A prototype framework for models of socio-hydrology: identification of key feedback loops and parameterisation approach

Abstract

Abstract. It is increasingly acknowledged that, in order to sustainably manage global freshwater resources, it is critical that we better understand the nature of human-hydrology interactions at the broader catchment system scale. Yet to date, a generic conceptual framework for building models of catchment systems that include adequate representation of socioeconomic systems -and the dynamic feedbacks between human and natural systems -has remained elusive. In an attempt to work towards such a model, this paper outlines a generic framework for models of socio-hydrology applicable to agricultural catchments, made up of six key components that combine to form the coupled system dynamics: namely, catchment hydrology, population, economics, environment, socioeconomic sensitivity and collective response. The conceptual framework posits two novel constructs: (i) a composite socioeconomic driving variable, termed the Community Sensitivity state variable, which seeks to capture the perceived level of threat to a community's quality of life, and acts as a key link tying together one of the fundamental feedback loops of the coupled system, and (ii) a Behavioural Response variable as the observable feedback mechanism, which reflects land and water management decisions relevant to the hydrological context. The framework makes a further contribution through the introduction of three macroscale parameters that enable it to normalise for differences in climate, socioeconomic and political gradients across study sites. In this way, the framework provides for both macroscale contextual parameters, which allow for comparative studies to be undertaken, and catchment-specific conditions, by way of tailored "closure relationships", in order to ensure that site-specific and application-specific contexts of sociohydrologic problems can be accommodated. To demonstrate how such a framework would be applied, two sociohydrological case studies, taken from the Australian experience, are presented and the parameterisation approach that would be taken in each case is discussed. Preliminary findings in the case studies lend support to the conceptual theories outlined in the framework. It is envisioned that the application of this framework across study sites and gradients will aid in developing our understanding of the fundamental interactions and feedbacks in such complex human-hydrology systems, and allow hydrologists to improve social-ecological systems modelling through better representation of human feedbacks on hydrological processes.

Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Socio‐hydrologic modeling: Tradeoffs, hypothesis testing, and validation

“…This equation is a hypothesis of how irrigated area changes as a result of water availability, which is affected by both exogenous and endogenous components to the model. For example, is irrigated area per capita the relationship driving changes in irrigated area or is it driven by the cost-benefit analysis as in Elshafei et al [2014] Just as many of the individual equations can be considered as a hypothesis to be tested, the overall model can be viewed the same way, allowing the hypothesis of coevolution in socio-hydrological systems to be tested. Are all the exogenous drivers included?…”

“…For example, the model of Di Baldassarre et al [2013] should be able to generally produce results seen in a range of socio-hydrologic systems-with some locations choosing a more engineered approach with flood defenses and others choosing to live with floods and move back from the river. The models of van Emmerik et al [2014] and Elshafei et al [2014] should be able to replicate the dynamics in other heavily irrigated basins outside of the basin for which it was developed. Exploring the nonlinear, potentially surprising and interesting, dynamics of the socio-hydrologic system through modeling can provide insight into the system's coupling, but it is an exercise in the conceptual world [e.g., Di Baldassarre et al, 2015], without knowing if it represents the true system, its feedbacks and linkages, and its response to external drivers.…”

“…Specifically, that of Di Baldassarre et al [2013] explored the interactions between human settlements and flooding, and Srinivasan [2015] developed a model of human-water dynamics in Chennai, India. van Emmerik et al [2014] and Elshafei et al [2014] developed generalized conceptual models of the dynamics between society and hydrology in river basins with significant irrigation. Both of these latter models consist of equations for the hydrologic water balance, ecosystems, population, and some sort of environmental awareness/sensitivity.…”

“…A synthesis of many case studies showed that four dominant water patterns existed in regions of water crisis [Srinivasan et al, 2012], which leads credence to the premise that common dynamics may emerge across different regions. This then leads to the possibility of modeling the coupled human-water systems, and several recent studies have begun to do this [Di Baldassarre et al, 2013;Srinivasan, 2015;Elshafei et al, 2014;van Emmerik et al, 2014]. This paper discusses how models can be used to advance our understanding of the dynamics between human and water systems, some of the trade-offs modelers will have to make to describe complex systems, and how comprehensive model validation is needed.…”

Nachhaltigkeit in Umwelt, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft

“…wandelnden hydroklimatischen Bedingungen verglichen und kombiniert, und es werden Zukunftsszenarien entwickelt (z. B. van Emmerik et al, 2014;Elshafei et al, 2014;Liu et al, 2015). Lane (2014) …”