the water supply system, licensing tubewells, and
220 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
providing public taps outside the households (Rahman
and Mallik, 2003). DWASA operates major water infra­
structure with four water treatment plants and 404 deep
tube wells, 38 water reservoirs (~with 2250 km water lines
to supply 1500 million liters of water per day) (Islam
2002, 2000). Around 97% of the water supply was from
deep tubewells before the establishment of Sayedabad
water treatment plant. After construction of Sayedabad
Water treatment plant, 15% of supplied water is still col­
lected from surface water sources (Mesbah‐us‐Saleheen
2003). According to the estimate by DWASA, it is pos­
sible only to supply 1.40 *103–1.*103 million litres of
water every day to Dhaka while the daily requirement of
water is 1.60*103 million litres.
Also, a study by Kamal (2003) reports DWASA is
capable of supplying only 184 million liters of water (71%
of the demand) per day for the population of about
10 million, while the demand of the consumers 256 ­million
liters per day. Therefore, a small segment of the city
population is getting an adequate supply of piped water,
and the other people do not have access to adequate
water, while the situation in low‐income communities is
dire (Kamal 2003). The formal settlements in the city
have been supplied by the piped water connections.
On the contrary, the informal low‐income settlements
(slums and squatters) have more than one source of water,
which includes roadside water tap, hand‐pump, tube well,
informal piped water, and earth‐well. Khan et al. (2003)
documented that the hand pump is the major source of
water for the low‐income settlements are usually owned
by the communities or by the NGOs, while some dwellers
rely on the Roadside tap of DWASA. They noted that the
price and pricing mechanism of water varies from settle­
ments to settlements depending upon ownership patterns.
For example, in City Polli Basti within Dhaka, the
community pays 35 USD/month. In another study by the
Center for Urban Studies (CUS) (2006), they reported
that 92.3% of clusters of the total slums in Dhaka use the
municipal system for water collection. According to the
report, 45.8% slum clusters, one tap was shared by 6–10
households. These discrepancies in water supply and dis­
tribution make planning and management in the context
of climate change even more difficult.
14.3.3. Challenges – Lack of Government Awareness
Due to aging infrastructure, leakage, and pilferage dur­
ing transit or system loss, the estimate of 93% household
in Dhaka getting water supply does not represent the real
situation (ADB, 2017; Raseed 2003) The research reports
further argues that system loss not only shows how dys­
functional government management is but also gives
opportunities to the water hijackers from the water net­
work of DWASA. Almost every household in the slums
are connected by water network provided by water‐lords.
The water‐lords in the slum get water from the DWASA
water network in adjacent areas.
Many researchers frequently noted coordination failure
between the local and central government. Rahman and
Mallik (2003) stated that illegal involvement of local
government in both the water and sanitation sector is also
the part of an institutional dishonesty. In their views,
Government office always makes an issue of inadequate
investment, but the real fact is that inadequate investment is
not the only cause of poor water, and sanitation system but
political support, technical capability, and an accountable
governing system. To ensure that water is being provided
equitably, it is essential to prioritize the demand and their
economic capacity. To initiate such an approach, the map­
ping of needy people (water and sanitation poor) becomes
essential. Therefore, a need for a practical approach to
management that diagnosis the real problems of water and
sanitation provisions is realized. Islam et al. (2003) sug­
gested that macro level and micro level measures could
improve water and sanitation management efficiency and
indicated that community participation in urban services
had been a successful approach for better service provisions.
Ahmed and Haque (2003) noted that that social capital is
highly significant and can enable local people to undertake
their appraisal, analysis, action, management, monitoring,
and evaluation of water and sanitation services. This
approach also empowers poor people, women, and disad­
vantaged people in society by giving a chance to voice their
demands and priorities (Ahmed and Haque 2003).
14.3.4. Probable Solution to Control Water
Insecurities in Bangladesh
The government of Bangladesh has a long‐term vision
to improve the water (WSP, 2014) insecurity which pro­
vides an indicative plan based on five priorities:
•• Establish of macroeconomic stability and monitor the
commodity prices on the faces of the global economy.
•• Control the corruption.
•• Power and energy.
•• Elimination of poverty and inequity.
•• Good governance establishment.
These goals are distributed in the responsible organiza­
tion and implementation already started in some places.
Some of the elements of the strategy are general and
applicable to all urban areas, while others are specific to
WASAs, City Corporations, and Thana. Apart from the
long‐term goals, several numbers of NGOs (Bangladesh
Center of Advance Studies (BCAS), Asian Development
Bank), and research institutes (Institute of Water and
Flood Management (IWFM)) have also developed their
individual strategic plan to improve the water insecurities
 URBAN WATER SECURITY FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 221
issues (ADB 2017, WSP 2014). Based on the Integrated
Water Research Methodology, the local NGOs and
IWFM developed the conceptual framework. The
conceptual framework showing the steps of the decision‐
making process in IWRM are represented in Figure 14.6.
Under the IWRM framework water users are catego­
rized based on water quantity (production) and quality,
demand and deficit, and water fees. Capacity building of
higher educational system in engineering, environmental
science, natural resource science and management and
environmental management sector will play a vital role in
the future management of water resources. Education
and knowledge transfer through outreach and communi­
cation to the end‐users can then be achieved through such
capacity building.
14.3.5. Lessons Learned
Rapid urbanization in the cities of developing and
the least developed countries have been a matter of
economic development and environmental sufferings.
The chapter and case study tries to emphasize the issues
of urban population growth and considerable challenges
of urban sustainability focusing on a case of Dhaka city,
Bangladesh. The case study of water supply in Dhaka
city demonstrates that a large proportion of people in the
city have limited access to water connections and formal
water revenue system. It also emphasizes the issue of “later
hijacking” in the name of “system loss” by the warlords
and poor governance. This paper suggests a participa­
tory governance approach in the water supply system,
which might offer better coordination between local and
government as well as with the non‐government organiza­
tions; and will include the needs and priorities of the urban
poor. However, based on the urban challenges and extreme
events that Bangladesh is already facing, following are the
learnings for consideration in urban development policies:
•• Good governance may be an efficient approach to sus­
tainable urban development. The approach implies
adequate transparency, accountability, decentraliza­
tion, participation, coordination, and control, which
Bangladesh is lacking. The decentralization of
economic growth and decentralization in the political‐
administrative structure is inevitable. Dhaka has
already grown to a massive population. Thus,
immediate efforts should be made to ease the pressure
by setting up new satellite cities around the metropolis
(Islam, 2001b).
•• A strong and active body of civil society can stimu­
late local as well as central government policies for
the sake of betterment of society and sustainability.
Environmental and social equity issues need to be
given more emphasis on urban development. These
organizations such as government, non‐government,
community‐based organizations, and academia that
area actively working towards providing sustainable
resources to the community need to be supported
and strengthened further emphasizing their work
towards addressing these issues in the light of cli­
mate change (Mastaller et al., 2000; Rahman, 2002;
Stiles, 2002). Training, advocacy, and workshop by
the NGOs could be an effective motivator to make
the people self‐dependent and empowered, particu­
larly to women at the grassroots level (Majumder
1998; Matin 1998).
•• Privatization of the urban amenity services is another
possible action that might be helpful to sustainable
urban development. There are lots of success stories
of privatization of urban amenities in the developing
countries (Stiles, 2002). However, the opposite views
of privatization are also significant and considerable
because of the pro‐rich nature of the functioning and
exclusion of the poor. The poor are always in opposi­
tion to privatization as it always cost the services
highly. In Bangladesh, this system might not be suc­
cessful, while a major portion of urban people is poor.
Finally, we thus need to accentuate the important and
essential issues based on priorities of the major part of
the urban people. The case study addresses the issues of
urban sustainability, focusing on a general understanding
of rapid urbanization and challenges in developing cities.
It also introduces the major environmental problems in
the cities, which might be stimulating for future research.
14.4. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Sustainable use of water resources is one of the chal­
lenges under the framework of sustainable development.
Urban water issues can be sum up as “Water Insecurity.”
Urban water issues are dynamic and challenging too.
Three different drivers, namely socio‐economic, environ­
mental, and governance, can play important roles in adap­
tations and transformations in urban water systems over
time (Daniell et al. 2015). Changing patterns of climate,
growing urban populations, changing river flows direction
as a result of upstream water control and land use/cover
pattern changes, technological changes, and modern
infrastructure and norms are all examples of drivers for
changes. The dynamics can take place across different
scales and patterns (Wheater and Gober 2013). However,
water issues at the urban scale are mostly connected to
global climate change and regional basin changes.
To effectively addressed multifaced water security chal­
lenges, a multitude of factors such as social, economic,
ecological, and political conditions need to be investi­
gated and integrated to enhance our ability to manage
222 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
and act proactively. The efficiency and quality of water
services can have a serious impact both positively or neg­
atively on the economic health of the country and well
being of the residents. It is, therefore, important that both
public and private water industries and the research
community continue the drive to reform to provide
improved management of water security for all.
14.5. SUMMARY
Water security issues around the globe are real chal­
lenges of the time and will continue. The magnitude of
the problem however, differs from places to places. The
least developed countries are the most vulnerable and at‐
risk as both tools to tackle climate change and rapid
urbanization are not easy to apply. The Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) priorities on water supply
and sanitation need to be highlighted and communicated
in the way that the major players, including planners,
managers, scientists, economists, and politicians under­
stand indicators and how they could be applied.
Sustainable Development Goals Overview on Clean
Water and Sanitation are highlighted below. Among the
many goals of SDG, goal 6 emphasizes clean water and
sanitation. Ensuring availability and sustainable
management of water and sanitation for all is one of the
main goals of SDG. Access to a clean and sufficient
quantity of water directly ties with sustainable
development, health, food, energy, and reducing poverty.
However, the challenges of meeting the demands of
future needs are daunting. The overwhelming increase in
population growth, urbanization, industrialization, agri­
cultural activities put tremendous pressure on natural
resources; more importantly, on water.
Most cities in the world are still struggling to solve prob­
lems such as water shortages, water pollution, drought,
flood, problems with water supply and distribution and
treatment systems. Importance of green infrastructure,
water sensitive designs, low impact development, waste
recycle and reuse and innovative solutions to addressing
water insecurity need to be fully understood and imple­
mented. Water security challenges are multifaceted and
therefore integrated approach to handle aspects of water is
essential. Proper understanding of the fundamental inter­
dependencies of the downstream population on their
upstream local land for water supply will be needed to
understand and, therefore fully investigate for planning
and long term security of this valuable resource.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S., and Haque, Md. I. (2003). Eco‐friendly water
supply and sanitation system for Dhaka: Debates and visions
through social capital. Water and sanitation for cities. Dhaka:
BIP and CUS.
Akbar, D., van Horen, B., Minnery, J., and Smith, P. (2007).
Assessing the performance of urban water supply systems
in providing potable water for the urban poor: the case of
Dhaka, Bangladesh. International Development Planning
Review (IDRP), 29(3), 299–318.
Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D.L.et al. (2011). The dimensions
of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all
countries, 2000–2050. Progress in Planning,75 (2), 53–107.
ADB (2017). The Dhaka Water Services Turnaround. ISBN
978‐92‐9261‐024‐1 (print), 978‐92‐9261‐025‐8 (electronic)
Publication Stock No. TCS179117‐2 DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.22617/TCS179117‐2
Barroca, B., Bernardara, P., Mouchel, J.M., and Hubert, G.
(2006). Indicators for identification of urban flooding vul­
nerability. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 6(4),
553–561.
Brockerhoff, M.P. (2000). An urbanizing World. Population
Bulletin, 55(3) (Population Reference Bureau).
Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., and Savenije, H.H.G. (2005a)
Saving water through global trade. Value of Water Research
Report Series No. 17, UNESCO‐IHE, Delft, the Nether­
lands, http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report17.pdf
Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., Savenije, H.H.G., and Gau­
tam, R. (2005b) The water footprint of cotton consumption.
Value of Water Research Report Series No. 18, UNESCO‐
IHE, The Netherlands, http://www.waterfootprint.org/
Reports/Report18.pdf
Chen, Y., Zhou, H., Zhang, H., Du, G., and Zhou, J. (2015).
Urban flood risk warning under rapid urbanization. Environ-
mental Research, 139, 3–10.
Centre for Urban Studies (CUS). (2006). Slums of Urban Ban­
gladesh: Mapping and census, 2005. Dhaka, Bangladesh:
CUS.
Climate Reality Project. 2017. (https://www.climaterealityproject.
org/blog/five‐sustainable‐cities‐making‐difference‐planet)
Cutter, S.L. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards.
Progress in Human Geography, 20(4), 529–539.
Daniel, M., Lemonsu, A., and Viguié, V. (2016). Role of
watering practices in large‐scale urban planning strategies
to face the heat‐wave risk in future climate. Urban Climate.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2016.11.001.
Daniell, K.A., Rinaudo, J.‐D., Chanm N.W.W.et al. (2015).
Understanding and managing urban water in transition
Understanding and Managing Urban Water. In: Transition
ed. Q. Grafton, K.A. Daniell, C. Nauges et al. (Dordrecht:
Springer) pp 1–30
Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E. et al. (2008)
Global change and the ecology of cities. [online]. Science
(New York, N.Y.). 319 (5864), pp. 756–760.
Hallegatte, S., Green, C., Nicholls, R.J., and Corfee‐Morlot, J.
(2013). Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nature Cli-
mate Change, 3(9), 802–806.
Hanasaki, N., Fujimori, S., Yamamoto, T. et al. (2013). A global
water scarcity assessment under Shared Socio‐economic
Pathways –Part 1: Water use. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, 17(7), 2375–2391.
 URBAN WATER SECURITY FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 223
Hejazi, M., Edmonds, J., Clarke, L. et al. (2014). Long‐term
global water projections using six socioeconomic scenarios in
an integrated assessment modeling framework. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 205–226.
Hassanzadeh, E., Elshorbagy, A., Wheater, H., and Gober,
P. (2016). A risk‐based framework for water resource
management under changing water availability, policy
options, and irrigation expansion. Advances in Water
Resources, 94, 291–306.
Hassanzadeh, E., Elshorbagy, A., Wheater, H. et al. (2015).
Integrating supply uncertainties from stochastic modeling
into integrated water resource management: A case study
of the Saskatchewan River Basin. ASCE Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, 142(2), 05015006.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Buurman, J., and Ginkel, K.C.H.Van
(2018). Urban Water Security:A Review, Environmental
Research Letters, IOP Publishing, Environ.Res.Lett.13
(2018)053002.
Hollis, G. E. (1975). The effect of urbanization on floods of dif­
ferent recurrence interval. Water Resources Research, 11(3),
431–435.
Huong, H.T.L. and Pathirana, A. (2013). Urbanization and cli­
mate change impacts on future urban flooding in Can Tho
city, Vietnam. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(1),
379–394.
Inter‐American Development Bank, IDB (2016).Evaluation of
IDB’s Emerging and Sustainable Cities Initiative, Office of
Evaluation and Oversight, OVE.
Islam, M.S., Pasha, S.M.A., Khaled, N., and Afrin, S.
(2003) Watsan sector in Bangladesh: Need for improving
management efficiency. Water and Sanitation for Cities.
Dhaka: BIP and CUS.
Islam, N. (2001). Good urban governance: an issue reempha­
sized (Editorial Notes). CUS Bulletin on Urbanization and
Development, No. 41. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Center for Urban
Studies.
Islam, N. (1999). The urban future; millennium thoughts. CUS
Bulletin on Urbanization and Development, No. 37. Dhaka,
Bangladesh: Center for Urban Studies.
Kamal, A.M. (2003). Attitude and opinion of the people
regarding water supply: A case study of slum dwellers. Water
and sanitation for cities. Dhaka: BIP and CUS.
Khan, A., Islam, I., and Akter, M.S. (2003). A study on water
consumption pattern in selected slums of Dhaka. Water and
Sanitation for Cities. Dhaka: BIP and CUS.
Lankao, P.R., Gnatz, D.M, (2016). Conceptualizing urban
water security in an urbanizing world. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 2016, 21:1–7.
Mastaller, M., Montogomery, R.D., and Weinstock, J.A.
(2000). Bangladesh: Toward an environment strategy. Asian
Development Bank.
Majumder, B.A. (1998). Solid waste management in Bangla­
desh: A community‐based approach. Presented to the work­
shop for review of environmental policy reform: Examples in
South Asia, Jaipur.
Matin, N. (1998). Social inter‐mediation: Towards gaining
access to water for squatter communities in Dhaka working
paper. Dhaka: The World Bank.
McDonald, R.I., Green, P., Balk, D. et al. (2011). Urban
growth, climate change, and freshwater availability. Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 108(15), 6312–6317.
Mekonnen, M.M., and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2016), Four billion peo­
ple facing severe water scarcity, Sci. Adv., 2, e1500323. https://
doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500323
Mesbah‐us‐Saleheen (2003). Water for the urban poor. Water
and Sanitation for Cities. Dhaka: BIP and CUS.
Mirhosseini, G., Srivastava, P., and Stefanova, L. (2013). The
impact of climate change on rainfall Intensity–Duration–
Frequency (IDF) curves in Alabama. Regional Environmental
Change, 13(1), 25–33.
Mokrech, M., Kebede, A.S., Nicholls, R.J. et al. (2015). An
integrated approach for assessing flood impacts due to future
climate and socio‐economic conditions and the scope of
adaptation in Europe. Climatic Change, 128(3–4), 245–260.
Murtaza, M.G. (2004). Urban disasters in Bangladesh: Some
suggestions and concern. CUS Bulletin on Urbanization and
Development, No. 46. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Center for Urban
Studies.
Nazemi, A., Wheater, H.S., Chun, K.P., and Elshorbagy, A.
(2013). A stochastic reconstruction framework for analysis of
water resource system vulnerability to climate‐induced changes
in river flow regime. Water Resources Research, 49(1), 291– 305.
Orishimi. (1982). Urbanization and environmental quality.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Parkinson, S.C., Johnson, N., Rao, N.D. et al. (2016). Cli­
mate and human development impacts on municipal water
demand: A spatially‐explicit global modeling framework.
Environmental Modelling and Software, 85, 266–278.
Philip, R., Anton, B., and van der Steen, P. (2011). SWITCH
training kit. Integrated urban water management in the city
of the future. Module 1. Strategic planning, ICLEI, Freiburg.
http://www.switchtraining.eu/. Accessed 15 May 2013.
Pradhanang, S.M., Schneiderman, E., Zion, M. et al. (2013).
Streamflow responses to Climate Change: Analysis of Hydro­
logic Indicators in a New York City Water Supply Watershed.
Journal of American Water Resources Association. 49(6):
1308–1326.
Rahman, M.M. (2002). Problems of the NGOs in housing the
urban poor in Bangladesh. Habitat International, 26, 433–451.
Rahman, G. and Mallik, B. (2003). Analysis of disparity
in water and sanitation services: A comparative study of
Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, and Rajshahi cities in Bangla­
desh. Water and Sanitation for Cities. Dhaka: BIP and CUS.
Rasheed, K.B.S. (2003). Urban growth and water security chal­
lenges. Water and sanitation for cities. BIP and CUS, Dhaka.
Rodríguez, R., Navarro, X., Casas, M.C. et al. (2014). Influence
of climate change on IDF curves for the metropolitan area
of Barcelona (Spain). International Journal of Climatology,
34(3), 643–654.
Samal, N.R., Wollheim, W.M., Zuidema, S. et al. (2017). A
coupled terrestrial and aquatic biogeophysical model of
the upper Merrimack River watershed, New Hampshire, to
inform ecosystem services evaluation and management under
climate and land‐cover change. Ecology and Society 22(4):18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES‐09662‐220418
224 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Schreider, S.Y., Smith, D.I., and Jakeman, A.J. (2000). Climate
change impacts on urban flooding. Climatic Change, 47(1),
91–115.
Science for Environmental Policy (2018): In‐Depth Report:
Indicators for Sustainable Cities, European Commission.
Seto, K.C., De Groot, R., Bringezu, S. et al. (2010). Stocks,
flows, and prospects of land. In T.E. Graedel and E. van der
Voet (Eds.), Linkages of sustainability (pp. 72–96). Cam­
bridge: MIT Press.
Simonovic, S. P., Schardong, A., and Sandink, D. (2016). Map­
ping extreme rainfall statistics in Canada under climate change
using updated intensity–duration–frequency curves. Journal
of Water Resources Planning and Management, 04016078.
Smith, D.I. and Handmer, J.W. (1984). Urban flooding in Aus­
tralia: Policy development and implementation. Disasters,
8(2), 105–117.
Stiles, K. (2002). International support for NGOs in Bangla­
desh: Some unintended consequences. World Development,
30(5), 835–846.
The Climate Reality Project (2017). “Finve Sustainable cities
makinggg difference planet”, https://www.climatereality
project.org/blog/five‐sustainable‐cities‐making‐difference‐
planet
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects:
The 2014 Revision.
Vörösmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., and Lammers, R.B.
(2000). Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate
change and population growth. Science, 289(5477), 284–288.
WaterAid (2012) Technical notes. Technical paper, WaterAid,
UK. Available at: www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_
documents/technology_notes_2011.pdf.
Wheater, H. and Gober, P. (2013). Water security in the
Canadian Prairies: Science and management challenge Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. A 371 20120409.
WSP (2014). Water and Sanitation Program, Benhmarking to
Improve Urban Water Supply Delivery in Bangladesh. www.
wsp.org
 15
Approach Towards Building Climate‐Resilient Irrigation Systems
for Food Security in Nepal
Ram Chandra Khanal1 and Prachanda Pradhan1

