i. The document discusses planning for ecosystem services in watershed management and urban water sectors. It explores boundary work practices and frameworks for designing watershed investments. ii. A case study in Germany analyzes boundary work activities that helped transfer scientific knowledge into watershed management actions. The study evaluates factors like credibility, saliency and legitimacy. iii. The document proposes a process-based approach to design watershed investment portfolios that maximize benefits like water security, poverty reduction, and soil erosion control. It assesses investment performance and impact on ecosystem services.

1. Ecosystem Services
for watershed management and planning
Planning for Ecosystem Services
Planning and Design for Sustainable Places LabUNIVERSITY OF TRENTO
DICAM - Department of Civil,
Environmental and Mechanical Engineering
Ph.D. Candidate: Blal Adem Esmail Supervisor: Prof Davide Geneletti
XXVIII Cycle – THESIS DEFENCE
Trento, 8th April 2016

2. People gather to fetch water from a huge well in the village of Natwarghad in the western Indian state of Gujarat (Reuters)

3. A woman carries jerry cans to fill them with water from a communal tap in Yemen's capital Sanaa (Reuters)

4. URBAN WATER SECTOR
Water Supply
System
Sanitation
System
Drainage
System
Water utility
HUMAN WELLBEING IN CITIES
Villagers carry pitchers filled with drinking water after visiting a well at Meni village in the western Indian state of Gujarat (Reuters)

5. 2030 +2.5 billion urban dwellers 90% in Asia and Africa
UN World Urbanization Prospect (2014)

6. Capacity of ecosystems
e.g. half of cities with more than
100.000 inhabitants are located in
water scarce basins
(Srinivasan et al. 2012, Richter el al 2013)
Adequate infrastructural &
institutional capacity
(Kayaga et al. 2013, Lieberherr & Truffer 2015)
Adaptation & Integration
(Cortner and Moote 1994, Ward 1995, Gleick 2000, Pahl-Wostl et al 2002, 2007, 2011)

7.  Participatory management and collaborative decision-making;
 Addressing problem sources not effects;
 Changing human behavior through “soft” measures;
 Open & shared information sources (linking science & decision-making);
 Embedded in iterative learning cycles;
Adaptation & Integration paradigm

8. Key challenge to real-life implementation
 Linking diverse actors and knowledge systems, across management
levels, sectors, and institutional boundaries.
(Folke et al 2005, Parker and Corona 2012, Kowalski & Jenkins 2015)

9. 4 research objectives

10. Urban water sector & ESs

11. Spatial considerations
THREE KEY ROLES
i linking ecosystem service production and benefit areas;
ii bridging spatial scales ranging (watershed to household);
iii adopting ES-based responses to water vulnerability.

12. 18/04/2016
Integratingframeworks

13. 18/04/2016
Urban water sector & ESs

14. Watershed management and planning
SETTING BACKGROUND FOR IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

15. Exploring boundary work

16. 16
• Set of activities put in place by any organization/individual that seeks to
mediate between knowledge and action
(Cash et al 2003)
KNOWLEDGE ACTION
Attributes
• Participation
• Accountability
• “Boundary object”
Criteria
• Credibility
• Saliency
• Legitimacy
Boundary Work
• Active management of tension at the interface between stakeholders
with differing views on relevant knowledge
(Clark et al. 2011)

17. “Boundary Work”: Highly context-specific
18/04/2016
17
Clark et al (2011). “Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the CGIAR”
C C + S C + S + L

18. • 300 Km2 - Germany’s largest water protection area
• 650.000 people in Hannover & surroundings
18
Fuhrberg watershed management

19. 19
• 300 Km2 - Germany’s largest contiguous water protection area
• 650.000 people in Hannover & surroundings
• 1970s groundwater quality problems
• 3 decades of research and cooperative implementation with farmers
Fuhrberg watershed management

20. 20
From research to implementation

21. 21
Investigating boundary work practices
THREE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
i. Type of barriers for transfer of knowledge into action?
ii. Boundary work activities put in place?
iii. Effectiveness of boundary work?

22. 4 step methodology
Interviews, Workshop, Field visit
Scientificfindings
andimplicationsfor
management
Embedded case study design
Boundary work framework (Clark et. 2011)

23. Critical boundaries in the case study
Clarketal.2011

24. Findings
 Context: knowledge Use and Source;
 ‘enlightenment’, ‘decision-support’, ‘negotiation-support’;
 Boundary work: a dynamic process, not a single-time achievement;
 “Contextual” & “contingent” factors, and relative influence (power) of actors.

