The value of hydrologic information for watershed management programs: The case of Camboriú, Brazil

Hamel, Perrine; Bremer, Leah L.; Ponette‐González, Alexandra G.; Acosta, Eileen; Fisher, Jonathan R. B.; Steele, Bethel G.; Cavassani, André Targa; Klemz, Cláudio; Blainski, Éverton; Brauman, Kate A.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135871

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where return on investment studies are carried out in the hope of inspiring future investment (Kroeger et al, ; Ozment et al, ), credibility is important given high uncertainty due to data and modeling limitations. To address this issue, modelers may want to focus on characterizing confidence intervals and assessing forcing uncertainty to provide robust results that are valid across the range of model forcings, e.g., alternative land management scenarios or “extreme” scenarios such as complete deforestation (Hamel, et al, ; Hamel & Bryant, ; Refsgaard et al, ). Though monitoring programs are often designed for direct data analysis (Bremer, Vogl, et al, ), we found that short and incomplete data made this difficult at least at current project stages.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Are we Measuring and Modeling for? Supporting Multilevel Decision‐Making in Watershed Management

Bremer

Hamel²,

Ponette‐González

et al. 2020

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As watershed management programs have become more common globally, so have efforts to support these initiatives through hydrologic modeling and monitoring. However, these efforts are often guided by oversimplified assumptions of how management programs work and the quantity, quality, and type of information needed to support their planning, implementation, and evaluation. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with project managers, funders, and participants in three watershed management programs in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil revealed a range of hydrologic modeling and monitoring needs of watershed management programs. We identify five opportunities for hydrologic information to support overlapping management contexts: (1) inspire action and support, (2) inform investment decisions, (3) engage with potential participants, (4) prioritize location and types of activities at regional to national scales, and (5) evaluate program success. Within these opportunities, understanding who will use the information generated and how they will do so is critical to increasing the salience, credibility, and legitimacy of modeling efforts. Hydrologic modeling and monitoring play a small but critical role in the larger context of program conceptualization, design, implementation, and evaluation; grounding these efforts in local contexts supports watershed management projects in relevant and effective ways.Plain Language Summary Active land management for a variety of benefits, including sustaining and enhancing clean and ample water supplies, is becoming more common worldwide. To achieve these ends, watershed management programs need the support of hydrologic data and models, but promising efforts by the hydrologic community often go unused when the information program managers need is not well matched to modeling efforts. We interviewed a wide range of participants in water management programs in Brazil and found five key areas where modeling and monitoring can support these programs: (1) inspire action and support, (2) inform investment decisions, (3) engage with potential participants, (4) prioritize location and types of activities at regional to national scales, and (5) evaluate program success. Our study emphasizes the importance of focusing on who will use modeling results and tailoring efforts to meet these needs. When grounded in real-world contexts, hydrologic monitoring and modeling can play a small but critical role in supporting sustainable watershed management

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Are we Measuring and Modeling for? Supporting Multilevel Decision‐Making in Watershed Management

Bremer

Hamel²,

Ponette‐González

et al. 2020

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparing models using high-resolution (1-m) spatial data to models using lower resolution data (30-m) they found the finer-scale data would not have changed the decision made to invest in conservation. In this case, higher accuracy did not drive better decisions, but did significantly raise both program costs and perceived credibility of the science beyond the minimum needed (Hamel et al, 2020). By failing to spend enough time understanding the user's needs up front, we missed a chance to reduce research costs and spend more on implementation.…”

Section: Why It Is Importantmentioning

confidence: 95%

Improving scientific impact: How to practice science that influences environmental policy and management

Fisher

Wood

Bradford

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists devote substantial time and resources to research intended to help solve environmental problems. Environmental managers and policymakers must decide how to use the best available research evidence to prioritize actions leading to desired environmental outcomes. Yet decision-makers can face barriers to using scientific evidence to inform action. They may be unaware of the evidence, lack access to it, not understand it, or view it as irrelevant. These barriers mean a valuable resource (evidence) is underused.We outline a set of practical steps for scientists who want to improve the impact their research has on decision-making: (a) identify and understand the audience; (b) clarify the need for evidence; (c) gather "just enough" evidence; and (d) share and discuss the evidence. These are guidelines, not a strict recipe for success. But, we believe that regularly following these recommendations should increase the chance of scientific evidence being considered and used in environmental decision-making. Our goal is for this article to be accessible to anyone, rather than a comprehensive review of the topic.

show abstract

“…These are opportunities for hydrologists to engage in PES schemes. This issue was discussed in previous studies that focused on the challenges and opportunities of hydrological monitoring and modelling (HMM) in the water-related ES assessment of PES schemes [45,46]. The combined role of HMM should be explored, including improving monitoring networks and improving the salience and credibility of water resources models.…”

Section: Further Needs For Pes For Awcssmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Agricultural Water: Are PES from the Operation of Agricultural Water Control Structures Ubiquitous?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the consideration of the operation of agricultural water control structures (AWCSs) as sources of bundles of ecosystem services (ESs) and the subsequent design of payment for ecosystem service (PES) programs around these ESs. It is thought that PES schemes for AWCSs can complement irrigation service fees (ISFs) in funding the operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes. Case studies from Japan, the United States of America and Tanzania, representing a variety of socio-economic, geographic and climatic conditions, are discussed. In countries where the PES programs had legal backing, they showed evidence of sustainability and success. The measurement of marginal ESs flows from AWCSs proved to be one of the challenges to PES programs. There is a need to improve the measurement and modelling of hydro-meteorological and water quality parameters to ensure the transparency and success of the programs. In general, there was a realisation that ESs flow from irrigated agriculture, but there was no systematic design of PES programs around these ESs flows. An opportunity is seen to complement ISF through the design of PES programs around ES flows from the operation of AWCSs.

show abstract

The value of hydrologic information for watershed management programs: The case of Camboriú, Brazil

Cited by 20 publications

References 42 publications

Who Are we Measuring and Modeling for? Supporting Multilevel Decision‐Making in Watershed Management

Who Are we Measuring and Modeling for? Supporting Multilevel Decision‐Making in Watershed Management

Improving scientific impact: How to practice science that influences environmental policy and management

A Review of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Agricultural Water: Are PES from the Operation of Agricultural Water Control Structures Ubiquitous?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About