ABSTRACT

Unprecedented climate change has become a serious challenge to irrigation systems in Nepal. Climate vulner-
able irrigation systems affect in food production and have negative implications on national food security.
Making irrigation systems climate resilient has been considered a strategy to moderate climate change impact.
A climate resilient framework has been proposed which covers the overall vulnerability of the irrigation systems
and key features of resilience at systems (infrastructure design, river basins), institutions (rules, management)
and agents (individuals, organizations). All three elements of the framework should be addressed along with a
good understanding of the context and vulnerability where an irrigation system is situated. The specific inter-
ventions may include considering the entire river basin rather than looking solely at individual systems, enhance
technical design, improve water use efficiency, adapt agricultural practices, improve water use governance and
build robust institutions, among others. These may endow irrigation systems with strong absorptive capacity
(helping them to persist), adaptive capacity (leading to incremental adjustments and adaptation), and transfor-
mative capacity (leading to transformational responses in the face of expected and unexpected climate change).

15.1. INTRODUCTION for individual needs. However, the definition of food

The issues related to food security and unprecedented
climate change impacts are inter‐related. With the
growing concerns of climate change and associated
impacts on food systems, it is imperative to assess
country‐specific impacts of climate change on food secu-
rity and devise appropriate strategies to deal with.
Building climate‐resilient irrigation systems is one of the
ways to ensure food security in a country.
15.1.1. Concept of Food Security
In 1974, the World Food Conference first defined food
security as a supply of food. Food security, during that
period, was perceived as a supplement of required calories
1
Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust,
Lalitpur, Nepal
security changed over time adding other dimensions. The
initial focus, reflecting the global concerns of 1974, was
on the volume and stability of food supplies. Food secu-
rity was defined in the World Food Summit (1974) as:
“availability at all times of adequate world food supplies
of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food
consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and
prices” (UN, 1975). In 1996, the World Food Summit
elaborated meaning of food security as “Food security, at
the individual, household, national, regional and
global levels [is achieved] when all people, at all times,
have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe
and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and
food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO,
1996).
The definition is again refined as “Food security [is] a
situation that exists when all people, at all times, have
physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

225
226 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2002). As
of now, most agreeable definition of food security consists
four pillars: availability – that ensures availability of food
in sufficient quantities in place consistently; access ‐ that
ensures the accessibility to acquire adequate quantities of
food regularly by people; stability – that ensures the sta-
bility of food in place round the seasons of the year; and
utilization – that ensures the food consumed have a
positive nutritional impact on people. In Nepal, most of
the organizations working in food security used all these
four interrelated dimensions but after the enactment of
new Constitution of Nepal, rights‐based approach to
food security has been considered as a cross‐cutting theme.
15.1.2. Food Security Policy Framework in Nepal
Government of Nepal (GoN) introduced its first five‐
year development plan in 1956 which gave higher priority
on agriculture and irrigation to meet the food demand in
the country. The first three‐year interim plan (TYIP)
(2007–2010) explicitly mentioned food security and pro-
posed long term vision on it. Subsequently, the second
(2010–2013) and third (2013–2016) TYIP continued to
have policies and plans related to food security and focus
on commercialization, diversification, quality, mechani-
zation and rural infrastructure development that support
national food security.
The new Constitutions of Nepal (2015) has provided a
major emphasis on food security. It has provisioned “food
rights” as one of the fundamental rights of the citizen
(Article 36). The Constitution of Nepal declares that each
citizen shall have the right to food; right to be protected
from a state of starvation, resulting from lack of food
stuffs; and the right to food sovereignty as provided in law.
Based on the constitutional provision, the government
has enacted the right to food and food sovereignty Act in
2018. The Act contains a number of affirmative provi-
sions to create a conducive environment for ensuring the
right to adequate food and also achieving the Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) 2. Some of the key positive
aspects of the Act are identifying food‐insecure house-
holds (Section 5), provision of food security identity card
(Section 6); distribution of food to priority households
(Section 7); protection of farmers’ rights (Section 12 to
19); redressing mechanism (Section 20), requirement to
create a food plan (Section 21); creation of a public food
supply and distribution system (Section 26 to 31); and
criminalization of certain elements impairing access to
minimum essential foods (Section 40).
The Government has also adopted Agriculture
Development Strategy (ADS) in 2015 which aimed to
improve the food security in Nepal. The strategy is
expected to guide the development of the agricultural
sector of Nepal until 2035. ADS aims at improving food
and nutrition security of the most disadvantaged groups.
It has devised different sub‐programs to implement food
security plan. Improved governance, higher productivity,
profitable commercialization, and competitiveness are
four components in ADS. According to ADS, achieving
food and nutritional security by means of a self‐reliant,
sustainable, competitive, and inclusive agricultural sector,
which drives economic growth and improves livelihoods
of people will lead to food sovereignty (MoAD, 2015).
Nepal has expressed its firm commitments to work on the
2030 agenda for sustainable development. Among 17 goals,
SDG 2 aims to “end hunger, achieve food security and
improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture”.
According to Nepal SDGs Status and Roadmap (2016–
2020) report, the SDG 2 has five targets and they include: (i)
ending hunger by 2030 and ensuring access by all people to
safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round, (ii) ending
all forms of malnutrition, (iii) doubling agricultural produc-
tivity and incomes of small‐scale food producers, (iv)
ensuring sustainable food production systems and imple-
ment resilient agricultural practices, and (v) maintaining the
genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and
domesticated animals and their related wild species (NPC,
2017a). The government has also identified the baseline for
these indicators and provided future targets.
15.1.3. Objectives of this Chapter
This chapter aims to assessing status of food security in
Nepal, analyse key determinants of food insecurity, and
then document learning from selected case studies for
making irrigation systems climate‐resilient.
15.2. STATUS OF FOOD SECURITY IN NEPAL
Nepal has made a lot of progress in its development
goals to reduce poverty and hunger over the years, there
is however a long way to go to reach its objective of
reducing hunger in a sustainable way. According to the
2018 Global Hunger Index (GHI), Nepal’s hunger index
score is decreasing from 36.8 in 2000 to 21.2 in 2018
(Figure 15.1) but Nepal was ranked at 72nd out of 119
qualifying countries. With a score of 21.2, Nepal suffers
from a level of hunger that is serious (GHI, 2018).
Among countries in the South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC) region, the prevalence of
severe food insecurity in the total population in Afghanistan,
Bangladesh and Nepal are 18.3%, 10.2%, and 7.8%%,
respectively in period of 2016–2018 (FAO et al., 2019).
Prevalence of undernourishment (PoU) in the total
population for the same period is highest for Afghanistan
at 29.8%, followed by Pakistan at 20.3, Bangladesh at
14.7%, Maldives at 10.3%, Sri Lanka at 9% whereas the
estimate for Nepal is at 9.5% (FAO et al., 2019).
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development
(MoALD) and WFP provide information on food
 APPROACH TOWARDS BUILDING CLIMATE‐RESILIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 227
GHI Score Trend for Nepal
60
36.8
GHI score 40
20
0
2000
Data Source: Global Hunger Index, 2018
Figure 15.1 Hunger trend of Nepal.
security situation of Nepal on a regular basis. The
2016/2017 winter season (November to February, 2073)
revealed the geographic distribution of food insecure
areas. The following figure (Figure 15.2) revealed that 48
(1.5%) Village Development Committees (VDCs) of 6
districts (Dhading, Gorkha, Kalikot, Mugu, Humla, and
Bajura) and 183 VDCs of 14 districts are highly food
insecure and moderately food secure respectively.
MoH (2017) showed that the Karnali province has the
highest food in‐secured households (severely food inse-
cure 18%). But if the mildly food insecure and severe food
insecure is combined then the situation of food security is
poor (37%) in province no 2 followed by Karnali province
(36%) and Far Western Nepal (31%). The record showed
that households in Gandaki Province has higher food
security situation among the Provinces (Fig. 15.3). There
also exists high food insecurity in rural areas and moun-
tains. In case of geographic reason, Tarai regions found
to be more food secured (51%) whereas only 38% of
household in Mountains are food secure.
In line with global SDGs commitment, Nepal has also
developed its targets and indicators for SDG 2. These tar-
gets are briefly described as below.
SDG 2.1 – Ending hunger: Currently, more than half of
households are food insecure in Nepal, it has however
made continuous progress in improving the hunger index
(from 36.8 in 2000 to 21.2 in 2018) and undernourish-
ment (NPC, 2018) through focused investments and
appropriate policies. In Nepal 21.6% of people are below
national poverty line with the national food security at
48.2% (NPC, 2019). In addition, nearly 41% of the
population does not have access to minimum calorie
intake. According to NPC (2017a), the prevalence of
undernourishment is 36.1%, about 20% of population
spent more than two third of their total consumption on
31.4
24.5
21.2
2005 2010 2018
Year
food and per capita food production is about 320 kg in
2015.
SDG2.2 – Ending all form of malnutrition: The
percentage of underweight and stunting children under
five years of age fell from 39% to 27% and from 49% to
36% respectively from 2006 to 2016. Wasting has also
fallen – from 13% to 10% in in the same period (MoH,
2017). Variations in the prevalence of under‐nutrition are
witnessed by age, gender, ethnic and caste group, socio-
economic status, and region (NPC, 2018). For example,
rural areas have a significantly higher prevalence of
stunting (40%) than urban areas (32%). More specifically,
Nepal’s Mountain region has the highest prevalence of
severe stunting (19%) and moderate stunting (47%) com-
pared to the Hills and Tarai. About 53% of Nepalese
children under five are anaemic (26% mildly, 26% moder-
ately, and 1% severely), 69% of Nepalese children age six
to 23 months still suffer from anaemia, and 41% of
women aged 15 to 49 years suffered from anaemia in 2016
(MoH, 2017).
SDG 2.3 – Doubling agricultural productivity and
incomes: Agriculture employed approximately two thirds
of its workforce (MoAD, 2016). The growth rate of agri-
culture sector is about 3.2% in last two decades.
Agriculture sector is accounted for 27% of the country’s
gross domestic product (GDP) (MoF, 2019). The average
size of agricultural land holding is declining over the
years, as is the percentage of agricultural households. The
national average size of agricultural land holding per
household decreased from 1.1 hectares (ha) in 1995/96 to
0.7 hectares in 2010/11, which generally produces less
than six months of food for an average household.
Unreliable irrigation systems, increasing climate change
risks (delayed monsoon, floods, droughts), dispropor-
tionate increase in input cost against outputs, land
228 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Sudurpashchim

Karnali
N

Gandaki

Province 3

Province 1
Legend
Food Security Phase Classification
1 Minimally Food Insecure
2 Moderately Food Insecure (or Stressed)
Province 5
3 Highly Food Insecure (or Crisis)
4 Severely Food Insecure (or Emergency)
5 Humanitarian Emergency (or Declared Famine)
No Data
Not Applicable Province 2
Protected Areas/No Populated Area
0 25 50 100 Km
Note: Phase 4 & 5 are non-existent
Administrative Boundaries
Data Source: Nepal Food Security Monitoring System/Nepal Khadhya Surakshya Anugaman Pranali (NeKSAP),
Province District Municipality World Food Programme, Nepal and Ministry of Agriculture Development, GoN, 2017

Figure 15.2 Food Security Situation of Nepal, Mid‐Nov 2016 to Mid‐Mar 2017.

60 56
55
53
48
43

40 38
% of households

26
23
20 19
20 17 18 18 18
16
13
11 10
9 9
6

0
Province 1 Province 2 Province 3 Province 4 Province 5 Province 6 Province 7
Food insecurity level

Food secure Mildly food insecure Severely food insecure

Data Source: Nepal Demographic Health Survey (NDHS, 2016)

Figure 15.3 Food security at Province level.

fragmentation, quality input supply, migration (urbani-
zation and out‐migration) and inadequate policy response
are some of the major barriers which significantly affect
in the agriculture production in Nepal.
SDG 2.4 – Ensuring sustainable food systems:
Sustainable food systems integrate sustainable food
production, processing, distribution, consumption, and
waste management in order to enhance the country’s
environmental, economic, and public health. Soil quality
has been decreasing due to declining soil organic matter
and improper uses of pesticides and chemical fertilizers.
Irrigation facility is still very small with the round the
 APPROACH TOWARDS BUILDING CLIMATE‐RESILIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 229

year irrigation area is 25% of irrigable area (NPC, 15.3. KEY DETERMINANTS OF FOOD SECURITY
2017a). The existing irrigation systems are also affected
by both climatic (i.e. intensity and distribution of precip- Improving food security is a major development
itation) and non‐climatic factors (i.e. land use change, challenge. Nepal has made a lot of progress to eliminate
resource mining in rivers and migration) (Pradhan et al., hunger and improve food security in last couple of years
2017). There is inadequate knowledge, technologies and but it still has a long way to go. The country faces
practices and extension systems to address the challenges significant challenges. These challenges include climate
such as climate induced disasters (i.e. 2017 floods in change, natural disasters, poor infrastructure, especially
Nepal), climate change (erratic rainfall and increasing in remote and mountainous areas, urbanization, and out-
temperature increasing hot and cold days) and increasing migration, a feminization of agriculture, and volatile
rate of pests and diseases. Furthermore, lack of attention food prices. The following sub‐sections provide a brief
on risk management and conservation of genetic account of irrigation facilities and climate risks factors
resources and ecosystems are also affecting sustainable that affect in food security in Nepal.
food systems.
SDG2.5 – Genetic diversity: Nepal has high floral diver- 15.3.1. Precipitation
sity with tenth position in flowering plant diversity in
Asia and 31st on a world scale and these diverse genetic The climate of Nepal is highly variable, with variability
resources is a fundamental requirement for achieving in both time (80% of annual precipitation occurring in the
food and nutrition security. The major food crops (rice, four monsoon months) and space (wide variations across
wheat, and maize) provide limited nutrition sources at the country, with some areas receiving less than 700 mm/
national level even though other landraces of under‐uti- yr to some areas with over 3000 mm/yr). The high varia-
lized and neglected crops provide major sources of food tions in the rainfall leads to higher risk to agriculture.
and nutrition security, particularly in remote regions of The major cereal crops are paddy, wheat, maize and
the Hills and Mountains. These crops are considered millet in Nepal. The production and yield of paddy
more stress tolerant and climate resilient with also require largely depend upon the monsoon rainfall as the main
less water. But there exists serious lack in research and cropping season is the four rainy months of June to
promotion of these crops for food and nutritional secu- September. It can be seen to vary from year to year with
rity (Joshi and Shrestha, 2019). the variation of the monsoon rainfall (Figure 15.4). The

6000 1800

5000 1500
Annual Production ('000 MT)

4000 1200 Monsoon Rainfall (mm)

3000 900

2000 600

1000 300

0 0
1990/91
1991/92
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17

Monsoon Rainfall Paddy Maize Wheat

Data Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (2016/17); Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (1990-2014)

Figure 15.4 Monsoon rain and productivity of selected crops.

