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

Abstract

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

Evaluating Domestic Well Vulnerability to Contamination From Unconventional Oil and Gas Development Sites

“…Physically based models can be used to integrate hydrogeological principles with decision‐making aspects such as relevant planning horizons t c and acceptable risk levels P tol . Engaging stakeholders from various sectors can also enhance the salience, credibility, and legitimacy of future detailed modeling endeavors (Bremer et al, 2020). Particular attention should be given to transparent communication of model uncertainty, which may, for example, be facilitated by use of the probabilistic capture‐zone framework.…”

Producing valuable information from hydrologic models of nature‐based solutions for water

“…The diversity of decisions and decision makers could explain these observations: in Bremer et al (2020), we identified five decision contexts and seven roles within the relatively small and focused group of interview subjects in the project management units of Brazilian watershed investment programs.…”

“…In three Brazilian NBS projects, for example, in Bremer et al (2020) we identified general improvements in water quality and water quantity as desired outcomes, but rarely with a specific definition of acceptable levels of pollutants or flow. Andean funds generally focused on maintaining or improving dry season flow, sometimes identifying sediment retention as a secondary objective, and these programs often had clear social objectives related to rural livelihoods in the watershed (Bremer et Accepted Article al.…”

“…Although, in theory, the process through which an NBS watershed project is generated will articulate the outcomes to be modeled, we found that projects often have multiple goals that are frequently not articulated as modelable hydrologic variables. In three Brazilian NBS projects, for example, in Bremer et al (2020), we identified general improvements in water quality and water quantity as desired outcomes, but rarely with a specific definition of acceptable levels of pollutants or flow. Andean funds generally focused on maintaining or improving dry season flow, sometimes identifying sediment retention as a secondary objective, and these programs often had clear social objectives related to rural livelihoods in the watershed (Bremer, Auerbach, et al, 2016).…”

Effects of land-cover and watershed protection futures on sustainable groundwater management in a heavily utilized aquifer in Hawai‘i (USA)

“…Second, watershed protection programs focused on maintaining or enhancing hydrologic ecosystem services, including groundwater recharge, are rapidly growing, particularly in the tropics (Abell et al 2017;Salzman et al 2018;Brauman et al 2019). A key information need for both groundwater sustainable yield policies and watershed protection efforts is improved understanding of the relative impacts of watershed management on groundwater recharge and supply in a context of broader climate and land-cover change (Chun et al 2017;Bremer et al 2020). Furthermore, translating changes in groundwater recharge and supply into metrics directly related to groundwater management (e.g.…”