Socio-hydrology modeling with changing community preferences in the Tashk-Bakhtegan Basin

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Behzad Rahnama ¹
• Nilufar Najafi Toohkhoshkeh ²
• Farzin Nasiri Saleh ³
• Majid Koosheshi ⁴
• Reza Rafiei Atani ²

¹ Ph.D. student of Engineering and water resources management, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iranres University, Tehran, Iran

² M.sc. Graduated of Water Resources Engineering and Management, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

³ Assistant professor at Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

⁴ Assistant professor at Department of Demography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.30495/wej.2022.26555.2279

Abstract

This study focuses on developing a conceptual socio-hydrologic model to simulate community response and hydrology interactions in the Tashk and Bakhtegan lakes basin. There is a sharp decline in lake water levels due to agricultural development in upstream areas of Tashk and Bakhtegan lakes, along with droughts that occurred in the 2000s. This study demonstrates the potential of socio-hydrology modeling to describe complex human-water systems applying simple concepts and relationships. For the sociological module, two variables of community sensitivity and behavioral response have been chosen. For the hydrological module, the developed water balance model for dry catchments has been used. It is assumed that changes can be different in human priorities and community sensitivities in the upstream and downstream residents of the basin due to the basin extent and the differences in the region. The time period of the study is between 1996 and 2013. The results showed that the perceived level of threat to a community’s quality of life is low in the upstream sub-region of the basin, which has more rainfall and water resources. As a result, the preferences of its residents are toward using more water and land resources. But in the downstream sub-region of the basin, people have shifted their preferences for using less water and land resources, especially with environmental problems and scarcity of water resources causing a high level of threat to their quality of life.

Keywords

• Socio-hydrology
• Community sensitivity variable
• behavioral response
• Tashk- Bakhtegan basin

20.1001.1.20086377.1400.14.51.1.3

---

References

1.       Bagheri, M.H., Bagheri, A., and Sohooli, Gh. A. 2016. Analysis of changes in the Bakhtegan lake water body under the influence of natural and human factors. Iran-Water Resources Research, 12(3): 1-11. [In Persian].

2.       Jalali, A. (2017) Evaluation of water resources management system at the catchment scale Case study: Tashk - Bakhtegan Basin). M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) [In Persian].

3.       Rahnama, B. (2013) Optimization of monthly water balance model structure via multi-evaluation criteria. M.Sc. Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran [In Persian].

4.       Abbasi, H., Delavar, M., and Bigdeli Naalbandan, R. 2020. Evaluation of climate change impacts on water resource sustainability in river basins using the water footprint scarcity indicators. Iran-Water Resources Research, 15(4): 259-272. [In Persian].

5.       Moghimi Benhangi, S., Bagheri, A., and Abolhasani, L. 2018. Assessment of social learning capacity of water institution in the Tashk-Bakhtegan basin.  Iran-Water Resources Research, 14(2): 100-118. [In Persian].

6.       Mianabadi, A., Jarkeh, M.R., Mianabadi, H., and Kolahi, M. 2018. Socio-hydrology. The Socio-Cultural Research Journal of Rahbord, 7(27): 47-78. [In Persian].

7.       Mianabadi, A., Mianabadi, H., and Alizadeh, A. 2017. A Novel Attitude on Classical Hydrology. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 4(11): 539-551. [In Persian].

8.       AghaKouchak A, Norouzi H, Madani K, Mirchi A, Azarderakhsh M, Nazemi A, Nasrollahi N, Farahmand A, Mehran A and Hasanzadeh E. 2015. Aral Seasyndrome desiccates Lake Urmia: call for action. J. Great Lakes Res. 41(1):307–311.

9.       Allan J A. 1996. Policy responses to the closure of water resources: Regional and global issues, in: Water policy: Allocation and management in practice. edited by Howsam P, Carter R C, CRC Press, London, UK:228–234.

10.   Armitage C and Christian J. 2003. From attitudes to behaviour: Basic and applied research on the theory of planned behavior. Current Psychology.  22:187–195.

11.   Arthington A H and Pusey B J. 2003. Flow restoration and protection in Australian rivers. River Research and Applications, 19:377–395.

 

12.   Baldassarre G D, Viglione A, Carr G, Kuil L, Salinas J and Blöschl G. 2013. Socio-hydrology: conceptualising human-flood interactions. HESS. 17(8):3295-3303.

13.   Blair P and Buytaert W. 2016. Socio-hydrological modeling: a review asking "why, what and how?" HESS. 20(1):443-478.

14.   Briguglio L, Cordina G, Farrugia N, and Vella S. 2009. Economic vulnerability and resilience: Concepts and measurements. Oxford Development Studies. 37: 229–247.

15.   Broderick K. 2007. Getting a handle on social-ecological systems in catchments: the nature and importance of environmental perception. Aust Geogr. 38:297–308.

16.   Bunch M J, Morrison K E, Parkes, M W, and Venema H D. 2011. Promoting Health and Well-Being by Managing for Social Ecological Resilience: the potential of integrating ecohealth and water resources management Approaches. Ecology and Society. 16:6–23.

17.   Bunn S E and Arthington AH. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management. 30:492–507.

18.   Carpenter S R, Stanley E H and Vander Zanden M J. 2011. State of the world’s freshwater ecosystems: Physical, chemical, and biological changes. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 36:75–99.