230 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
other crops like wheat and maize are less dependent on
the monsoon rain, as the cropping season is in the non‐
monsoon months. Their yields vary from the Tarai to the
mountains, mainly due to the highly variable, unpredict-
able rainfall as well as lack of reliable irrigation, among
other inputs like improved seeds and fertilizers.
15.3.2. Irrigation Services
Irrigation is an important factor in food security in
Nepal as the rain‐fed agricultural production is highly
variable due to the variations of rainfall from one year to
another. About 16% (3.56 million hectares) of the total
land area of 14.72 Million ha. are classified as agricul-
tural land (DoI, 2018). The current area of irrigated land
is 1454 Million ha, and the potential for expansion is
about 0.811 Million ha. The majority (65%) of irrigable
lands are located in the Tarai (1.479 Million ha), with a
currently irrigated area of about 1.209 Million ha. Hills
have 0.627 Million ha irrigable area out of which only
0.199 M ha is irrigated. The Mountain zones only irrigate
0.046 Million ha, out of a total of 0.159 Million ha of
irrigable land (DOI, 2018). About 66% of the total irriga-
tion is from surface water sources, and the rest from
groundwater.
At Province level, the Province 2 has highest irrigated
area (32%) followed by Province 5 (23%), Province 1
(21%) and Province 7 (10%), whereas Province 6 (Karnali)
has only 2% irrigated land. Table 15.1 provides details of
irrigation in the seven provinces (DoI, 2018).
15.3.3. Known Unknown – Climate Risks
and Uncertainties
The agricultural sector is considered to be highly vul-
nerable to climate change in Nepal. Climate risks brought
about by extreme weather events as late onset of rains,
long dry spells during the monsoon season, early
Table 15.1 Command Area under Surface and Ground Water Irrigation by Province (IMP‐2018).
Province Surface Irrigation (ha) Ground‐water Irrigation (ha)
1 199 177
2 282 945
3 73 272
4 64047
5 217 084
6 33 585
7 90 666
Total 960 776 (66.1%)
Tarai 723 522
Hill 191 126
Mountain 46 128
Source: Department of Irrigation (2018).
­ ithdrawal of monsoon, heavy rainfall, drought in winter,
w
cold waves, and hailstorms affect agriculture operations.
The available climate change information from
difference sources (e.g. Global Climate Models (GCMs),
Regional Climate Models (RCMs)) vary widely, and are
sometimes even contradictory. In general, temperature is
expected to rise in the future but the magnitude is uncer-
tain. The projection of future precipitation is more uncer-
tain with some models predicting a decrease in
precipitation while other models are projecting increase,
due to different assumptions of initial conditions as well
as of physical processes and socio‐economic development
pathways. Hence, a more risk‐based approach for climate
change adaptation is recommended. The Department of
Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) and International
Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
recently carried out an assessment using a three‐step
envelop method to prepare the climate change scenarios
for Nepal, as part of the National Adaptation Plan
(NAP) process (MoFE, 2019). The multi‐model ensemble
changes in precipitation and temperature, based on
selected GCMs, in the short‐, medium‐ and long‐term
periods are given in Table 15.2.
In general, the climate in Nepal is expected to be signifi-
cantly warmer and wetter in the future, except for a
decrease in precipitation during the pre‐monsoon season.
Indices of climate extremes related to temperature
(Fig. 15.5) and precipitation (Fig. 15.6) suggest that more
extreme events are likely to occur in the future. The major
climate change induced disasters include landslide, floods
and drought which has direct implication on food produc-
tion and food security. These events make the communities
and individual households vulnerable to food security.
i) Landslide
Extreme precipitation accelerate landside (Baidya
et al., 2008). Landslide is one of the common natural haz-
ards in the hilly region of Nepal due to natural factors
Total (ha) %
99 726 298 903 21%
183 056 466 001 32%
15 262 88 534 6%
21 144 85 191 6%
118 503 335 587 23%
470 34 055 2%
55 680 146 346 10%
493 841 (33.9%) 1 454 617
485 884 1 209 406
7 957 199 083
0 46 128
 APPROACH TOWARDS BUILDING CLIMATE‐RESILIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 231

Table 15.2 Multi‐model ensemble mean of change in precipitation and temperature in the medium‐term and the long‐term
period for different regions of Nepal.
RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5
Time Period 2016–2045 2036–2065 2071–2100 2016–2045 2036–2065 2071–2100
Change in precipitation (%)
High Mountain 2.6 9.5 12.6 8 14.4 25.1
Middle Mountain 1.7 7.6 10.3 6.3 12.4 21.7
Hill 2.1 7.2 9.9 5.8 11.2 22.6
Siwalik 1.6 7.4 9.9 5.8 11.1 21.9
Tarai 2.1 7.3 10.2 5.4 10.6 22.7
Change in temperature (oC)
High 0.95 1.36 1.79 1.09 1.86 3.61
Middle 0.89 1.27 1.66 1.04 1.76 3.44
Hill 0.9 1.26 1.69 1.06 1.8 3.56
Siwalik 0.94 1.29 1.72 1.1 1.87 3.66
Tarai 0.93 1.29 1.73 1.11 1.87 3.69

Source: MoFE(2019). © 2019, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Government of Nepal.

Projected changes in average annual mean temperature from

reference period (1981-2010) to term 2016-2045 for RCP4.5 model

Sudurpashchim
N
Karnali

Gandaki

Province 3

Province 1

Legend
RCP 4.5 (2016-2045) Province 5
0.77 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.85
0.86 - 0.90
Province 2
0.91 - 0.95
0.96 - 1.00
Data Source: MoFE, 2019. Climate change scenarios for Nepal for National Adaptation Plan (NAP). 0 25 50 100 Km
1.01 - 2.00 Ministry of Forests and Environment, Kathmandu

Figure 15.5 Projected changes in average annual mean temperature from reference period to the short term
(RCP 4.5). Source: Based on MoFE(2019).

such as steep slopes, fragile geology, high intensity of
rainfall. The risk of landslide is further exacerbated by
anthropogenic activities like improper land use, defores-
tation, encroachment into vulnerable land slopes, wrong
design without considering increasing climate risks (i.e.
irrigation design) and unplanned development activities
such as construction of roads and irrigation canals
without proper protection measures in the vulnerable
mountain belt. The hill districts of Nepal located in the
Siwalik, Mahabharat range, Mid‐land, and higher
Himalayas are more susceptible to landslide because of
steep topography and fragile ecosystem. Landslides do
not only damage and cut off agricultural land but they
also destroy irrigation canals and roads which affect in
many cases to secure food by the affected communities
(TU–CDES, 2016).
232 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Projected changes in average annual mean temperature from reference
period (1981-2010) to term 2016-2045 for RCP4.5 model
Sudurpashchim
Karnali
Legend
RCP 4.5 (2016-2045) Province 5
<1.0
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 5.0
Data Source: MoFE, 2019. Climate change scenarios for Nepal for National Adaptation Plan (NAP).
5.0 - 6.0 Ministry of Forests and Environment, Kathmandu
Figure 15.6 Projected changes in average annual precipitation from reference period to the short term (RCP 4.5).
Source: Based on MoFE(2019).
ii) Floods
Flood occurs frequently in the rainy season in Nepal,
and has been most frequent, highly damaging and wide
spread natural hazards. Intensity has recently been
increased both by human factors and natural factors.
During the monsoon (June–September), the rivers swell
and cause damage to the villages, crop lands, and people
and livestock remaining within the river basins. Historical
data have shown that Nepal witnessed a major flood in
Tinao basin (1978), Koshi River (1980), Tadi River Basin
(1985), Sunkoshi Basin (1987) and devastating cloud
burst in the Kulekhani area (1993) which alone claimed
the lives of 1336 people (GoN, DRR portal). Furthermore,
heavy rainfall in August 2017 resulted flash flood affecting
32 districts of Nepal (mostly southern Tarai), causing 141
deaths, injuring 117 and displacing 460 900 people with
24 people missing. This event resulted in losses of major
crops in 30 districts and nutrition assessment conducted
by the Nutrition Cluster and District Public Health
Offices detailed large amount of under nutrition (wast-
ing) among people in the flood‐affected Tarai districts
(GoN et al., 2017). The total impact and recovery cost of
this floods were accounted about USD 61.6 Million
(NPC, 2017b).
iii) Drought
Extreme droughts have led to food deficit and rise of
food prices up to three folds in some locations in the past.
Drought, which is becoming more frequent, is mainly
N
Gandaki
Province 3
Province 1
Province 2
0 25 50 100 Km
caused by late onset of monsoon, poor distribution and
long dry spell of rainfall. While some parts of the Trans‐
Himalayan region are extremely dry throughout the year,
droughts are becoming more common in Tarai and in the
western hills. Many drought records showed that the hill
districts and mountain zone of Karnali Province and the
Province 7, and the Tarai of Provinces 2 and 3 are more
prone to drought risks (MoE, 2010). The lack of irriga-
tion facilities further exacerbates the effect of drought
causing enormous loss of crops production leading to the
shortage and insecurity of food. Major droughts occurred
in 1972, 1979, 1994, 2006, 2009, and 2012.
Winter drought was experienced throughout the
country 2008/2009 (poor distribution of rainfall during
Nov. 2008 – Feb. 2009). The drought in Nepal was one of
the worst on record. The country received less than 50%
of average precipitation during the period November
2008 to February 2009 and had a direct impact on crop
production across Nepal. A loss assessment suggests that
wheat and barley production (the two major winter crops)
was reduced by 14.5 and 17.3% respectively compared to
the previous year. For rural households, 66% of rural
households were heavily impacted by the drought and
experienced food shortages in the Far‐ and Mid‐Western
Hill and Mountain Districts (GoN et al., 2009). Another
study found that the winter drought in 2006 and 2009 had
a direct economic cost (from lost agricultural output)
equivalent to 1.9% (2006) and 0.4% (2009) of current
GDP respectively (IDS et al., 2014).
 APPROACH TOWARDS BUILDING CLIMATE‐RESILIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 233
15.4. MAKING THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
CLIMATE‐ RESILIENT: LEARNING
FROM THE SELECTED CASES
Reliable irrigation is a backbone to enhance agriculture
sector performance and also addressing climate change
risk – mainly distribution and intensity of precipitation.
With the increasing risks of climate extreme events now
and in future, there is an immediate need for a new
thinking, planning and designing irrigation systems in
order to make them climate resilient.
15.4.1. Concept of Resilience
Climate change is felt and experienced by the farmers
of the irrigation systems and the study revealed how cli-
mate change has impacted irrigation systems and is likely
to do so in future. The study also noted that it is an urgent
need to act immediately to make the irrigation systems
resilient to unprecedented climate change.
The roots of the resilience thinking are found in var-
ious disciplines including ecology, engineering, systems
theory, and human development. In the early stages, resil-
ience was mainly considered as the ability of return to
equilibrium or as bouncing back after a disturbance. In
the next stage, the resilience thinking was perceived more
from system thinking by bringing social and ecological
systems together taking into account the complex real-
ities of socio‐ecological interactions. Currently, the resil-
ience thinking has been linked with the recent development
theories such as human development (i.e. human agency)
and livelihoods approach (Mitchell and Harris, 2012;
Folke, 2016).
Due to the multi‐dimensional nature of resilience, it is
highly contextual, understood by different stakeholders
in different ways and varies greatly from one location to
another (Khanal, 2017). The IPCC definition of resil-
ience is “the capacity of social, economic and environ-
mental systems to cope with a hazardous event or trend
or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that
maintain their essential function, identity and structure,
while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation,
learning and transformation” (IPCC, 2014). Resilience is
understood to be the ability to anticipate, avoid, plan for,
cope with, recover from and adapt to (climate‐related)
shocks and stress (DFID, 2014). The resilience of irriga-
tion systems (i.e. irrigation communities and irrigation
agencies) can be understood as the ability of the systems
to adjust in response to changes. Irrigation systems may
have strong absorptive capacity leading to persistence;
adaptive capacity, leading to incremental adjustments
and adaptation; and anticipatory capacity, leading to
proactive and transformational responses in the face of
expected and unexpected changes.
15.4.2. Climate‐related Challenges in Irrigation Sector
About 1.7 million ha of Nepal’s irrigable land, of which
about 75% has been provided with some irrigation infra-
structure and about two thirds of which, in turn, is actually
irrigated during the monsoon season. About 30% can be
irrigated during the winter season, but only about 25% of
the total cultivated land receives year‐round irrigation. The
country’s Irrigation Policy, 2013 classifies irrigation systems
into four size categories: major, large, medium, and small. It
is estimated that about 75% of the irrigated areas (about
900 000 ha) are under small‐ and medium‐scale schemes,
which are the focus of this project. Irrigation plays an
important role in crop production in Nepal. Nepal relies on
subsistence agriculture and low input, low‐output farming
systems, characterized by the general integration of crop
production with livestock rearing and forests, providing
some farm inputs such as manure for soil fertilization. The
extent of this integration varies with altitude and agro‐eco-
logical zone. In the hills and mountains, integration is still
strong, while in the Tarai and river valleys, farm machinery
is gradually replacing animal power. Paddy (rice), maize,
and wheat are the main cereal crops cultivated in Nepal, but
production is variable because of diverse local climates and
agro‐ecological conditions. Rice and maize are grown under
irrigation in limited areas. Cash crops are also grown,
including potatoes, oilseeds, pulses, vegetables, and fruits
(Pradhan and Belbase, 2018).
Small‐and medium‐scale irrigation systems are
common in the hills and river valleys of Nepal. Most of
them are fed from rivers, as there are no storage facilities
and water shortages are already occurring. Many of these
systems were developed by farmers for over a century.
They draw water from adjoining small (often seasonal)
tributaries of the major rivers whose discharge relies
mainly on rainfall. In the past, these tributaries used to
supply an adequate amount of water to their respective
command areas, but they are now reported to be drying
up. Traditionally, they were used for rice cultivation, par-
ticularly to enable timely planting and to protect against
dry periods during the monsoon season.
In the 1980s, the Government of Nepal started inter-
vening in small‐ and medium‐scale irrigation systems.
However, despite the long history of government support
in rehabilitation, improvement, and modernization, the
performance of small and medium‐scale irrigation sys-
tems has yet to be improved. The situation has worsened
with the impacts of climate change. However, government
intervention focuses more on replacing the temporary
infrastructure by permanent structures without consid-
ering management from the broader perspective of gov-
ernance, socio‐economic, and climate change.
Several studies and experts suggest that climate change
has adverse impacts on water resources and on
234 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
agriculture in general, in South Asia in particular (IPCC,
2014; Nelson et al., 2009). This has been confirmed for
Nepal as well (Pradhan et al., 2015; IDS‐Nepal, 2014))
and its impacts on small and medium‐scale irrigation sys-
tems are already visible (Mott MacDonald, 2017).
Threats posed by climate change include drought result-
ing from decreasing dry season flows, and floods due to
anticipated high‐intensity erratic rains. It is also likely
that the distribution and intensity of rainfall will con-
tinue to change, leading to greater shortages of irrigation
water in some places or at particular times of year.
Although the projected increase in temperature is likely
to mean more water from snow melt, this is less relevant
to small‐ and medium‐scale irrigation, which is predomi-
nantly rainfed. Temperature will also increase crop water
requirements and will affect crop choice and productivity.
There is a general consensus among researchers that the
impacts of climate change on agricultural systems are
already visible, with overall decline in production (Cline,
2014; Gurung et al., 2015; Salvaraju, 2014). This change
will certainly influence local livelihoods, food produc-
tion, and overall in all food security. Although it is diffi-
cult to quantify the magnitude of climate change impacts,
it has been estimated that the total economic loss associ-
ated with such change in agriculture alone will be
equivalent to around 0.8% of current annual gross
domestic product (GDP) per year (IDS et al., 2014).
Thus, the impact of climate change on irrigation deserves
serious attention (Figure 15.7).
In the light of concerns mentioned above, a study was
undertaken for Climate Development Knowledge
Network (CDKN) in Nepal in 2015–16 to develop a
framework for the effectiveness and resilience of the
medium and small‐scale irrigation for Department of
Climate change Human intrusion in
natural resources
Changes in
Temperature
Changes in:
Water availability
Intensify Changes in Sedimentation/
hydrological cycle precipitation landslides
Changes in ET0 and Impact on
bio mass production Irrigation
ET0 reference crop evapotranspiration
Figure 15.7 Climate change and impact on irrigation. Source:
Pradhan, P., Parajuli, U., Khanal, R.C. (2017).
Irrigation in Nepal. The study1 attempted in developing a
climate resilience framework for small and medium scale
irrigation systems by undertaking systematic field studies,
and a consultative process with government agencies and
other stakeholders in Nepal.
15.4.3. Approach and Methods
While undertaking this study, a two‐pronged approach
involving both top‐down and bottom‐up analysis was
adopted. The top‐down approach focused on under-
standing Nepal’s specific climate vulnerabilities and the
overall performance of the irrigation sector in the
country, including the challenges and opportunities for
sustained agricultural growth brought on by climate
change phenomena in Nepal. The broader picture of the
climate factors affecting the sector was constructed
through analysis of existing climate data and literature,
and projections of climate change for alternative emission
scenarios and timescales from CMIP5 (Fifth Coupled
Model Inter‐comparison Project) through desk research.
To assess current and projected impacts of climate change
on small and medium‐scale irrigation systems, the project
reviewed climate models, analysed irrigation status and
inventory of Nepal, and reviewed relevant policies and
programmes shaping the sector. The top‐down approach
helped develop broad knowledge on irrigation
performance from the perspective of climate change.
Because of the diverse biophysical and socioecological
systems in Nepal, the information derived from the top‐
down analysis needed to be verified through location‐
specific studies. So, the study undertook a bottom‐up
approach to understand climate vulnerability and
performance of irrigation systems at field level. For this,
reconnaissance field visits were made to 17 irrigation sys-
tems, and two river basins were selected for detailed case
studies.2
The site selection criteria (surface irrigation system,
comparatively drier area, past data availability, and
small or medium‐scale systems) were adopted on the
basis of lessons drawn from the reconnaissance study.
Surface irrigation systems were made the candidate for
detailed study. The Singheghat irrigation system of the
Banaganga basin in Kapilvastu District and the Julphe
irrigation system of the Girwari basin in Nawalparasi
District were selected as the case studies. The study also
examined the basins as a whole and other irrigation sys-
tems within them. Both qualitative and quantitative data
were collected. The qualitative data methods included
walk‐throughs of the systems and basins; observations,
and interviews with farmers on water management and
their perceptions of climate change. Quantitative data
included information from the meteorological stations
of Bhairawa Airport, Patharkot (Kapibastu), and Belwa
 APPROACH TOWARDS BUILDING CLIMATE‐RESILIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 235

(Nawalparashi). Local stations at the system level were
established to record rainfall and temperature, and water
flow in the canals. Participatory approaches were adopted
in the form of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) of the
systems, focus group discussions (FGDs) and household
surveys conducted in collaboration with the farmers and
water user associations of the systems. District irriga-
tion officials helped with field data collection. Detailed
studies on the selected basins and irrigation systems were
conducted over a period of six months, from April to
September 2016, covering the spring and monsoon crop-
ping seasons.
15.4.4. Major Findings
The study found that climate change is predicted to
affect seasonal water availability, which could have
serious impacts on irrigation systems, and consequently
on Nepal’s overall economy. Temperature and precipita-
tion are two key climatic variables most influenced by cli-
mate change. The case studies of the two river basins
revealed that their irrigation systems are severely affected
by climatic and non‐climatic factors.
The project found that flash floods and change in
seasonal water availability are the main two climate
change induced threats in the studied irrigation systems.
The impacts of climate in the irrigation systems include:
(i) reduced run‐off in rivers, due to changing rainfall pat-
terns in the catchment, (ii) increased flood flows, due to
more intense rainfall, and (iii) increased demand for
water, due to higher temperatures and more erratic rain-
fall changes in crop suitability. Besides, other non‐climatic
factors were also responsible in managing irrigation sys-
tems and they included: (i) land use change, (ii) increased
water consumption upstream, (iii) river resource mining
(sand, gravel) in the rivers, and (iv) migration from rural
areas with adverse consequences for irrigated agricultural
practices. It was also noted that the impacts of non‐
climatic factors are more important in the short term for
most small‐ and medium‐scale irrigation systems, with
the possible exception of the impact of increased rainfall
intensity on flood risk. In the longer term, climate impacts
will become much greater than they are today.
15.4.5. Proposed Climate Resilient Framework
Considering all these important factors and broader
guidelines of climate resilient literature, the study pro-
posed a resilient irrigation framework (Figure 15.8) con-
sidering the overall vulnerability of the irrigation systems
and the key features of resilience. The main component
of resilience includes: systems (infrastructure, river

Vulnerability Context
Shocks
Climate Variability
• seasons
Climate change impact on • extremes
Water requirements Security & Conflict
Water availability Other
Connected sectors Trends
Climatic
Urbanisation / land use
Migration
Population

System features Institutions Actors/Agents

Safety (design criteria) Involvement in decisions Water users / user organisations
Flexibility Rights to land and water Ability to absorb shocks
Redundancy Dispute resolution Ability to adapt to new situation
Alternative sources Access to information Ability to mobilise resources
Basin approach Rights for financing Ability to anticipate and plan

Government Organisations
Line Ministries (national / local)
Understanding of climate change
Technical support and finance
Local Government
Local Enabling environment

Figure 15.8 Proposed climate resilient framework.