25. 18/04/2016
Designing watershed investments

26. Watershed investments
LARGE-SCALE
TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGES
EROSION CONTROL
FLOOD MITIGATION
BIODIVERSITY
POVERTY ALLEVIATION
Multiple-objectives
• Financial and governance mechanisms
to secure water for cities, involving
upstream communities;Activities
REVEGETATION
AGRICULTURE
PROTECTION
TERRACING

27. Toker reservoir
• 13 million m3 capacity
• US$44 million estimated value
Asmara City
• 650.000 inhabitants
• 50% of urban population
Toker watershed

28. BasedonAbrahametal.2009

29. BasedonAbrahametal.2009
THREE QUESTIONS
i. Which activities yield the
greatest returns?
ii. How activities affect selected
ecosystem services?
iii. What is the performance of
watershed investment?

30. Process-based approach

31. Boundary work needs
Saliency
relevance to the problem at hand
+
Legitimacy
Unbiased, and respectful of all
stakeholders
Credibility
scientifically adequate handling of evidences

32. 60 Investment scenario
Toker Watershed application
60 SCENARIOS

33. Three main results

34. Investment portfolio
URBAN WATER SECURITY RURAL POVERTY ALLEVIATION
Annualbudget$100,000allocatedcost-effectively

35. Impact on soil erosion
Budget level
Budgetallocatedentirelytoagriculturalvegetationmanagement

36. Budgetallocationmode
Investment Objective
Synthesis for 38 scenarios

37. % REDUCTION OF
SOIL EROSION AT
SUB-WATERSHED
LEVEL
Sub-watershed
Budget level
Assessment of investment performance
Budget allocated cost-effectively

38. Results
 Science-informed answers to key management questions in a data
scarce context:
 Addressing concerns of credibility, saliency and legitimacy;
 Single ESs, uncalibrated models, no stakeholder involvement.

39. 18/04/2016
Water utilities as learning organizations

40. 40
METHODOLOGY
Part 1
Investigation of the two case studies
WUM-based interview with head of Asmara Utility
•11 questions - general information
• 23 questions for each attributes
• 7 ranking questions
Part 2
WUM-based questionnaire
For each case study
•3 senior mangers
•1 informed scientist
• “All-inclusive” perspective of institutions as “rules-and-roles” ;
• Institutional capacity as “capacity to continuously generate a minimum level and
quality of valued outputs, and to prioritize learning” ;
• Strong theoretical basis + application-oriented.
Initial Basic Proactive Flexible Progressive
• Integrative, mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive;
• 23 attributes
• 5 maturity levels
Water utility maturity model(Kayaga,etal.2013).

41. Influence Hannover Water Utility Asmara Water Utility
Policy, legal,
regulatory, and
political environment
Utility has predictive capabilities, and carries
out risk/opportunities assessment and
management; continuously adaptive to the
external environment in near real-time.
Leadership passively interested in factors in the
external environment, and reacts to them rather than
strategically influencing them.
Managerial autonomy Utility has full autonomy with respect to all
managerial, operational and financial
decisions.
There is limited managerial and operational
autonomy.
External
accountability
Utility has a balanced accountability
framework.
External accountability mechanisms in place but not
effective.
Partnerships and
networks
Partnerships are integrated within business
processes.
Partnerships and networks may be initiated by
individual staff. Supplier communications are limited
to tendering, order placement or problem resolution.
Corporate image The results of the corporate image scans are
integrated into the performance/incentive
management system for staff.
Leadership is aware of the importance of corporate
image; however, it is not monitored or evaluated in a
consistent & systematic manner.
Findings
• Hannover Water Utility = Level 5 “Progressive”
• Asmara Water Utility = Level 2 “Basic”
• Capacity dimension “ INFLUENCE ”

42. Overall conclusions
Implementing adaptive management

43. Main research outputs
• Paper 1: “Exploring practices of effective boundary work in watershed management for ecosystem
services”, submitted to “Ecology & Society”;
• Paper 2: “Designing, and assessing watershed investments: An operative approach based on ecosystem
services”, submitted to “Environmental Impact Assessment Review”;
• Paper 3: “Evaluating institutional capacity of a water utility: An empirical application of the Water Utility
Maturity Model”, to be submitted to “Water utilities policy;
Acknowledgement

44. A boy bathes on the side of the road in the southern Indian city of Chennai (Reuters)

45. RIOS Approach
• Need for operative methodologies to support design, and implementation of
watershed investments, in a context of adaptive management.
(e.g. Tallis et al, 2015, Schultz et al. 2015).

46. RIOS Investment Portfolio Advisor

47. RIOS Investment Portfolio Advisor

48. 48Initial Basic Proactive Flexible Progressive
• Integrative,
• mutually exclusive,
• collectively exhaustive;
• 23 attributes
• 5 maturity levels
(Kayaga,etal.2013).