| dc.description.abstract | In order to sustainably manage natural resources, policymakers and managers have to make a number of complex decisions. The difficulty lies in finding a balance between social and economic interest on one hand, while on the other hand avoiding overexploitation and long term mismanagement of resources. On top of that, there are several uncertainties such as climate change and changes in socio-economic conditions that have to be taken into account. Environmental Decision Support Systems (EDSS) can help with these complex tasks in decision making.
This study is about a new EDSS called Watervision, released at the end of 2018. Watervision is a model that quantifies the effects of water level conditions and climate to vegetation (nature and crops). The model consists of two modules: Watervision Nature (WVN) and Watervision Agriculture (WVA). New climate data and updated (process based) models were integrated in the development of this new tool. However, since it just recently became available, a limited number of organisations has experience in using it. Therefore, this study aimed at analysing the usefulness of Watervision for regional groundwater governance. This was done by performing a case study for Hoogheemraadschap de Stichtse Rijnlanden (HDSR) in the Langbroekerwetering.
The potential of the Watervision tool was evaluated on the credibility of the model and the acceptability of the model for its users. The method of this research included two parts; first, an extensive background study on the models, case study area and groundwater governance was performed. This provided the fundament for the quantitative analysis of the case study. In this part all possible model outputs of Watervision were analysed and the model was compared to the original model Waternood (from 2002). Lastly, a sensitivity analysis was performed.
The new model Watervision has a number of advantages compared to original Waternood. The model uses new climate data and uses process-based models instead of expert judgement. Also, the outputs produced by Watervision provide useful insights in the location, severity and type of damage. It was found that these measures fit very well within the process of groundwater governance.
On the other hand some disadvantages were found. In the case of Watervision Nature the model provides two almost similar options to assess the water management conditions to the vegetation requirements. The fact that it is unclear which option is better while the results are different, increases uncertainty for managers and makes the model less acceptable. The credibility of Watervision can also be improved on some aspects. For instance the process based models overestimate some types of damage in some cases.
To conclude, Watervision is a useful instrument for groundwater governance. The model provides numerical calculation of damages and the ability to evaluate different scenarios. Besides that, it is also useful to the policy debate in general because it helps understanding an area of interest and assist in understanding different stakeholders. | |