236 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

basins); institutions (rules, management); and agents
(individuals, organizations). In order to ensure resilience,
all three elements of the framework should be addressed
together. In addition, the responses should be designed
based on a good understanding of the vulnerability con-
text (including climate extremes and trends, as well as
other facets of vulnerability).
The study revealed that water resources is already scare
and river basin are in stress. Most irrigation in Nepal is
dependent on small catchments or basin and the smaller
the basin are more sensitive to change quickly. In order to
make irrigation system climate resilient, it is important to
work at basin level by introducing integrated watershed
management following adaptive management approach
with specific intervention at individual irrigation systems
level. They are briefly presented below:
At irrigation system level:
•• Climate data collection stations should be improved,
at least for key parameters (minimum and maximum
temperatures, daily rainfall), with river flow moni-
toring introduced in representative small basins.
•• More reliable methods should be derived for flood
and low‐flow forecasting in unmonitored catchments,
along with estimation of effective rainfall.
•• Research should be undertaken on the impact of soil
and water conservation in upper catchments, including
small‐ scale water harvesting.
Risk‐based approach to design should be introduced,
with improved procedures for:
•• Design of diversions and intakes, particularly for flash
floods in the rivers and streams that drain the Siwalik
Hills (outer Himalayas).
•• Flood and sediment control at permanent intakes
consideration of lift irrigation to reduce the need for
long vulnerable canals in the hills.
•• Management of low flows, diversified cropping, crop
water requirements and delivery mechanisms for
winter and spring cropping.
At institutional level:
•• Water management should be improved (at system
level and on farm), with the use of appropriate
operating rules.
•• There should be a value chain approach to agricul-
tural development, linking producers to markets, and
addressing constraints at all levels.
•• Institutional arrangements for river basin management
should be developed and strengthened.
At agent level:
•• Actions should be taken to promote understanding of
climatic and other changes, their impacts, and coping
mechanisms in the context of irrigated agriculture.
•• Better use of short‐term and seasonal forecasts on
water availability and floods, and crop and water
management decisions should be adapted accordingly.
The framework set out above is simply an attempt to
put many issues which are individually well understood
into a logical structure. This is needed, as it is important
both to consider the impacts of all potential changes and
the likelihood of them happening, and to recognize that
there will be trade‐offs – investment in one aspect of one
system has opportunity costs and may limit or influence
what can be done elsewhere. Tackling elements in isola-
tion is also likely to fail.
Building resilience thus depends on consideration of
each of the three main components: systems, institutions
(rules), and actors (agents), with some examples that
support resilience tabulated below (Table 15.3), and these
conditions apply at federal level, provincial level and local
level.

Table 15.3 Potential interventions to make irrigation systems climate resilient.

Systems
•• Modified design criteria.
•• Flood capacity – exclusion of peak
floods, safe escape structures and fuse
plugs, protection of vulnerable canal
reaches.
•• Control of water at low flows, through
time rotation and rationing of water.
•• Adoption of state‐of‐the art technologies
for better irrigation delivery systems.
•• Development of new sources, with
integration of groundwater and surface
water management
Institutions (rules) Agents (individuals, organizations)
•• Arrangements for cooperative •• Farmers’ ability to absorb, adapt to and
management of natural resources, anticipate change, in addition to existing
including riverbed materials as climate uncertainty and other non‐
well as water. climatic changes.
•• Water rights (actual and implied) •• Access to knowledge, willingness and
across the river basin – to avoid resources to adapt or diversity
causing adverse impacts. agriculture and livelihoods more widely.
•• Land rights, reflecting new
livelihood patterns.
•• Mechanisms for preventing and
resolving conflicts.
•• Ability to raise finance and other
resources.
•• Markets and subsidies for crops.
 APPROACH TOWARDS BUILDING CLIMATE‐RESILIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 237
15.5. SUMMARY AND WAYS FORWARD
Agricultural sector in Nepal has already experienced
impacts of both climatic and non‐climatic changes, such
as human interventions. Small and medium scale irriga-
tion systems are dominant in Nepal with substantial crop
production, but they are disproportionately affected by
the unprecedented climate change. Existing climate
change scenarios for Nepal showed that there will be
increasing pressure from climate change as there is higher
possibility of increasing temperature and extreme precip-
itation patterns. They will have further impact on irriga-
tion systems which consequently affect in food production,
food access and sustainability of food production in
Nepal.
Climate change impacts are often of a local nature so
the provincial and local governments have to be geared to
address the climate change impact on irrigation and food
security. Now the water related projects like irrigation
systems, unless they have national interest and scope, are
to be managed by the provincial and local government.
Reorientation to these provincial and local agencies
about the impact of climate change has now become
important.
The smaller the basin, the more sensitive it is to impacts
from climate change. With most irrigation dependent on
small catchments, adaptive management is essential.
Actions in one area may have negative impacts in other
areas if systematic assessment and holistic planning are
not carried out to address climate‐related challenges dis-
cussed in section 15.4.2 above. There could be three‐
prong approaches for moving forward with
climate‐resilient irrigation system for food security in
Nepal, i.e. technical, managerial, and institutional. Some
of the interventions include adopting a water basin
management concept.
For resilient irrigation systems, considering adaptive
integrated watershed management and specific interven-
tion that support resilience approach are important.
Interventions such as enhancing technical design,
improve water use efficiency, adapt agricultural prac-
tices, improve water use, and building robust institutions
for water governance. Other specific intervention
includes: installing or linking with weather station,
establishing river flow monitoring systems, installing
early warning systems (forecasting floods and low‐flow),
adopting risk‐based approaches to design (flood and
sediment control, design of diversion and intakes),
among others. Besides, it is also important to improve
water management (at system and farm levels) with the
use of appropriate operating rules and improve agricul-
tural practices. In addition, agents (i.e. individuals/orga-
nizations) have an important role to manage the
above‐mentioned specific interventions.
NOTES
1 The study was undertaken by a consortium of Mott
MacDonald, FMIST, CERD and ADAPT‐Nepal with the
funding of DFID in 2015‐2016.
2 Details of the methodology of the study, list of reconnais-
sance sites and detail case study results are given in Pradhan
et.al. 2017.
REFERENCES
Baidya S.K., Shrestha M.L., Sheikh M. M. (2008). “Trends in
daily climatic extremes of temperature and precipitation in
Nepal”, Journal of Hydrology and Meteorology, 5(1): 38–51.
Cline, W.R. (2007) Global warming and agriculture: Impact esti-
mates by country. Washington, DC: Centre for Global
Development.
Department of Irrigation (2018). Department of Water
Resources and Irrigation, Irrigation Master Plan (IMP),
2018. Kathmandu: Department of Irrigation.
DFID (2014). KPI4 Guidance. U.K.: Department for
International Development.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO (2019). The State of
Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. Building cli-
mate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome: FAO.
FAO (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and
World Food Summit Plan of Action. World Food Summit
13–17 November 1996. Rome: FAO.
FAO (2002). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001.
Rome, FAO.
Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (Republished). Ecology and Society
21(4):44.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES‐09088‐210444
GON (2013). Irrigation Policy, Kathmandu: Ministry of Irriga-
tion, Government of Nepal
GoN (2015). The Constitution of Nepal: Kathmandu:
Government of Nepal.
GoN, DFID, and WFP (2017). A report on the food security
impact of the 2017 flood in the Tarai. Available at https://
docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP‐0000022395/download/
GON, WFP, and FAO (2009). 2008/09 Winter Drought in Nepal
‐Crop and Food Security Assessment, Joint Assessment
Report – May 2009. Kathamndu: GON/WFP?FAO. Avail-
able at https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/0
98625C201A159E2492575C8001A1A0C‐Full_Report.pdf
Government of Nepal (2075). Right to Food in Nepal: Analysis
of the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2075). Kath-
mandu: Government of Nepal.
Gurung, P., Bharati, L., and Karki, S. (2015). “Impact of cli-
mate change and watershed interventions on water balance
and crop yield in West Seti River sub‐basin of Nepal”,
Journal of Hill Agriculture 6(2): 219–227.
IDS‐Nepal, PAC, GCAP (2014). Economic impact assessment
of climate change in key sectors in Nepal. Kathmandu:
Integrated Development Society Nepal (IDS‐Nepal), Prac-
tical Action Consulting (PAC), Global Climate Adaptation
Partnership (GCAP).
IPCC (2014). Annex II: Glossary [Mach, K.J., S. Planton and
C. von Stechow (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis
238 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and
L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 117–
130.
Joshi, G.K., Shrestha, R., and Karki, T.B., (2019). Agrobiodi-
versity Status, Conservation Approaches, Good Practices,
Neglected and Under‐utilized Species and Future Smart
Foods in Nepal. In: Joshi, B. K., and Shrestha, R. (Eds.)
Working groups of Agricultural Plan Genetic Resources
(APGRS) in Nepal. Proceeding of National Workshop, 21–22,
Kathmandu; NAGRC, NARC, Nepal.
Khanal, R.C. (2017). Integrating Resilience Concept in the Face
of Changing Climate: Learning from Some NRM Projects in
Nepal. In: Joshi, N.M., Subedee, S., and Pandey, D. R. (Eds.)
Irrigation in Local Adaptation and Resilience – Proceedings of
the Seventh International Seminar Held on 11–12 April 2017,
Kathmandu: Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems (FMIS)
Promotion Trust.
Mitchell, T. and Harris, K. (2012). Resilience: A risk
management approach, ODI Background Note available
from, retrieved on 24th October 2013 from http://www.
preventionweb.net/files/globalplatform/entry_bg_paper~
7552.pdf.
Ministry of Agriculture, Land Management and Cooperatives
(2018). Status Report on Food and Nutrition, Kathmandu:
MoALD.
MoAD (2015). Agriculture Development Strategy, Kathmandu:
MoAD.
MoAD (2016). Statistical information on Nepalese agriculture
2072/2073 (2015/2016) and series. Kathmandu: MoAD.
MoEnv (2010). Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for
Nepal. Kathmandu: MoEnv.
MoF (2019). Economic Survey (2075/76) (Nepali). Kath-
mandu: MoF.
MoFE (2019). Climate change scenarios for Nepal for National
Adaptation Plan (NAP). Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests
and Environment.
MoH (2017). Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2016.
Kathmandu: MoH.
Mott MacDonald (2017). Framework for effectiveness and resil-
ience of small‐ and medium‐scale irrigation: RSAS 0017 Final
report. Cambridge: Mott MacDonald (https://ferinepal.files.
wordpress.com/2017/04/01_rsas0017_final‐report.pdf).
Nelson, G.C., Rosegrant, M.W., Koo, J. et al. (2009) Climate
change: impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation. Wash-
ington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute
NPC (2017a). Nepal Sustainable Development Goals – Status
and Roadmap: 2016–2020. Kathmandu: Kathmandu.
NPC (2017b). Nepal Flood 2017 Post Flood Recovery Needs
Assessment. Kathamndu: NPC.
NPC (2019). Fifteen five‐year plans, NPC: Kathmandu: NPC
NPC (2018). Towards Zero Hunger in Nepal a Strategic Review
of Food Security & Nutrition. Kathmandu: NPC.
Pradhan N.S., Sijapati, S., and Bajracharya, S.R., (2015).
Farmers’ responses to climate change impact on water avail-
ability: Insights from the Indrawati basin in Nepal,
International Journal of Water Resources Development 31(2):
269–289.
Pradhan, P., and Belbase, M. (2018). Institutional Reforms in
Irrigation Sector for Sustainable Water Management including
WUA in Nepal in Hydro‐Nepal, Issue No.23, Kathmandu:
Nepal.
Pradhan, P., Parajuli, U., and Khanal, R.C. (2017). Framework
for effectiveness and resilience of small‐ and medium‐scale irri-
gation systems in Nepal, Kathmandu: DoI/CDKN.
Selvaraju, R. (2014). “Managing climate risks and adapting to
climate change in the agriculture sector in Nepal”. Environ-
ment and Natural Resources Management Series (Climate
change). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
TU‐CDES (2016). Landslide Inventory Characterization and
Engineering Design for Mitigation Works of Chure Area in
Ten Districts. Central Department of Environmental Science,
Tribhuvan University and Government of Nepal, President
Chure‐Tarai Madhesh Conservation Development Board,
Kathmandu. (report available at http://chureboard.gov.np/
wp‐content/uploads/2017/02/tech%20report.pdf)
United Nations (1975). Report of the World Food Conference,
Rome 5–16 November 1974. New York.
 16
A Stakeholder‐Centric Tool for Implementing Water Management
Strategies and Enhancing Water Cooperation (SDG 6.5)
in the Lower Mekong Region
Manish Shrestha1*, Karthikeyan Matheswaran1, Orn‐Uma Polapanich1, Thanapon Piman1, and
Chayanis Krittasudthacheewa1

ABSTRACT

The UN Agenda 2030, with its 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), is aiming for a specific set of targets
with SDG 6 on water and sanitation. Related targets emphasize integrated water resources management (IWRM)
in SDG 6.5 and multi‐stakeholder partnerships in SDG 6.b to ensure sustainable management of water resources.
A web‐based platform called Supporting Water Resources Management (SWARM) was developed to enable
users with differing knowledge bases to collaboratively explore the consequences of future management strat-
egies and climate uncertainties on water resource availability and sectoral allocation plans to aid decision‐­
making. The SWARM platform currently consists of four Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) model‐based
catchment case studies within the Lower Mekong Region representing the Huai Sai Bat, Chindwin, Srepok, and
Ca basins. These case studies were developed in close collaboration with multi‐stakeholder groups using two
participatory frameworks, Robust Decision Support (RDS) and SERVIR’s Service Planning Approach (SPA).
Simplified web‐interface reduces the complexity associated with a decision‐support system (DSS) used by multi‐
stakeholder groups. The SWARM platform is designed to function as part decision support tool and part game
so that it can used by both technical and non‐technical stakeholders. The SWARM platform is a tool for pro-
moting water cooperation among multiple users and for exploring possible actions within the basins that directly
address SDG target 6.5.

16.1. INTRODUCTION biophysical environment that will affect water security in

A projected 2.4 billion increase in world population by
2050, mostly in the developing countries of Asia and
Africa, will exert enormous pressure on water resource
availability (WWAP, 2019). The imperative for faster
economic growth, accompanied by population increase
and the obligation to lift millions of people out of
poverty, will result in significant changes in the
1
Asia Regional Office, Stockholm Environment Institute,
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand
*Corresponding Author: manis_shrestha@live.com
already water‐stressed locations. The issue is compounded
by the uncertainties surrounding climate change. These
many uncertainties not only increase competition among
water users in domestic, agricultural, and industrial sec-
tors but also contribute to higher levels of pollution that
impair the quality of water for environmental uses.
Integrated water resources management (IWRM) centers
on economic well‐being, social equality, and environ-
mental sustainability, so it is seen as an effective pathway
to manage water resources sustainably and to promote
coordinated development and management of water and
related resources (GWP, 2000).
The importance of adopting IWRM as the primary
mechanism for effective water governance can be seen

Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

239
240 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
from its selection as the framework for SDG target 6.5
(UN‐Water, 2016). However, questions have been asked
about the efficacy of using the IWRM framework to
improve governance of informal water economies in
which users directly or partially tap water directly from
the source and where regulatory oversight and guidance
from high‐level institutions are absent (Giordano and
Shah, 2014). Nevertheless, most of the countries have
incorporated the IWRM framework in their water policy
documents and agreed to update progress on its imple-
mentation as addressing SDG target 6.5.
The Lower Mekong Region (LMR) is one of the places
where the IWRM framework and transboundary water
cooperation mechanisms have enjoyed continuous
support from riparian countries, multilateral institutions,
and donor agencies (Mehtonen et al., 2008). But the past
two decades witnessed rapid developments in irrigation
expansion, hydropower, and mining without due
consideration for the impacts on river flows, exacerbated
pollution, biodiversity loss, and repercussions from
upstream developments for downstream commu-
nities – calling into question the gap between scientific
evidence, policy, and practice (Sithirith et al., 2016). The
water security of the LMR is further undermined by the
uncertainties from climate change, future geopolitical
alignments, and socioeconomic pathways (May, 2019).
Despite the past challenges in implementing effective
IWRM in the LMR to ensure water security and eco-
system sustenance, multi‐stakeholder engagement and
partnership remain IWRM’s core component for shared
knowledge, reducing conflicts, and taking part in
decision‐making. Enhancing stakeholder participation
and promoting water cooperation require facilitated
capacity building and education to ensure complex issues
are communicated effectively and stakeholders at differ-
ent levels across the water management spectrum can
have a voice in the decision‐making process.
A catchment DSS, often used as the knowledge base for
the decision‐making process and as key information to
engage with stakeholders, is primarily a techno‐centric
platform created with modelers at the central node
through which seamless flow of information occurs
among stakeholders to support the decision‐making pro-
cess. This is rarely a case in real‐world situations where
stakeholder engagements are often restricted to data col-
lection and discussing results. Not surprisingly, such
DSSs were developed by engineers and technocrats, often
viewed as the only source of trusted information and with
little or no stakeholder input (Cardwell et al., 2008). The
stakeholders often possess a different knowledge base
compared to the modelers. These stakeholders commonly
perceive a DSS as a black box and are seldom engaged by
the top‐down information flow from a system they barely
understand, thus essentially reducing the effectiveness of
model outputs as a means for collective understanding.
Historically this has caused difficulties in the implemen-
tation of decisions, resulting in lower‐than‐expected
model usefulness and in low rates of project success
(Serrat‐Capdevila et al., 2011).
Increasingly, DSSs are tailored for multiple‐set users
who have differing skills and knowledge bases on water
resources and are from different disciplinary and socio-
economic backgrounds (GWP, 2017). Advances in
information and communication technology (ICT) offer
the ability to fundamentally transform interactions
among multi‐stakeholder groups to develop collaborative
solutions for water management problems, bridging var-
ious physical, administrative, and socio‐political bound-
aries (Pereira et al., 2003). The functionalities of DSS are
currently enhanced to expand cross‐sectoral collabora-
tions through ICT in the form of interactive apps, virtual
platforms, and communities, serious games, civic hack-
athons, and citizen science. However, merely employing
advanced ICT doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome for
the water management policy and decision‐making
processes in a multi‐stakeholder environment
(Gourbesville, 2009). ICT has the potential to reduce
complexity in conveying the model outputs to decision
makers and their constituents, providing a knowledge
base for the stakeholder‐dialog and decision‐making
processes. To ensure successful uptake, influence behavior
change, and produce focused learning outcomes, a DSS
must be paired with appropriate multi‐stakeholder
engagement approaches to support collaborative learning
and to foster cooperation toward a useful IWRM
(Medema et al., 2016). Such an amalgamated approach,
pairing advanced ICT with a relevant stakeholder‐
engagement approach, will ensure the importance of
communication channels, enable repeated interactions,
promote information exchange, and justify a perception
of fairness in the distribution of costs and benefits, while
influencing collective action
This chapter focuses on four catchment‐specific case
studies from the LMR where the modelling tools were
paired with two particular stakeholder‐engagement
approaches to provide a basis for decision‐making
processes in the multi‐stakeholder environment of water
resource management. Through our case studies, we
derive adaptive management strategies for the uncertain
future water management challenges using collaborative
modelling and stakeholder engagement. The following
Section 16.2 provides an overview of the SWARM
platform, describing the methodological framework
behind the tool. Then, Section 16.3 provides a brief over-
view of stakeholder‐engagement approaches for integra-
tive modelling processes widely used around the world.
This is followed by the methodological approach of the
two stakeholder‐engagement processes used in the case
 A STAKEHOLDER‐CENTRIC TOOL FOR IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 241
studies, Robust Decision Support (RDS) and Service
Planning Approach (SPA), along with a brief description
of each of the four catchments. Section 16.4 provides the
key results from the four case studies following the two
approaches. Finally, Section 16.5 presents a synthesis of
the contribution the proposed approach makes to attain-
ing SDG target 6.5.
16.2. SWARM OVERVIEW
The SWARM is a web‐based platform that is currently
under development, consisting of a collection of
catchment case studies based on the WEAP system and
hosted at http://swarm‐servir.adpc.net/. The catchment
case studies currently covering the LMR are developed
using two stakeholder‐engagement processes. The pro-
cess of creating a catchment case study with the SWARM
platform involves developing a WEAP model for that
catchment, collaborating closely with the stakeholders
and incorporating future development options and cli-
mate uncertainties in the model, while linking the WEAP
model in the server with a simplified web‐interface and
developing a scoring pattern for the water management
strategies (Figure 16.1). The choice of the WEAP model
was governed by the need to address multi‐sectoral water
demand dynamics encompassing various supply and
demand priorities in order to implement IWRM strat-
egies. Rather than developing another DSS intended for
use by technical agencies, the SWARM platform approach
User friendly
Interface
Uncertainties
- What happens if we have less rainfall?
- What happens if we release more water
from dam during dry season?
- What happens if we delay rice planting
for 2 weeks?
- What happens to environment flows
in the future?
Figure 16.1 The methodological framework of SWARM platform. Source: Stockholm Environment Institute
aims at leveraging the ICT to design a platform for multi‐
stakeholder with different knowledge bases to use,
enabling them to better understand the implications of
planned water management strategies on resource avail-
ability. However, potential for using the SWARM
platform as a technical DSS or as a basis for inducing
behavioral change are dependent on the specific catch-
ments described in the case study and on the stakeholders
involved.
The Mekong River Basin has enjoyed continuous
development and implementation of DSS by various
stakeholders over the years. The improvement introduced
by the SWARM web‐platform is built into the design – the
ability to assess IWRM strategies while enabling water
cooperation among stakeholders from both technical and
non‐technical backgrounds. The four catchment case
studies cover different spatio–temporal scales, different
water management objectives, and different types of
stakeholders, factors that determine the type of engage-
ment approach. Viewed together, these catchment case
studies provide an enhanced knowledge base and valuable
insights for the design of future water management strat-
egies, and water allocation policies, for the integrated
governance by Southeast Asian countries of the vital
Mekong River Basin. The four catchment case studies
are: the Huai Sai Bat catchment in Thailand, the
Chindwin catchment in Myanmar, the Srepok catchment
shared between Vietnam and Cambodia, and the Ca
Catchment in Laos and Vietnam (Figure 16.2).
WEAP Server
Application Server
Geo Data
processing
WEAP web server
PostGIS Water Evaluation and
database Planning
242 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

The operational approach was applied in the selected
four river basins. The basins exhibit different dimensions,
environmental conditions, socioeconomic systems, water
availabilities, relevant institutions, water‐sharing his-
tories, water infrastructures, and key water management
challenges (Table 16.1). The selection was made based on
the stakeholders’ preferences collected in interactive con-
sultation workshops. Our approach would connect the
N 1 Huai Sai Bat River Basin
2 Chindwin River Basin
3 Ca River Basin
2 4 Srepok River Basin
Vietnam
Myanmar
Laos
3
Thailand
tool use and the acquired data into a co‐produced study
and publish the basin study for free access by individuals
on the cloud‐based platform, the SWARM.
The study basins cover a range of geographical zones
considering climate, topography, and economic condi-
tions (Table 16.1). The Chindwin is the largest basin (114
000 km2), while the Huai Sai Bat is the smallest (741 km2).
Three of these LMR basins – Chindwin, Srepok, and
Ca – are dominated by greater than 60% prevailing forest
coverage and all penetrate across national boundaries. In
contrast, the Huai Sai Bat basin supports agriculture over
more than 70% of its area. The annual discharge from
these basins varies between 4.23 and 4500 m3/s of water.
The main source of the water supply is precipitation that
falls mostly in the monsoon season. The annual average
rainfall is the highest in Chindwin (>2000 mm) and has
the highest elevation (3560 m). The annual average rain-
fall in Huai Sai Bat is below 1500 mm, resulting in insuf-
ficient water availability for agriculture in the dry season.
The biggest water allocation outputs in all four basins are
determined by agricultural demand. The largest volume
of water extracted in these basins are for agriculture,
­followed by hydropower, and domestic uses.

4 16.3. CO‐PRODUCTION AND STAKEHOLDER‐

Cambodia ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR CROSS‐CASE
1
ANALYSIS

The reach and effectiveness of the DSS for stakeholder‐

engagement and decision‐making processes are currently
enhanced with the application of participatory and
­collaborative modelling approaches. While these terms,
0 75 150 300 450 600
Kilometers
participatory and collaborative, are often used inter-
changeably to describe the stakeholder‐engagement
Figure 16.2 SWARM catchment case studies process in water resources modelling tasks, there is a
in the LMR. clear distinction between the two, due to the level of

Table 16.1 Key catchment characteristics of four basins on the SWARM platform.
River Basin Huai Sai Bat Chindwin Srepok Ca
No. in Map 1 2 3 4
Area (km2) 741 114,000 30,945 27,200
Water uses Agriculture, Agriculture, domestic Agriculture, hydropower, Agriculture, hydropower,
domestic, industry domestic, industry domestic, Flood control
Predominant land use/ Forest (16%), Forest (72%), Forest (73%), Agriculture Forest (60%), Agriculture
cover Agriculture (72%) Agriculture (16%) (22%) (21%)
Country Thailand Myanmar and India Cambodia and Vietnam Laos and Vietnam
Annual rainfall (mm) 1032 2800 1570 1570
Average discharge 4.23 4500 747 (at Lumphat) 430 (at Dua Station)
(m3/s)
Elevation range (m) 144–502 50–3560 45–2409 8–1200
Key water Agriculture water Climate and land use Hydropower Climate and land use
management availability change development change
challenges
 A STAKEHOLDER‐CENTRIC TOOL FOR IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 243

participation and cooperation needed in the process
(GWP, 2017). The participatory modelling approach
focuses on engaging stakeholders in the consultation and
encouraging them to describe, explain and predict the
state of a given system. It helps elicit causal knowledge,
based on collective articulation of the current problems
and of associations regarding boundary and context by
the concerned stakeholders, such as river managers, com-
munities, non‐government organizations, researchers,
and local policymakers. At the end, it creates elicitation
of individual learning that leads to the emergence of
collective learning (Etienne et al., 2011). It is fairly similar
to explorative modeling, for what‐if scenario generation,
for learning about system behavior, and for the
identification of critical combinations of assumptions
that make a difference for policy (Kwakkel, 2017). The
RDS framework is one such participatory modeling
approach implemented in two catchment case studies,
Huai Sai Bat and Chindwin, in cooperation with
government agencies, local communities, practitioners,
policymakers and other interested parties – such as
farmers, fisherman, private companies, and the wider
public. The second stakeholder approach, used in the
Srepok and Ca case studies, is the SPA, which can be
­categorized as a collaborative modeling approach when
fitted with the framework created by the GWP (2017).
The participants of the stakeholder mapping exercises
are provided in Table 16.2, demonstrating the interlinked
mandates of water management among different institu-
tions at multiple levels within the catchment. Unlike RDS
that involved multi‐stakeholder engagement among
participants with differing knowledge bases, SPA engaged
with key government stakeholders with the mandate to
manage water resources of the country/region and co‐
developed the case study in close collaboration with them.
The composition of the SPA stakeholders primarily
consists of technical experts, water managers, and
decision makers with a government agency. The detailed
steps applied in these two stakeholder‐engagement
approaches for co‐production of the knowledge and tool
is described below.
16.3.1. Robust Decision Support
RDS is an engagement framework that provides oppor-
tunity for stakeholders to engage throughout the pro-
cess – from identifying the problems to selection of
management strategies. RDS is a comprehensive process
that takes between 24–36 months to complete. It com-
bines both social and technical aspects to solve the prob-
lems in water resources management. The key steps
involved in RDS approach are given below and can be
broadly categorized into two phases: the preparation
phase and the investigation phase (Figure 16.3).
•• Co‐producing a common representation
•• Identifying key actors
•• Identifying key problems, boundaries, and context
•• Exploring desirable futures and development choices
(WEAP development and large ensemble simulation)

Table 16.2 Multi‐level, multi‐stakeholder composition in four catchment case studies involved in the developing the WEAP
model using two stakeholder‐engagement approaches.
River Basin National level Sub‐national level Community level
Huai Sai Bat Department of Water Resources, Provincial Waterworks Huai Sai Bat River basin Committee,
Royal Irrigation Department, Authority, Provincial villages and universities
Department of Disaster Prevention Administrative Offices,
and Mitigation, Department of District administrative offices
Groundwater Resources
Chindwin Directorate of Water Resources and Local communities and local and
Improving River System, Irrigation international non‐government
Department, Department of organizations, Monywa University,
Meteorology and Hydrology, Water Mandalay University and Sagaing
Resources Utilization Department University of Education
and Forestry Department
Ca Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Provincial Natural Resources Irrigation companies, domestic water
Development, National Center for and Environment and use companies in Nghe An and Ha
Water Resources Planning and Vietnam Electricity Tinh Province
Investigation, Vietnam Academy of
Water Resources, Department of
Agricultural and Rural Development
and provincial actors
Srepok National Center for Water Resources
Planning and Investigation
244 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

PREPARATION PHASE

IDENTIFY DECISION SPACE 1

Consultation

2 months

Information extraction
Either by being introduced to it by key actors or by
conducting a screening analysis of the challenges in
a particular geographical or thematic context. Here
the decision space means the opportunities to
2 ACTOR MAPPING
pursue discussions regarding management
changes. Within the decision space identifies which actors to include in

2 months
the neogotiation with deliberation process and the type of
information they can provide to the analysis.

Participatory Research
PROBLEM FORMULATIONT 3
Whereby all of the key actors identified by the actor

2 months
mapping participate in describing the
decision space.

Co-Learning
4 MODEL CONSTRUCTION
To assemble the analytical tools and information to simulate

6 - 12 months
the system. In the water resources related work described
here, this model construction step uses SEI’s Water
Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) system.

INVESTIGATION PHASE
Cooperation

SCENARIO DEFINITION 5
3 months

Quantifies plausible future ranges of the identified

uncertainties. ln the work reported on here, a
Cooperation

key part of the activity is the generation of 6 ENSEMBLE ANALYSIS

appropriately scaled future climate projections.
Within which the model constructed is run to combine of all
future uncertainties and actions, including the case when no
3 months

action is taken. This case is critical in assessing the baseline

vulnerability of the current system in the face of uncertainties.
Co-Learning

OUTPUT EXPLORATION 7
Uses innovative and interactive data discovery tools
to explore the model results. This exploration
3 months

is carried with key actors in the decision space.

Co-Learning

8 DECISION SUPPORT
In this step, work with stakeholders to identify effects of
3+ months

integratred strategies on policies and projects related water

Approximate duration
management to decide on best options for watershed
12-24 Months adaptation.

Participation level legend Example

Participatory (Action) Research Research is directed by participants, with the researcher acting as a facilitator

Co-Learning Working together to define problems and find solutions

Increased
participation Cooperation Working with people to determinate priorities, but process is directed
by the researchers

Consultation Local opinions are sought and some dialogue occurs

Information Extraction Researchers ask people questions and process the information

Figure 16.3 RDS stakeholder‐engagement framework for the SWARM platform case study. Source: From Escobar,
M. and Purkey, D. (2016). Ríos Del Páramo Al Valle, Por Urbes y Campiñas: Building Climate Adaptation Capacity
in Water Resources Planning. Final project report by SEI‐USAID. Public Domain.
 A STAKEHOLDER‐CENTRIC TOOL FOR IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 245
•• Metric performance with threshold identification
•• Trade‐off analysis and assessment of the model results
as robust decision choice
i) Preparation phase
In this phase, water resources challenges within the
boundaries of the basins are identified either by being
introduced by stakeholders or by conducting analysis of
the water resources challenges. All the relevant actors or
stakeholders should be selected to accurately represent
the full variety of water users and policymakers who
influence water resource management. These actors also
provide insight, information, and data from the identified
decision space that can aid technical analysis.
The identified stakeholder then participates in an
exercise to formulate decision‐making challenges using
what is called the XLRM framework (Bharwaniwe, 2011),
where each of the letters refer to:
•• X (eXogenous factors) – also known as uncertainties,
represents the uncertain factors outside the direct con-
trol of the actors within a particular decision‐making
process but which have the potential to influence out-
comes. Examples: climate change, population growth.
•• L (Levers) – represents the specific actions that are
available to these actors as they seek to improve condi-
tions or outcomes in the face of future uncertainty.
Example: construction of reservoirs and groundwater.
•• R (Relationships) – suite of analytical tools/models,
like WEAP, deployed to capture the exogenous factors
and represent the levers identified by the actors, that
when deployed produce estimates the performance
metrics.
•• M (Metrics of performance) – the means by which
individual actors will evaluate the outcomes associ-
ated with a specific action considered as part of the
decision‐making process. Example: percentage of
water demand met.
In some cases, this step is carried out separately,
dividing into groups of policymakers and water users.
This is done so both voices are heard without influencing
Needs Follow-up
Assessment Consultations consultation
Stakeholder Design &
Mapping Development
development
Figure 16.4 Service Planning Approach as a means for stakeholder engagement for the SWARM platform.
each other. The deployed model, the R element, is selected
in such a way that it can capture and analyze all the rela-
tionships among the XLM elements. Scenarios are devel-
oped using all the identified uncertainties and strategies.
ii) The investigation phase
During this phase, the model is run for each of several
adaptation strategies articulated by the key actors, under
each uncertainty. It is crucial to include the case where no
action at all is taken in order to assess the baseline vulner-
ability. This results in a large ensemble of model runs. An
interactive visualization tool is used to explore this large
volume of model output. The visualization platform
serves as an interactive tool for the exploration of results
and the negotiation. In the final step, the research team
works with stakeholders and decision‐makers in identi-
fying the IWRM strategies based on specific policies and
investments projects. During this step, the stakeholders
may choose to conduct participatory trade‐off analyses
to support the negotiation and deliberation before reach-
ing a decision.
16.3.2. Service Planning Approach
SPA was developed by the SERVIR program. It is a col-
laborative venture among the NASA Earth Science
Division Applied Sciences Program, USAID, and world-
wide partner institutions to ensure that the geospatial
tools developed by the SERVIR program strive for effec-
tiveness in designing, delivering, and implementing ser-
vices for solving related to agriculture, water management,
land use/cover, and disaster management. It is defined in
the toolkit documentation as consisting of four key steps:
consultation and needs assessment; stakeholder mapping;
service design; and finally monitoring, evaluation, and
learning. While the tools provide guidelines based on best
practices, the above steps were adapted to the local con-
texts and the planning requirements for each service or
tool (Figure 16.4). One of the key aspects of SPA is the
co‐production of service with a key government agency to
ensure ownership of the tool once the project is
Pilot
Testing Operationalization
Capacity Communication
Key Outputs to the public
246 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
completed. The development team in the region realize
the need for a service based on their informal discussion
with the key stakeholders and experience in the region. A
service design is initiated only after a needs assessment
workshop was conducted with the key stakeholders iden-
tified using a stakeholder mapping process and applica-
tion to the operational or policy issues identified clearly.
In addition to the design and development of a catchment
case study, a series of capacity building programs are tai-
lored to ensure the stakeholders, primary agency and
secondary government departments, have the wherewithal
to maintain, use, and adapt the tool to their requirements
in the future. For the SWARM platform, the development
team provided WEAP model training to the Vietnam
government stakeholders and universities. The process
concludes once the stakeholder starts using the platform
as an operational service with complete ownership.
16.4. RESULTS
16.4.1. Huay Sai Bat Catchment
The Huai Sai Bat catchment located in the northeastern
part of Thailand is dominated by agriculture water use
and is classified as a catchment with water shortage by
the Department of Water Resources (DWR), Thailand.
Table 16.3 Summary of findings from application of XLRM framework
Uncertainties (X)
1. Climate Change
2. Average/Normal Climate
3. Dry Climate
4. Wet Climate
5. Land use Change
6. Sugarcane to rubber in upper region and rice to sugarcane
in middle region
7. Expansion of irrigation in lower region
8. Combination of both 1 and 2
Relationship or Models (R)
Source: Apirumanekul et al., 2019. © 2019, Stockholm Environmental Institute.
One of the main impediments include inadequate storage
capacity to meet the water requirement since the
catchment consists of one large and 37 small dams with
maximum irrigated area of 16% of the total. The RDS
framework was used as a stakeholder‐engagement tool to
develop robust strategies against water management chal-
lenges under future uncertainties. Over the course of two
years, a series of workshops and consultation meetings
were organized inviting representative from relevant
agencies and key boundary partners working directly in
water resources management of the basin. A total of two
uncertainties and five strategies were identified by the
stakeholders to assess the water availability for agricul-
ture, domestic, industrial, and environmental flow
(Table 16.3). A WEAP model was used to simulate these
scenarios. Regional Climate Models (RCM) under two
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP); RCP 4.5
and RCP 8.5 scenarios were bias corrected using linear
scaling methods to estimate the future rainfall and tem-
perature of the basin (Shrestha et al., 2017). Among the
16 future predictions, results from three models were con-
sidered that represents: (i) normal climate, (ii) dry cli-
mate, and (iii) wet climate. The key findings are
summarized within the XLRM framework (Table 16.3).
The model was simulated on a monthly time step from
2011–2070 for each scenario with highest water allocation
Water Resources Strategies (L)
S0: Business as usual
S1: Dredge existing swamp for retention purpose
S2: Use of groundwater as an alternative water supply
S3: Shift the crop calendar
S4: Cascade weir construction in the upper region
Metrics of Performance (M)
I. Agricultural water coverage (80%)
J. Domestic water coverage (97%)
K. Industrial water coverage (95%)
L. Environmental/ Ecological flow (80%)
 A STAKEHOLDER‐CENTRIC TOOL FOR IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 247

priority given to domestic and industrial water demand.
The allocation priority was discussed during the stake-
holder consultation meeting. Under normal and wet cli-
mate, water coverage for domestic and industrial are under
the acceptance level irrespective of any changes in land use/
cover under any water strategies. However, water deficit
increases under the dry scenario. A color‐coded performance
matrix was developed to aid in visualization of robust strat-
egies (Figure 16.5 and 16.6). For agriculture water demand,
under all climate conditions and land use/cover change

Subbasins / Strategy
C04 C06 C07
Climate Change Landuse Change S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S0 S1 S2 S3 S4
Avg Climate 1. Same Land Use 4% 1% 0% 5% 4% 9% 9% 1% 13% 9% 45% 45% 45% 49% 45%

2. Sugar to Rubber
3% 1% 0% 4% 3% 9% 9% 1% 13% 9% 45% 45% 45% 49% 45%
+Rice to Sugar

3. Increase Irrigation 4% 2% 0% 6% 4% 9% 9% 1% 13% 9% 48% 48% 48% 50% 48%

Dry Climate 1. Same Land Use 7% 3% 0% 9% 6% 13% 13% 1% 18% 13% 47% 47% 47% 49% 47%
2. Sugar to Rubber
+Rice to Sugar 4% 2% 0% 6% 4% 13% 13% 1% 18% 13% 47% 47% 47% 49% 47%

3. Increase Irrigation 7% 3% 0% 10% 7% 13% 13% 1% 18% 13% 49% 49% 49% 51% 49%

Wet Climate 1. Same Land Use 4% 1% 0% 6% 3% 8% 7% 0% 11% 8% 42% 42% 42% 46% 42%

2. Sugar to Rubber
2% 1% 0% 3% 2% 7% 7% 0% 11% 7% 42% 42% 42% 46% 42%
+Rice to Sugar

3. Increase Irrigation 4% 1% 0% 6% 4% 8% 7% 0% 11% 8% 45% 45% 45% 48% 45%

%Failure (AL = 20%)

0% 100%

Figure 16.5 Performance matrix for irrigation sector under wide range of scenarios for C04, C06 and C07
sub‐basin.

Strategy
Location 1 Location 2 Location 3
Climate change Land use change S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S0 S1 S2 S3 S4

Avg Climate 1. Same land use 25% 23% 25% 32% 25% 21% 20% 21% 27% 22% 28% 28% 28% 33% 28%

2. Change Sugar to Rubber

24% 23% 24% 33% 24% 18% 17% 18% 22% 18% 26% 26% 26% 31% 26%
+Rice to Sugar to upstream
3. Expand Rice Irrigation in
downstream 24% 22% 24% 31% 24% 22% 21% 21% 27% 22% 28% 28% 28% 33% 28%

Dry Climate 1. Same land use 31% 29% 31% 36% 31% 26% 25% 26% 32% 26% 32% 32% 32% 39% 32%

2. Change Sugar to Rubber 29% 28% 29% 36% 30% 23% 23% 24% 27% 24% 30% 30% 30% 36% 30%
+Rice to Sugar to upstream
3. Expand Rice Irrigation in
30% 28% 30% 34% 31% 26% 26% 26% 32% 26% 32% 32% 32% 39% 32%
downstream

Wet Climate 1. Same land use 22% 21% 21% 28% 22% 17% 17% 17% 24% 17% 25% 25% 24% 30% 25%

2. Change Sugar to Rubber

21% 20% 21% 29% 21% 16% 16% 16% 18% 16% 22% 23% 22% 28% 22%
+Rice to Sugar to upstream
3. Expand Rice Irrigation in
21% 20% 21% 28% 21% 17% 17% 17% 24% 17% 25% 25% 25% 30% 25%
downstream
%Failure (AL = 20%)
0% 100%

Figure 16.6 Performance matrix for environmental sector under wide range of scenarios for basin outlets in
Upstream (location 1), middle stream (location 2) and downstream (location 3).
248 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

scenarios, all the strategies perform well except in the lower
part of the basin (C07 in Figure 16.5). Strategy 2 produces
the least failure suggesting using groundwater as an
alternative source is the best among the identified strategies.
For environment sector, all the identified strategies fails to
produce a minimum discharge of 0.27m3/s, 0.6m3/s and
0.77m3/s (calculated as 80th percentile) in the upstream,
middle stream and downstream (location 1, 2 and 3 respec-
tively in Figure 16.6). This insufficient flow in the river dur-
ing the dry seasons may have adverse effects on aquatic
ecosystem services. The adverse impacts on maintaining
minimum flow in river are less under wet climate condi-
tions. These results were shared with the stakeholders and
conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater resources
were selected as the robust strategy in this catchment for
which the regional Government of Khon Kaen Province
allocated around USD 7 million (THB 230 million) for sus-
tainable groundwater development.
16.4.2. Chindwin Catchment
The Chindwin catchment is the largest among four
catchment case studies which spans over 46 townships of 4
regions of Myanmar, share 15% of its area with India and
one of the two main tributaries of Ayeyarwady river. The
catchment is in the midst of large changes in land use/cover
due to upstream mining and logging activities (SEI, 2018).
The water resources are at serious risk with heavy metal
pollution and increased sediments impacting the livelihood
of six million people (SEI, 2017). The RDS framework was
applied with major stakeholders in the catchment to discuss
problems and potential solutions under the proposed
framework. From the workshop, different uncertainties
and strategies were identified to develop 30 future scenarios
(Table 16.4). A calibrated WEAP model was used to simu-
late the result in monthly time steps to evaluate the
performance of each strategy to supply water for domestic,
industrial and agriculture demands, water level for naviga-
tion and for the environment flow.
The analysis shows that the lower part of the basin
(Myittha, Monywa, Yinmabin and Lower Monywa
areas) where domestic and industrial areas are densely
concentrated, is highly vulnerable under medium and
rapid increase in population scenarios particularly under
a dry season (Figure 16.7). Using groundwater pumping
has the potential to increase the domestic water coverage
by 25–62%. The strategy of pumping groundwater also
helps to significantly reduced vulnerability of industrial
water demand subjected to the sustainable use. For irriga-
tion water coverage, the percentage of failure without a
strategy (baseline condition) varies from 15–26% under
the different climate change and land use change sce-
narios (Figure 16.8). A dry climate and a change in crop
type scenarios have the most negative impact on irriga-
tion water coverage with failure up to 26%. The strategy
to reduce loss in the irrigation system improves irrigation
water coverage by 4–10%. However, the strategy is still
unable to cope effectively with a dry climate scenario
(percent failure is more than 15%). Similarly based on the
results, it was clear that the selected three strategies do
not improve the water availability in the Chindwin River
during the dry season. The percentage of failure of the
water level at Monywa to meet the 2.5 m threshold is
approximately 30% during this time. Under the dry cli-
mate and land use change scenario, the environment flow
also decreases significantly. Even by increasing the forest
area by 10% (watershed conservation strategy) do not
improve the environment flow under the dry climate sce-
nario. These results were shared with the stakeholders
and they came with a conclusion that other alternative
strategies such as increase in water storage should be
investigated in further studies.

Table 16.4 Results of problem formulation for developing scenarios.

Uncertainty (X) Levers/Strategies (L) Performance metrics (M)
1. Climate Change 1. Reducing loss in existing irrigation 4. Water coverage for irrigation, domestic
• Dry distribution system and using water and industrial (85%)
• Wet effectively 5. Water level for navigation (2.5m)
• Normal 2. Catchment conservation/ watershed best 6. Environmental flow (80% exceedance
2. Land use Changes management practices flow)
• Remain same 3. Sustainable groundwater pumping for
• Increase deforestation domestic and industrial water use
• Change crop type
3. Population growth, migration
and human settlement
• No change in population
• Medium increase
• Rapid increase
• Slow decrease

Source: Piman et al., 2019. © 2019, Stockholm Environmental Institute.

 A STAKEHOLDER‐CENTRIC TOOL FOR IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 249

Strategy / Subbasin
No Strategy Sustainable ground water pumping
Climate
Population Myittha Monywa Yinmabin Lower Monywa Myittha Monywa Yinmabin Lower Monywa
Change

Dry Decrease 40% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Medium increase 65% 27% 51% 67% 3% 0% 1% 0%

Rapid increase 77% 49% 61% 70% 9% 0% 13% 6%

Remain same 42% 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Normal Decrease 34% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Medium increase 51% 23% 44% 61% 2% 0% 1% 0%

Rapid increase 68% 40% 49% 66% 7% 0% 13% 6%

Remain same 34% 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Wet Decrease 34% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Medium increase 50% 23% 44% 61% 2% 0% 1% 0%

Rapid increase 68% 40% 48% 66% 7% 0% 13% 6%

Remain same 34% 0% 34% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Figure 16.7 Performance matrix for domestic water between no strategy and using groundwater strategy in
selected four sub‐basins.

Strategy / Node

No Strategy Reduce loss in irrigation system

Climate Change Land use change Monywa Lower Monywa Monywa Lower Monywa

Dry Change crop type 26% 24% 22% 16%

Increase
24% 21% 17% 9%
deforestation

No Change 24% 21% 17% 9%

Normal Change crop type 18% 18% 13% 12%

Increase 16% 15% 7% 6%

deforestation

No Change 16% 15% 7% 6%

Wet Change crop type 18% 18% 14% 13%

Increase
17% 16% 9% 7%
deforestation

No Change 17% 16% 9% 7%

Figure 16.8 Performance matrix for irrigation water between no strategy and strategy to reduce loss in irrigation
for lower basins.
250 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Table 16.5 Uncertainties, strategies and matric of performance used in Ca River Basin case study.
Uncertainty Strategy Metrix of performance (Baseline value)
1. Climate Change 1. Construction of up to three new 1. Agriculture yield (2928.5 kg/ha)
• Dry dams 2. Urban water supply (96.9%)
• Wet 2. Increase capacity of irrigation 3. Hydropower
• Normal canals generation (717.5 Gigawatt‐hour)
2. Land use Change 3. Change operation of reservoir for 4. Flood risk and ecosystem protection (5% of
• No change prioritizing: time exceeded as equivalent 1036.1 cms)
• Increase irrigation crop • Flood control 5. Environmental flow (95% of time exceeded)
• Increase third rice crop • Hydropower generation
• Domestic and agriculture
demand
4. Double or triple crop per year

Figure 16.9 Web user interface of the Ca catchment case study in SWARM tool. Source: United States Agency
for International Development, USAID

16.4.3. Ca Catchment model with baseline of 15 years (2001–2015) was setup

The Ca river basin runs through parts of Laos and
Vietnam. The Ca river occupies 27,200 Km2 in area of
which 65.2% lies in Vietnam territory. The Ca River orig-
inates from Mt. Muong Khut in Laos and runs through
three provinces of Vietnam Thanh Hoa, Nghe An, and
Ha Tinh before flowing out into the east Sea via Cua Hoi
river mouth. The annual water available in the river is
22.2 billion m3 and is one of the 9 major river system in
Vietnam. With an average annual rainfall of 2000–2400
mm and mean elevation of 294m the basin is prone to
regular flood in the downstream.
Under the SERVIR Mekong project, Ca was selected as
a prototype basin for SWARM tool. A calibrated WEAP
with three reservoirs: Ban Ve, Khe Bo, and Ho Vun Mau
supplying water for domestic, agriculture, hydropower
production, and flood control. Future strategies/options
under climate change projection (Table 16.5) were created
to simulate their impact on water availability for different
water sectors. The dDecision maker can choose to develop
new reservoirs, change the operation purpose of the reser-
voir, increase canal capacity for irrigation and choose to
plant double or triple crops per year. The web‐interface of
SWARM has simple clickable buttons to select a series of
aforementioned options to run the model and make
decisions for the next 15 years (Figure 16.9).
The main objective of the user is to come up with a
robust strategy to improve the performance of multiple
 A STAKEHOLDER‐CENTRIC TOOL FOR IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 251
water sector compared to the baseline. Performance will
be measured as a simple tally of cases of better or worse
relative to the baseline. The tool is developed as a game
providing scores based on the user performance. For
example, if the selected strategy increases the agriculture
yield, the users gets +1, whereas a ‐1 score is given if there
is a reduction in the yield. Final score is calculated based
on the summation of performance for each water sector
and a negative habitat fragmentation score if the user
chooses to construct new reservoirs. The results are
shown as a smiley face sign or the users can select advance
option to see results in numerical and graphical values.
Figure 16.10 shows an example of output when reservoir
is operated to prioritize urban and agriculture water
demand and crops are planted three times a year. Under
these strategies, there is an increase of agriculture yield
and reduction of flood under normal and dry climate.
However, under the same strategies, hydropower genera-
tion, urban water supply, and environment flow has
shortage of water. The user in this case gets an overall
score of –2 with a sad face. There is also an option to see
the results in graphical chats and in numerical value.
These features of the SWARM tool was demonstrated to
the NAWAPI team (Figure 16.11).
16.5. SREPOK BASIN
Srepok is a transboundary basin between Cambodia
and Vietnam. The basin area is 30945 Km2 and the river
originates from Dak Lak Province of central Vietnam
and joins the Mekong River in the Stung Treng town in
Cambodia. With an annual runoff of 32500 MCM,
Srepok River contributes about 9.2% of the total annual
discharge of the Mekong River. (Adamson et al. 2009
and MRC report). There are 2.27 million people living in
the Srepok River Basin of which most are in Vietnam
(MRC, 2017). The highest part of the basin is covered by
forest covering 74% of the total area. Around 22% is
covered by agriculture land and 0.69% is covered by
urban built‐up which are mainly found in the Vietnam
side of the basin. National Center for Water Resources
Planning and Investigation (NAWAPI) under Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment is water resources
investigations, monitoring, planning, and protection
agency at the nationwide scale. SEI in collaboration with
NAWAPI is co‐developing an online hydrological and
water allocation model with WEAP as its backend. The
main objective of developing the online platform is to aid
NAWAPI for water resource management under the
Circular 42 (Water Resources law 2012). Circular 42 reg-
ulates the technical context, products of the formulation
of water resources planning tasks, and formulation of
water resources planning in Vietnam. Under Circular 42,
NAWAPI is currently implementing water resources
planning in 4 basins which includes Srepok River Basin.
Different modeling tools are being used by NAWAPI for
estimating surface and groundwater. WEAP model in
SWARM platform will be used for water allocation under
different scenarios based on chapter III of Circular
42 document.
The WEAP model, its inputs and structures are setup
in conjunction with NAWAPI (Figure 16.12). The
model is setup with 5 existing dams and two planned
reservoirs. These reservoirs are primarily used for
hydropower generation. In addition to domestic, agri-
culture, and industrial water demand, environment
flow for each sub‐basin are also considered in the
model. The model is calibrated against the hydrological
stations are Bandon (in Vietnam) and Lumphat (in
Cambodia) (Figure 16.13).
The model will be used to simulate various future sce-
narios. These scenarios will include impact from global
climate change, land use change, and changes in water
demand for all sectors. In addition, further future infra-
structure development options scenarios will also be
developed with NAWAPI. We are also trying to connect
with various departments in Cambodia to get their views
on future scenarios to be consider for simulation. Once
these scenarios are created and simulated in the model,
the results will be displayed in an online interactive tool.
The interface of the tool will be developed in such a way
that both technical as well as non‐technical persons can
easily navigate and interpret the results. This tool will
serve to promote water resources cooperation among
multiple users, and uses, within the basin.
16.6. SWARM BENEFITS, ENABLING CONDITIONS,
AND UPSCALING POTENTIAL
At the heart of SWARM and its approach, we con-
ducted stakeholder consultations in the four basins with
key participants involved in the catchment’s water resources
management, ranging from decision makers at the national
level to local communities at the river basin level. Efforts
were made to convince stakeholders to get organized first,
then plan collective actions that could optimize whatever
the government could deliver or form their own resource
mobilization initiatives. This approach encouraged and
eventually contributed to self‐reliance. The process resulted
in forming stakeholder groups, adopting a stepwise
approach based on mutual trust, sharing information and
knowledge, consulting for consensus, developing options,
and implementing an appropriate organization design.
These results were built on a participatory model approach
that enabled multi‐scale stakeholders to analyze possible
consequences of climate variation, socioeconomic growth,
and alternative management strategies and to devise
choices ranging from centralized to distributed options.
 Agricultral yield Hydropower generation
Current Dry Wet Current Dry Wet
4000 1300
1200

Annual hydropower generation (GW-h)

3500
1000
Annual yield (kg/ha)

3000
800
2500
600
2000
400
1500
200
1000 100
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Urban water supply Flood and environmental flow

Current Dry Wet Current Dry Wet

100 1500
Stream flow at the end of the main river (CMS)

1400
Average annual demand site met (%)

95
1200

90 1000

800
85

600
80
400

75
200

70 0
Flood Environment
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Figure 16.10 Web‐based simplified scorecard for a water management strategy in the SWARM tool.
 A STAKEHOLDER‐CENTRIC TOOL FOR IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 253

Figure 16.11 Demonstration of SWARM tool to stakeholders. Source: Manish Shrestha.

Figure 16.12 Co‐developing Srepok Basin with NAWAPI. Source: Manish Shrestha.
 Lumphat
4000
Model (m) Observed (O)
3500
3000

Discharge (m3/s)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08

Bandon
1600
Model (m) Observed (O)
1400
1200
Discharge (m3/s)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08

Legend

Existing Reservoirs

Planned Reservoirs

Hydrological Reservoirs

River Network

Figure 16.13 WEAP Model schematic and calibration.

 A STAKEHOLDER‐CENTRIC TOOL FOR IMPLEMENTING WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 255
The outcomes of the study helped improve the under-
standing of both researchers and stakeholders, all of
whom gained important information about the current
state of the basin system. They also gained crucial
knowledge about external factors and specific relation-
ships inside the basin (exogeny and uncertainty), a joint
agreement on a variety of favorable approaches (policy
levers), and outcomes of interest (performance metrics).
Through the iterative process, those results can facilitate
decision‐making among non‐experts. The SWARM
approach allows us to incorporate flexibility and accessi-
bility for generalized applications that offer an adequate
level of trust, transparency and accessibility, according to
a survey of stakeholders’ opinions.
In summary, the SWARM platform was created to:
•• Meet the water management objectives of the broad-
est spectrum of uses and stakeholders.
•• Allow consideration of uncertain future conditions,
such as climate change, population growth, economic
integration and development.
•• Serve as a stakeholder‐centric and freely available
catchment specific tool.
•• Test the robustness of water allocation strategies under
future conditions.
•• Encompass a wide range of demand and supply com-
ponents within the catchment.
•• Enables use by technical and non‐technical stake-
holders alike.
•• Contribute directly to achieving to SDG target 6.5.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost the authors would like to thank SERVIR
Mekong Project (https://servir.adpc.net/) and SUMERNET
project (http://www.sumernet.org/) for providing the oppor-
tunity to conduct case studied in the four Basins. The
authors are also grateful to all the project partners and
stakeholders for providing information and suggestions
during the study period. And finally, Mrs. Catherine P.
McMullen for her English edits and valuable suggestions.
REFERENCES
Apirumanekul, C., Shrestha, M., Inmoung, Y. et al. (2019),
Application of robust decision support (RDS) for water scar-
city management in Northern Thailand, In: C.
Krittasudthacheewa, H. Navy, B.D. Tinh, and S. Voladet
(Eds.). Development and climate change in the Mekong region
(1st Edition), Stockholm Environment Institute, pp. 261–286.
Bharwaniwe, S. (2011). Robust Decision Making: XLRM
framework, viewed 25 Mar 2019, https://www.weadapt.
org/knowledge‐base/adaptation‐decision‐making/xlrm‐
framework.
Cardwell, H., Langsdale, S., and Stephenson, K. (2008). The
shared vision planning primer: How to incorporate computer
aided dispute resolution in water resources planning. Insti-
tute for Water Resources, Alexandria, IWR Report.
Etienne, M., Toit, D., and Pollard, S. (2011). ARDI: A
Co‐construction Method for Participatory Modeling in
Natural Resources Management. Ecology and Society. 16.
Doi:10.5751/ES‐03748‐160144.
Giordano, M. and Shah, T. (2014). From IWRM back to
integrated water resources management. International Journal
of Water Resources Development, 30(3), pp.364–376. https://
doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2013.851521
GIZ. (2015). Vulnerability analysis for the river basins of
Huai Sai Bat, Tha Di and Trang. Final Report Improved
Management of Extreme Events through Ecosystem‐based
Adaption in Watersheds (ECOSWat). Office of Environ-
mental Policy and Planning. Bangkok: Ministry of Science,
Technology and Environment.
GMS Roundtable on Climate Adaptation. (2018). Watershed
Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments in the Greater
Mekong Subregion, Guidelines for Climate Change Practi-
tioners
Gourbesville, P. (2009). Data and hydroinformatics: new possi-
bilities and challenges. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 11(3–4),
330–343. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2009.143
GWP. (2017). Collaborative modelling – Engaging stakeholders
in solving complex problems of water management. Global
Water Partnership (GWP) Perspectives Papers. Stockholm,
Sweden
GWP. (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management. Global
Water Partnership (GWP). Technical Assessment Committee
Background Paper No.4. Stockholm, Sweden.
Kwakkel, J.H. (2017). The Exploratory Modeling Workbench:
An open source toolkit for exploratory modeling, scenario
discovery, and (multi‐objective) robust decision making.
Environmental Modelling & Software, Volume 96, pp 239–
250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.054.
May. T.M. (2019). Water management in times of scarcity in
the Mekong Region. Discussion brief, Stockholm Envi-
ronment Institute (SEI), https://www.sei.org/wp‐content/
uploads/2019/03/sn‐briefings‐mta‐8mar.pdf
Medema, W., Furber, A., Adamowski, J. et al. (2016). Exploring
the potential impact of serious games on social learning and
stakeholder collaborations for transboundary watershed
management of the St. Lawrence River Basin. Water, 8(5),
p.175. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8050175
Mehtonen, K., Keskinen, M., and Varis, O. (2008). The
Mekong: IWRM and institutions. In Management of trans-
boundary rivers and lakes (pp. 207–226). Springer, Berlin, Hei-
delberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐540‐74928‐8_8
Mekong River Commission (2017) Transboundary Water
Resources Management Issues in the Sesan and Srepok River
Basins. MRC Secretariat. Vientiane, Lao PDR
Pereira, Â.G., Rinaudo, J.D., Jeffrey, P. et al. (2003). ICT tools to
support public participation in water resources governance &
planning: Experiences from the design and testing of a multi‐
media platform. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy
and Management, 5(03), pp.395–420. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S1464333203001383
256 WATER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Piman, T., Pudashine, J., Apirumanekul, C. et al. (2019), Chin-
wdin River Basin: Water scarcity amidst plenty, In: C. Krit-
tasudthacheewa, H. Navy, B.D. Tinh, and S. Voladet (Eds.).
Development and climate change in the Mekong region (1 ed.),
Stockholm Environment Institute, pp. 234–259.
SEI. (2017). Water quality monitoring in the Chindwin River Basin.
Policy Brief. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Asia.
Bangkok, Thailand. https://www.myanmarwaterportal.com/
storage/eb/articles/913/WaterQMPB_small_font_15Sep2017.pdf
SEI. (2018). Threats to biodiversity and local livelihoods in the
Chindwin River Basin in Myanmar: Insights and policy rec-
ommendations Policy Brief. Stockholm Environment Institute
(SEI) Asia. Bangkok, Thailand. https://www.sei.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2018/12/chindwin‐biodiversity‐8nov2018.pdf
Serrat‐Capdevila, A., Valdes, J.B., and Gupta, H.V. (2011).
Decision support systems in water resources planning and
management: stakeholder participation and the sustainable
path to science‐based decision making. Efficient decision
support systems—Practice and challenges from current to
future, pp.423–440. https://doi.org/10.5772/16897
Sithirith, M., Evers, J., and Gupta, J. (2016). Damming the
Mekong tributaries: water security and the MRC 1995
Agreement. Water Policy, 18(6), pp.1420–1435. https://doi.
org/10.2166/wp.2016.003
Shrestha, M., Acharya, S.C., and Shrestha, P.K. (2017),
Bias correction of climate models for hydrological model-
ling – are simple methods still useful? Met. Apps, 24: 531–539.
doi:10.1002/met.1655.
Tung, H. T., Ranzi, R., Barontini, S., and Cat, V. M. (2012).
Medium range rainfall and flood forecasting for reservoir
system operation in the ca river basin (VIETNAM). August
2012 Proceedings from IAHR Asian‐Pacific Division Con-
gress.
UN‐Water. (2016). Integrated Monitoring Guide for Sustainable
Development Goal 6: Targets and global indicators. (Work in
progress to be revised based on country feedback – version
19 July 2016)
WWAP. (2019). Leaving No One Behind. The United Nations
World Water Development Report (WWDR). World Water
Assessment Programme. Paris, UNESCO.
INDEX
Page locators in bold indicate tables. Page locators in italics indicate figures. This index uses letter‐by‐letter alphabetization.
absorptive capacity, 54–56
accountability
accountability, human rights, and the SDG
framework, 141–143
civil society organizations, 142–143, 147–149
mechanisms for SDG6, 142, 146–149, 146
acidification, 42
adaptive capacity, 54–57
adaptive management, 155
Advanced Sustainability Analysis (ASA), 161
Aga Khan Foundation, 179–180
Agenda 21, 4, 8
agriculture
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food security
in Nepal, 227–228
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 109–124
irrigation scheduling and management for
improved water productivity, 197–212
research to policy and practice, 160
resilient water infrastructure, 179–180
see also irrigation
alternate wetting and drying (AWD), 116, 119
An Inconvenient Truth (Gore), 11
AQUATOOL model, 80, 85, 87
Arghyam Trust, 103–104
ASA see Advanced Sustainability Analysis
awareness raising, 194–195, 209–210
AWD see alternate wetting and drying
Bangladesh, 217–221, 218–219
bio‐based systems, 33–46
assessing sustainability of water and energy, 40–43
analysis of energy use, 41–42
evaluation of water‐energy nexus, 42
tools used to evaluate sustainability, 42–43
water use, 41, 41
carbon cycle of biofuels, 34
challenges and opportunities, 43
concepts and definitions, 33
energy use and supply, 37–39
energy analysis, 37–38, 38, 39
supply from bio‐based systems, 38–39
framework for water‐energy nexus, 39–40, 39–40
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 50, 59–60
Sustainable Development Goals, 33–34
water supply and use, 34–37
biomass conversion to biofuels, 35–36, 36, 36
biomass production, 34–35, 35
existing and emerging methods for water
conservation, 37
water availability, 34
biodiversity
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 229
global initiatives, 3–4
Water, Climate Change, and Sustainability, First Edition. Edited by Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Sangam Shrestha and David Wiberg.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
irrigation scheduling and management for
improved water productivity, 207–208
research to policy and practice, 158–159
resilient water infrastructure, 179, 181
sustainable ecosystem services, 126, 135
urban water security, 214, 217–218
water‐energy nexus in bio‐based systems, 34, 42
boundary organizations, 164
California Global Warming Solutions Act
(2006), 126
California, USA, 125–139
Canterbury Region, New Zealand, 201–208, 201,
203, 204–207
capacity building
high efficiency irrigation ­technology, 194–195
irrigation scheduling and management for
improved water productivity, 209–210
spring water, 105
carbon neutrality, 131–136, 133, 134
carbon sequestration, 135–136
CDKN see Climate Development Knowledge
Network
CED see Cumulative Energy Demand
Center for Urban Studies (CUS), 220
chemical fertilizers, 117–118, 191–192
China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), 193
City Blueprint, 214
civil society organizations (CSO)
accountability, human rights, and the SDG
framework, 141–143
accountability mechanisms for SDG6,
146–147, 146
conclusions and recommendations, 149
data availability for monitoring and reporting on
SDG6, 144–145
good practices, 147–148
main challenges, 148–149
monitoring and accountability frameworks for
SDG6, 141–150
responsibilities for monitoring SDG6, 143–144
study methodology and framework of analysis,
143, 144
third party validation of data on SDG6, 146
tracking who is left behind, 145–146
urban water security, 220–221
Climate Action Plans, 131–135, 133, 134
climate change
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 225–238
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 119–120
evolution of climate change as a global agenda, 4,
8–11
high efficiency irrigation technology, 187–188
integrated river basin management, 26, 26
research to policy and practice, 155
257
resilient water infrastructure, 181–182
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 47–51, 54–55, 57–59, 60
spring water, 99
sustainable ecosystem services, 125–139
urban water security, 214–217
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 73–96
Climate Development Knowledge Network
(CDKN), 234
climate‐resilient irrigation systems
concepts and definitions, 225–226
conclusion and recommendations, 237
extreme weather events and natural disasters,
230–232
food security in Nepal, 225–238
food security policy framework in Nepal, 226
key determinants of food security, 229–232, 229,
230–231, 231–232
making irrigation systems climate‐resilient,
233–236, 234–235, 236
precipitation and temperature, 229–230, 229,
231–232, 231
proposed climate resilient framework, 235–236,
235, 236
status of food security in Nepal, 226–229,
227–229
Sustainable Development Goals, 227–229
climate‐safe infrastructure, 137
CMIP see Coupled Model Inter‐Comparison
Project
combined sewer overflows (CSO), 48, 83
communities of practice (CoP), 151–152
community mobilisation, 104–105
composting, 37, 115
conservation tillage, 114–115
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 4
CoP see communities of practice
Coupled Model Inter‐Comparison Project
(CMIP), 11
CPEC see China Pakistan Economic Corridor
crop breeding, 117
crop growth stage monitoring, 200–201
cropping systems and patterns, 117–118
crop water stress monitoring, 200
CSO see civil society organizations; combined sewer
overflows
Cumulative Energy Demand (CED), 42–43
CUS see Center for Urban Studies
DBC see Convention on Biological Diversity
Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
(DESD), 152
decision analysis, 79–80, 79, 86–87
decision‐support systems (DSS), 240–241
deficit irrigation (DI), 113–114
deforestation, 99
DEM see digital elevation model
258 INDEX
DESD see Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development
development banks
high efficiency irrigation technology, 190
integrated river basin management, 24, 27
resilient water infrastructure, 180–182, 180–181
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 59
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 217–221, 218–219
Dhara Vikas programme, 103–105
DI see deficit irrigation
digital elevation model (DEM), 86
drip irrigation system, 188, 188, 191–192
droughts
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 232
global initiatives, 7
integrated river basin management, 26, 26
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 48–50, 54–55, 57–58
sustainable ecosystem services, 126
urban water security, 214
DSS see decision‐support systems
Earth Summit (1992), 8, 23
EBA see ecosystem based approaches
eco‐efficiency analysis (EEA), 42
economics and finance
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 227, 233–234
high efficiency irrigation technology, 185–188,
187, 191–194
research to policy and practice, 156
resilient water infrastructure, 173–175, 173–175,
179–182, 180–181
urban water security, 217
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 74, 78
water productivity, 110, 119
economic water productivity (EWP), 110
ecosystem based approaches (EBA), 155
ecosystem services, 125–139
carbon sequestration and habitat enhancement,
135–136
cases of climate actions in California water sector,
130–135
Climate Action Plans for GHG emission
reduction and carbon‐free water systems,
131–135, 133, 134
climate change impacts and vulnerability in
California hydrological regions, 130–131,
131–132
challenges and opportunities, 135–137
climate impacts and actions in California,
127–130, 128–129, 130, 131
climate‐safe infrastructure, 137
concepts and definitions, 125–126
data collection and energy reporting, 136
resources management strategies, 130
Sustainable Development Goals, 125–127,
137–138
education for sustainable development (ESD), 17
EEA see eco‐efficiency analysis
EI see energy intensity
El Niño, 26, 26
energy intensity (EI), 136
energy production see hydropower; water‐energy
nexus in bio‐based systems
environmental degradation, 213–214, 217–219
environmental flow, 155
environmental protection, 178–179
ESD see education for sustainable development
eutrophication, 42
evaporation management, 79
evapotranspiration (ET), 35, 35, 200–202
EWP see economic water productivity
extreme weather events
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 230–232
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 119–120
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 48–51, 54–55
sustainable ecosystem services, 126
see also droughts; floods
faecal sludge management (FSM), 48, 59–60, 64
FAO see Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations
Farm Energy Analysis Tool (FEAT), 43
FEAT see Farm Energy Analysis Tool
FGD see focus group discussions
floods
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 232, 235
flash floods, 214, 219, 235
global initiatives, 7
high efficiency irrigation technology, 187–188
integrated river basin management, 26, 26
resilient water infrastructure, 177–178
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 48–50, 54–55, 57–58
sustainable ecosystem services, 126
urban water security, 214, 219
focus group discussions (FGD), 79, 143, 235
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO)
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 226
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 109, 110, 118–120
high efficiency irrigation technology, 185, 189
food security
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 225–238
concepts and definitions, 225–226
conclusion and recommendations, 237
extreme weather events and natural disasters,
230–232
food security policy framework in Nepal, 226
global initiatives, 7
irrigation scheduling and management for
improved water productivity, 208
key determinants of food security, 229–232, 229,
230–231, 231–232
making irrigation systems climate‐resilient,
233–236, 234–235, 236
precipitation and temperature, 229–230, 229,
231–232, 231
proposed climate resilient framework, 235–236,
235, 236
research to policy and practice, 160
status of food security in Nepal, 226–229,
227–229
Sustainable Development Goals, 227–229
freshwater services, 159
FSM see faecal sludge management
GAMS see General Algebraic Modeling System
GCM see Global Climate Models
GDP see gross domestic product
General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS), 82
genetic diversity, 229
GHG see greenhouse gases
GHI see Global Hunger Index
glacial melt, 100
Global Climate Models (GCM), 126, 230
Global Hunger Index (GHI), 226, 227
global initiatives, 3–19
considerations for achieving the SDGs,
14–17, 18
evolution of climate change as a global agenda,
8–11, 10
evolution of water as a global agenda, 4–8, 9
formulation and governance of SDGs, 11–12, 12
interdependency of SDGs with water, 12–14, 13,
14–16
key international initiatives, 4, 5–6, 10
sustainability challenges, 3–4, 7
global warming potential (GWP), 42, 59–60
Global Water Partnership (GWP), 24
Gore, Al, 10–11
governance
global initiatives, 11–12, 12
high efficiency irrigation technology, 194
irrigation scheduling and management for
improved water productivity, 209
research to policy and practice, 160, 165–166
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 60–61, 62
urban water security, 217, 219–221
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 78
water productivity, 120
gravimetric soil moisture sampling, 200
greenhouse gases (GHG)
global initiatives, 4, 8–11
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 59
sustainable ecosystem services, 125–127, 131–136,
133, 134
water‐energy nexus in bio‐based systems, 34,
42–43
green infrastructure, 135–137, 181
GREENSCOPE tool, 42
GREET model, 38, 43
greywater, 50, 177
gross domestic product (GDP)
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 227, 234
global initiatives, 11
high efficiency irrigation technology, 185
resilient water infrastructure, 173–175, 173–175,
179–181, 180–181
groundwater
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 230
research to policy and practice, 155
Supporting Water Resources Management
platform, 249
urban water security, 217–219
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 78, 82
see also spring water
Groundwater Sustainable Plan (GSP), 82
GWP see global warming potential; Global Water
Partnership
habitat enhancement, 135–136
HDI see Human Development Index
high efficiency irrigation technology (HEIT),
185–196
capacity building and awareness creation,
194–195
climate change, 187–188
concepts and definitions, 185
cropping trends, 190, 190, 192
current technology adoption challenges, 193
drip irrigation system, 188, 188, 191–192

enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 189–191, 191
existing approaches to irrigated agriculture,
186–188, 187
future directions, 193–195
governance and policy, 194
HEIT in Pakistan, 188–190, 188–190
impacts and challenges, 190–193, 191
inevitability of HEIT for Pakistan, 192–193
installation and implementation, 189–190, 190
multidimensional impacts, 190–191
significance of irrigated agriculture in Pakistan,
185–186, 186
spoon‐fed water and nutrient applications,
188–189, 189
sprinkler irrigation system, 188, 189, 191
Sustainable Development Goals, 185, 188
Himalayan region, 97–107
Human Development Index (HDI), 175, 176
human rights, 141–143, 147
hydropower, 26, 26, 85
IHP see International Hydrological Program
impact assessment, 80, 80, 81
INBO see International Network of Basin
Organizations
India, 115, 175–178
Indo‐Gangetic Plains, India, 115
INM see integrated nutrient management
INRM see integrated natural resource management
integrated catchment management, 159–160
integrated natural resource management
(INRM), 152
integrated nutrient management (INM), 118
integrated river basin management (IRBM), 21–31
concepts and definitions, 21–22
future directions, 29
implementation frameworks for SDGs, 22–23
implementation of SDG6, 24–25
integrated approach for water‐related targets of
SDGs, 23–24, 23
readiness for implementing water‐related SDGs:
Lower Mekong Basin, 25–29, 25, 26, 28
integrated water resources management (IWRM)
global initiatives, 4, 8, 13, 17
integrated river basin management, 21–31
research to policy and practice, 152, 155
Supporting Water Resources Management
platform, 239–241
urban water security, 219, 221
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 75–77, 83,
86–87
integrated watershed management (IWM), 116
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 233–234
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 109, 119
global initiatives, 4, 8–11
integrated river basin management, 24
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 48–49
sustainable ecosystem services, 126
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 73–74
International Hydrological Program (IHP), 7
International Network of Basin Organizations
(INBO), 24
InVEST model, 80, 85, 87
IPCC see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
Iran, 113
IRBM see integrated river basin management
irrigation
approaches for improving irrigation scheduling,
199–201, 199
case study: Canterbury Region, New Zealand,
201–208, 201, 203, 204–207
challenges and opportunities, 207–208, 208
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 225–238
crop growth stage monitoring, 200–201
crop water stress monitoring, 200
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 111–116
estimation of irrigation and percolation, 202, 204
evaluation of existing irrigation strategies,
204–205, 204
evaluation of irrigation scheduling strategies,
202–203
evaluation of potential irrigation strategies,
205–206, 205–206
existing seasonal irrigation strategies, 203,
203, 204
feel and appearance of the soil, 199
future directions, 208–210
global context, 197
gravimetric soil moisture sampling, 200
high efficiency irrigation technology, 185–196
improving irrigation efficiency, 198
integrated river basin management, 26, 26
mixed‐mode survey method, 202
optimal irrigation range, 206, 207
research to policy and practice, 155
resilient water infrastructure, 179–180
scheduling and management for improved water
productivity, 197–212
soil water potential monitoring, 200
Supporting Water Resources Management
platform, 247, 249
Sustainable Development Goals, 197–199, 208
volumetric soil moisture sampling, 200
water balance monitoring, 200
water‐energy nexus in bio‐based systems, 34–37
IWM see integrated watershed management
IWRM see integrated water resources management
Jordan, 177
Kallang Basin, Singapore, 178–179
Karkheh River Basin, Iran, 113
Keeling curve, 9
Kenya National Commission on Human Rights
(KNCHR), 147
Kiwa Water Research (KWR), 214
KNCHR see Kenya National Commission on
Human Rights
knowledge exchange, 161–163
Knowledge to Action (KTA) Framework, 161
KWR see Kiwa Water Research
Kyoto Protocol (1997), 4, 10–11
land leveling, 114–115
landslides, 54–55, 230–231
land use changes
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 109–124
integrated river basin management, 26, 26
research to policy and practice, 160
spring water, 99–101, 100, 102
sustainable ecosystem services, 135–136
life cycle assessment (LCA), 41, 42
Lima Declaration (1977), 7
Lincoln University Dairy Farm (LUDF), 201–208,
201, 203, 204–207
INDEX 259
LMB see Lower Mekong Basin
Localized Constructed Analogues (LOCA), 126
Lower Mekong Basin (LMB), 25–29, 25, 26, 28,
239–256
LUDF see Lincoln University Dairy Farm
Mann–Kendall statistical test, 80
Mar del Plata Action Plan, 4, 8, 23
MDG see Millennium Development Goals
Mekong River Basin, 25–29, 25, 26, 28, 239–256
Mekong River Commission (MRC), 26–29
micro irrigation, 114
Millennium Development Goals (MDG)
global initiatives, 4, 8
integrated river basin management, 22
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 50
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 85
mixed‐mode survey method, 202
MODFLOW model, 80, 87
MODSIM‐DSS model, 85
monsoons
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 229–230, 229
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 54–55
Supporting Water Resources Management
platform, 242
mortality rate, 173–174, 174
MRC see Mekong River Commission
mulching, 37, 115
multiple water use (MUS) systems, 115–116
Nagpur, India, 175–177
NARBO see Network of Asian River Basin
Organizations
National Center for Water Resources Planning and
Investigation (NAWAPI), 251, 253
nationally determined contributions (NDC), 4
natural disasters
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 230–232
resilient water infrastructure, 175, 176, 177–178
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 48–49, 51, 54–55, 57–58
NAWAPI see National Center for Water Resources
Planning and Investigation
NDC see nationally determined contributions
Nepal, 225–238
Network of Asian River Basin Organizations
(NARBO), 24
New Zealand, 201–208, 201, 203, 204–207
OECD see Organisation for Economic Co‐operation
and Development
OFWAT, 51–52, 59
organic fertilizers, 117–118
Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and
Development (OECD)
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 120
research to policy and practice, 151
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 60–61, 63
Pakistan, 185–196
Paris Climate Agreement (PCA), 3–4, 11, 17, 126
participatory rural appraisal (PRA), 235
pathogen hazards, 49
PAW see plant available water
PBL see Problem and Project Based Learning
PCA see Paris Climate Agreement
260 INDEX
PEARS framework, 78–79
physical water productivity (PWP), 109–110
PIPIP see Punjab Irrigated‐agriculture Productivity
Improvement Project
plant available water (PAW), 202–208, 203, 204–206
PLL see precision laser land leveling
PMPT see Post‐Modern Portfolio Theory
pollution
global initiatives, 7–8
integrated river basin management, 26, 26
research to policy and practice, 155
resilient water infrastructure, 178–179
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 54
spring water, 98
urban water security, 213–214
Post‐Modern Portfolio Theory (PMPT), 83
poverty reduction
adopting a systems approach to infrastructure
planning, 182
balancing traditional with green
infrastructure, 181
case studies, 175–180
challenges and good practices, 180–182, 180–181
climate‐proofing water infrastructure, 181–182
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 226–229
concepts and definitions, 171
enhancing livelihood, 177
environmental protection, 178–179
financing water infrastructure, 182
improving economic productivity, 179–181,
180–181
improving quality of life, 175–177
linkages between water infrastructure and
development, 173–175, 173–175, 176
natural disasters, 175, 176, 177–178
resilient water infrastructure, 171–183
types of water infrastructure, 171, 172
urban water security, 213–214, 217
PPP see Public Private Partnership; purchasing
power parity
PRA see participatory rural appraisal
precision laser land leveling (PLL), 114–115
Problem and Project Based Learning (PBL),
153–154, 156
Public Private Partnership (PPP), 176
Punjab Irrigated‐agriculture Productivity
Improvement Project (PIPIP), 189–190, 193
purchasing power parity (PPP), 173
PWP see physical water productivity
rainwater harvesting (RWH), 37, 111–113, 116
RBO see river basin organizations
RCM see Regional Climate Models
RCP see Representative Concentration Pathways
recovery capacity, 54–55, 57
regenerative sanitation (ReGenSan), 50–51, 55, 58
Regional Climate Models (RCM), 230, 246
regression analysis, 80
remote sensing, 78–79, 85
renewable water resources, 175, 175
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP), 75,
246–247
research to policy and practice, 151–168
challenges and opportunities, 162–164
communities of practice, 151–152
concepts and definitions, 151–152
conclusion and recommendations, 164–166, 166
contrasting attributes and functions, 162
freshwater services, 159
governance, 160, 165–166
inaccessibility of science to decision‐makers, 163
integrated catchment management, 159–160
knowledge exchange, 161–163
personal perceptions, 163
program planning and resource mobilization,
163, 166
re‐orienting formal education and research,
152–160
academic curriculum, 155–157
academic research, 157–160
pedagogy for sustainable education, 153–154
research input for policy and practice, 161–162
social‐ecological systems, 159
sustainable development and management,
155, 160
Sustainable Development Goals, 151–153,
157–158, 161, 164–166
resilient water infrastructure, 171–183
adopting a systems approach to infrastructure
planning, 182
balancing traditional with green
infrastructure, 181
case studies, 175–180
challenges and good practices, 180–182, 180–181
climate‐proofing water infrastructure, 181–182
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 225–238
concepts and definitions, 171
enhancing livelihood, 177
environmental protection, 178–179
financing water infrastructure, 182
improving economic productivity, 179–181,
180–181
improving quality of life, 175–177
linkages between water infrastructure and
development, 173–175, 173–175, 176
natural disasters, 175, 176, 177–178
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 49–60, 49, 52, 60
types of water infrastructure, 171, 172
resource mobilization, 163, 166
resource recovery and reuse (RRR), 58
resources management strategies (RMS), 130
Rio+20 Summit, 11–12, 12
Rio Summit (1992) see Earth Summit (1992)
riparian rights
global initiatives, 8
integrated river basin management, 21–31
Supporting Water Resources Management
platform, 239–256
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 79
river basin organizations (RBO), 24–25
RMS see resources management strategies
Robust Decision Support (RDS), 241, 243–245, 244
RRR see resource recovery and reuse
RS see Robust Decision Support
RWH see rainwater harvesting
SAARC see South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems (SAIMS), 47–69
challenges and opportunities, 61–63
concepts and definitions, 47–50
conceptual tool, 51–55, 52, 53
resilience capacities, 54–57
resource system, 54, 56
social ecological system, 52–53, 56
technological system, 53–54, 54, 56
vulnerability systems (internal and external
stressors), 52, 56
controllable system performance, 57
designing SAIMS‐based infrastructure, 58–60, 60
extreme weather events, 48–49
foundations, 50–51
governance, 60–61, 62
information, knowledge, and skills, 62
infrastructure standardization, 63
integrating resilience, 57
key steps towards SAIMS, 55–57, 55
management and administration, 62
potential contributions to the SDGs, 57–58
resilient sanitation systems, 49–50, 49
resource constraints, 62–63
subsystem design, 56
verifying and validating configuration and
performance, 57
safe sanitation (SS), 50–51
SAIMS see safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated
management systems
Salamieh District, Syria, 179–180
salinity, 210, 219
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA),
134–135
sanitation and hygiene see WASH policy
sanitation‐derived products (SDP), 50, 54, 58
SCWA see Sonoma County Water Agency
SDCWA see San Diego County Water Authority
SDP see sanitation‐derived products
SDSN see Sustainable Development Solutions
Network
sea level rise, 128, 128
SEEAW tool, 79
SEP see Sufficiency Economy Philosophy
Service Planning Approach (SPA), 241,
245–246, 245
shared aquifers, 8
SI see supplemental irrigation
Singapore River, 178–179
slums, 175–177, 220
snow pack reduction, 128, 129
social‐ecological systems, 159
socio‐technical transition (STT), 84
Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), 80, 85
soil and water conservation practices, 114–115, 155
soil erosion, 26, 26, 99
soil nutrient management, 117–118
soil water potential monitoring, 200
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), 133–134
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC), 226
SPA see Service Planning Approach
spatial planning, 79, 85
spoon‐fed water and nutrient applications,
188–189, 189
spring water, 97–107
drying up of springs, 99–101, 100
hydrogeology, 98–99, 101–103, 101
importance and human usage, 97–98
multidisciplinary approach to reviving Himalayan
springs, 101–105
challenges and opportunities, 104–105
mainstreaming springshed management
approach, 103–104, 104
understanding the resource (aquifer), 101–103,
101, 102
sprinkler irrigation system, 188, 189, 191
SS see safe sanitation
stable isotope studies, 104–105
State Water Project (SWP), 133, 134
Stockholm Convention (1972), 4
storm water management, 84
STT see socio‐technical transition
Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP), 27

supplemental irrigation (SI), 111–113
Supporting Water Resources Management
(SWARM) platform, 239–256
benefits, enabling conditions, and upscaling
potential, 251–255
catchment characteristics, 241–242, 242, 242
concepts and definitions, 239–241
co‐production and stakeholder‐engagement
framework, 242–246, 243, 244–245
decision‐support systems, 240–241
integrated water resources management, 239–241
methodological framework, 241–242, 241
results
Ca catchment, 250–251, 250, 250, 252–253
Chindwin catchment, 248, 248, 249
Huay Sai Bat catchment, 246–248, 246, 247
Srepok Basin, 251, 253–254
Robust Decision Support, 241, 243–245, 244
Service Planning Approach, 241, 245
Water Evaluation and Planning model, 239, 241,
245–251, 246, 254
XLRM framework, 245–246, 246
Surat, India, 177–178
surface water
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 230
research to policy and practice, 155
urban water security, 217–219
sustainability
research to policy and practice, 155, 160
sustainability science, 152, 157
sustainable cities, 214–217, 215, 215, 219–220
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 73–96
water‐energy nexus in bio‐based systems,
40–43, 41
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
climate‐resilient irrigation systems for food
security in Nepal, 227–229
considerations for achieving the SDGs, 14–17, 18
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 109, 110–111, 112
evolution of water as a global agenda, 8
formulation and governance of SDGs, 11–12, 12
high efficiency irrigation technology, 185, 188
integrated river basin management, 21–31
interdependency of SDGs with water, 12–14, 13,
14–16
irrigation scheduling and management for
improved water productivity, 197–199, 208
monitoring and accountability frameworks for
SDG6
accountability, human rights, and the SDG
framework, 141–143
accountability mechanisms for SDG6,
146–147, 146
civil society organizations, 141–150
conclusions and recommendations, 149
data availability for monitoring and reporting
on SDG6, 144–145
good practices, 147–148
main challenges, 148–149
responsibilities for monitoring SDG6, 143–144
third party validation of data on SDG6, 146
tracking who is left behind, 145–146
research to policy and practice, 151–153, 157–158,
161, 164–166
resilient water infrastructure, 171–183
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 50–51, 57–58, 63–64
spring water, 97
Supporting Water Resources Management
platform, 239–256
sustainability challenges, 3–4
sustainable ecosystem services, 125–127, 137–138
urban water security, 222
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 75, 85, 85
water‐energy nexus in bio‐based systems, 33–34,
42–43
Sustainable Development Solutions Network
(SDSN), 153
sustainable ecosystem services, 125–139
carbon sequestration and habitat enhancement,
135–136
cases of climate actions in California water sector,
130–135
Climate Action Plans for GHG emission
reduction and carbon‐free water systems,
131–135, 133, 134
climate change impacts and vulnerability in
California hydrological regions, 130–131,
131–132
challenges and opportunities, 135–137
climate impacts and actions in California,
127–130, 128–129, 130, 131
climate‐safe infrastructure, 137
concepts and definitions, 125–126
data collection and energy reporting, 136
resources management strategies, 130
Sustainable Development Goals, 125–127,
137–138
Sustainable Water Management Project (SWMP),
179–180
SWARM see Supporting Water Resources
Management platform
SWAT see Soil and Water Assessment Tool
SWMP see Sustainable Water Management Project
SWP see State Water Project
Syria, 179–180
Thunberg, Greta, 11
traditional land leveling (TLL), 115
transportation, 38
tropical storms, 48–49, 51, 57–58
Tufileh, Jordan, 177
UDS see urban drainage systems
UNDP see United Nations Development Program
UNEP see United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO see United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFCCC see United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 50,
59–60, 64
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
global initiatives, 17
resilient water infrastructure, 175, 182
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 51, 58, 62–63
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), 152
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
global initiatives, 4, 9–11
integrated river basin management, 24
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 62
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), 4, 10, 126
United States Agency for International
Development (USAID)
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 57, 59, 60
Supporting Water Resources Management
platform, 244, 245, 250
INDEX 261
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), 203
universal soil loss equation (USLE), 80
urban drainage systems (UDS), 83–84
urbanization
spring water, 99, 101, 102
urban water security, 213–217, 214, 221
urban water security, 213–224
access to water, 219–220
case study: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 217–221, 218–219
challenges and opportunities, 221–222
characterizing urban water (in)security,
216–217, 216
climate change, 214–217
integrated water resource management, 219, 221
lack of government awareness, 220
population trends and statistics, 213–217, 214, 221
probable solution for water insecurities in
Bangladesh, 220–221
research to policy and practice, 155
sustainable cities, 214–217, 215, 215, 219–220
Sustainable Development Goals, 222
sustainable ecosystem services, 136
urban sustainability indicators, 214, 215
water planning tools, 214
USAID see United States Agency for International
Development
USDA see United States Department of Agriculture
USLE see universal soil loss equation
VNR see voluntary national reviews
volumetric soil moisture sampling, 200
voluntary national reviews (VNR)
civil society organizations, 142, 146
integrated river basin management, 22–23, 27
VR see vulnerability and resilience
vulnerability and resilience (VR)
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 50–52, 52, 56–57
sustainable ecosystem services, 130–131, 131–132
warabandi, 186
WASH policy
civil society organizations, 148
global initiatives, 8, 13, 14
integrated river basin management, 21, 26–29, 26
resilient water infrastructure, 173–175, 173–174
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 47–69
urban water security, 217–220
wastewater treatment
safe‐sanitation adaptive‐integrated management
systems, 47–69
urban water security, 218–219
water‐energy nexus in bio‐based systems, 37
Water Accounting and Vulnerability Evaluation
(WAVE), 42–43
WaterAid, 217–218
water balance monitoring, 200
water‐climate‐sustainability (WCS) nexus
articles used in the systematic review, 91–96
characterization of WCS‐nexus methods/
approaches, 75–80
conceptual background of WCS‐nexus
approach, 77–79
decision analysis approaches and tools, 79–80,
79, 86–87
disciplinary statistics and trends, 75–77, 76
impact studies approaches and tools, 80, 80, 81
monitoring tools, 78–79
multidisciplinary dimensions, 77–78
concepts and definitions, 73–74
262 INDEX
water‐climate‐sustainability (WCS) nexus (cont’d)
distinct features of WCS‐nexus approaches and
tools, 81–85
market‐based solutions, 85, 85
multi‐sectoral and interdisciplinary
collaborations, 84–85, 84
novel approaches and tools, 81, 82–84, 85, 87
geographic scope and scale of analysis, 85–86, 86
governance, 78
methodology, 74–75
socio‐economic and political drivers, 74, 78
systematic review, 73–96
water demand management (WDM), 155
water‐energy‐food nexus, 127–128
water‐energy nexus in bio‐based systems, 33–46
assessing sustainability of water and energy,
40–43
analysis of energy use, 41–42
evaluation of water‐energy nexus, 42
tools used to evaluate sustainability, 42–43
water use, 41, 41
carbon cycle of biofuels, 34
challenges and opportunities, 43
concepts and definitions, 33
energy use and supply, 37–39
energy analysis, 37–38, 38, 39
supply from bio‐based systems, 38–39
framework for water‐energy nexus, 39–40, 39–40
Sustainable Development Goals, 33–34
water supply and use, 34–37
biomass conversion to biofuels, 35–36, 36, 36
biomass production, 34–35, 35
existing and emerging methods for water
conservation, 37
water availability, 34
Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) model
Supporting Water Resources Management
platform, 239, 241, 245–251, 246, 254
water‐climate‐sustainability nexus, 80, 85, 87
waterlogging, 218–219
Waternet, 214
water productivity (WP)
agronomic and socio‐economic constraints for
smallholders, 119
approaches for improving irrigation scheduling,
199–201, 199
case study: Canterbury Region, New Zealand,
201–208, 201, 203, 204–207
challenges and opportunities, 207–208, 208
challenges for increasing water productivity,
119–121, 120
challenges for scaling up and scaling out,
120–121, 120
climate change and weather extremes, 119–120
concepts and definitions, 109–110
crop breeding, 117
crop growth stage monitoring, 200–201
cropping systems and patterns, 117–118
crop water stress monitoring, 200
deficit irrigation, 113–114
estimation of irrigation and percolation, 202, 204
evaluation of existing irrigation strategies,
204–205, 204
evaluation of irrigation scheduling strategies,
202–203
evaluation of potential irrigation strategies,
205–206, 205–206
existing seasonal irrigation strategies, 203, 203, 204
feel and appearance of the soil, 199
future directions, 121–122, 121, 208–210
global context, 197
governance, 120
gravimetric soil moisture sampling, 200
high efficiency irrigation technology, 189–191, 191
improving irrigation efficiency, 198
increasing water application efficiency, 114
integrated watershed management, 116
irrigation scheduling and management, 197–212
mixed‐mode survey method, 202
multiple water use systems, 115–116
non‐water management practices, 116–118
on‐farm water management, 109–124,
189–191, 191
opportunities to increase water productivity,
110, 111
optimal irrigation range, 206, 207
pathways to increase water productivity,
111–119, 112
policies and institutions for an enabling
environment, 118–119
rainwater harvesting and supplemental irrigation,
111–113, 116
rationale for increasing water productivity, 110
soil and water conservation practices, 114–115
soil nutrient management, 117–118
soil water potential monitoring, 200
Sustainable Development Goals, 109, 110–111,
112, 197–199, 208
volumetric soil moisture sampling, 200
water balance monitoring, 200
water management practices, 111–116
water resources management
considerations for achieving the SDGs, 14–17, 18
enhancing water productivity through on‐farm
water management, 109–124
evolution of water as a global agenda, 4–8, 9
formulation and governance of SDGs, 11–12, 12
integrated river basin management, 21–31
interdependency of SDGs with water, 12–14, 13,
14–16
research to policy and practice, 151
resilient water infrastructure, 171–183
spring water, 97–107
Supporting Water Resources Management
platform, 239–256
sustainable ecosystem services, 125–139
urban water security, 213–224
water‐energy nexus in bio‐based systems, 34–37,
35–36, 36
see also integrated water resources management
WAVE see Water Accounting and Vulnerability
Evaluation
WBSCD see World Business Council for Sustainable
Development
WCRP see World Climate Research Program
WCS see water‐climate‐sustainability
WDM see water demand management
WEAP see Water Evaluation and Planning
wetlands, 37, 135–136
WHO see World Health Organization
WMO see World Meteorological Organization
World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBSCD), 22–23
World Climate Research Program (WCRP), 11
World Food Conference (1974), 7, 225
World Food Summit (1992), 225
World Health Organization (WHO), 47–50, 58,
64, 145
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 4,
9–11
World Water Council (WWC), 8
World Water Development Report (WWDR), 8
WP see water productivity
WWC see World Water Council
WWDR see World Water Development Report
XLRM framework, 245–246, 246