19.   Chen X, Wang D, Tian F, and Sivapalan M. 2016. From channelization to restoration: Sociohydrologic modeling with changing community preferences in the Kissimmee River Basin, Florida. Water Resources Research 52(2):1227-1244.

20.   Daily G C. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC.

21.   Elshafei Y, Coletti J, Sivapalan M and Hipsey M. 2015. A model of the socio-hydrologic dynamics in a semiarid catchment: Isolating feedbacks in the coupled human-hydrology system. Water Resour. Res. 51(8):6442-6471.

22.   Elshafei Y, Sivapalan M, Tonts M and Hipsey M. 2014. A prototype framework for models of socio-hydrology: identification of key feedback loops and parameterisation approach. HESS. 18(6):2141-2166.

23.   Enteshari S, Safavi H R, van der Zaag P. 2020. Simulating the interactions between the water and the socio-economic system in a stressed endorheic basin. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 65(13):2159-2174.

24.   Ertsen M, Murphy J, Purdue L and Zhu T. 2014. A journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step–human agency, hydrological processes and time in socio-hydrology. HESS. 18(4):1369-1382.

25.   Falkenmark M. 1979. Main problems of water use and transfer of technology. GeoJournal. 3(5):435-443.

26.   Folke C. 2003. Freshwater for Resilience: A Shift in Thinking. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B. 358:2027–2036.

27.   Forbes B C, Fresco N, Shvidenko A, Danell K, and Chapin F S. 2004. Geographic variations in anthropogenic drivers that influence the vulnerability and resilience of social–ecological systems. Ambio. 33:377–382.

28.   Grizzetti B, Lanzanova D, Liquete C, Reynaud A, Cardoso A C. 2016. Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science & Policy. 61: 194-203.

29.   Jazim A A. 2006. A Monthly Six-parameter Water Balance Model and Its Application at Arid and Semiarid Low Yielding Catchments. Journal of King Saud University-Engineering Sciences 19(1):65-81.

30.   Kandasamy J, Sounthararajah D, Sivabalan P, Chanan A, Vigneswaran S and Sivapalan M. 2014. Socio-hydrologic drivers of the pendulum swing between agricultural development and environmental health: a case study from Murrumbidgee River basin, Australia. HESS.  18:1027-1041.

31.   Kinzig A P, Ehrlich P R, Alston L J, Arrow K, Barrett S, Buchman T G, Daily G C, Levin B, Levin S, and Oppenheimer M. 2013. Social norms and global environmental challenges: The complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. BioScience. 63:164–175.

32.   Kuil L, Carr G, Viglione A, Prskawetz A and Blöschl G. 2016. Conceptualizing socio‐hydrological drought processes: The case of the Maya collapse. Water Resour. Res. 52(8):6222-6242.

33.   Liu D, Tian F, Lin M, and Sivapalan M. 2015. A conceptual socio-hydrological model of the co-evolution of humans and water: case study of the Tarim River basin, western China, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci, 19.1035–1054.

34.   Liu Y, Tian F, Hu H and Sivapalan M. 2014. Socio-hydrologic perspectives of the co-evolution of humans and water in the Tarim River basin, Western China: the Taiji–Tire model. HESS. 18(4):1289-1303.

35.   Mankad A. 2012. Decentralised water systems: Emotional influences on resource decision making. Environment International. 44:128–140.

36.   Mirchi A, Watkins D W, Huckins C J, Madani K, and Hjorth P. 2014. Water resources management in a homogenizing world: averting the Growth and Underinvestment trajectory. Water Resour. Res. 50(9): 7515–7526.

37.   Molle F. 2003. Development trajectories of river basins: a conceptual framework. Research Report, International Water Management Institute, 72, Colombo, SriLanka.

38.   Penny G and Goddard J J. 2018. Resilience principles in socio-hydrology: A case-study review. Water Security. 4-5: 37-43.

39.   Pouladi P, Afshar A, Afshar M H, Molajou A, Farahmand H. 2019. Agent-based socio-hydrological modeling for restoration of Urmia Lake: Application of theory of planned behavior. J. Hydrol. 576: 736-748.

40.   Ross A and Chang H. 2020. Socio-hydrology with hydrosocial theory: two sides of the same coin? Hydrological Sciences Journal. 65(9):1443-1457.

41.   Roobavannan M, Kandasamy j, Pande S, Vigneswaran s, and Sivapalan M. 2020. Sustainability of agricultural basin development under uncertain future Climate and economic conditions: A socio-hydrologic alanalysis. Ecological Economics. 174.

42.   Roobavannan M, Kandasamy j, Pande S, Vigneswaran s, and Sivapalan M. 2017. Role of Sectoral Transformation in the Evolution of Water Management Norms in Agricultural Catchments: A Sociohydrologic Modeling Analysis. Water Resour. Res. 53: 8344–8365.

43.   Scott C A, Vicuña S, Blanco-Gutiérrez I, Meza F and Varela-Ortega C. 2014. Irrigation efficiency and water-policy implications for river basin resilience. HESS. 18(4):1339-1348.

44.   Seymour E, Curtis A, Pannell D, Allan C, and Roberts A. 2010. Understanding the role of assigned values in natural resource management. Australasian Journal of Environmental, 17:142–153.

45.   Sherrieb K, Norris F H, and Galea S. 2010. Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience. Social Indicators Research. 99:227–247.

46.   Sivapalan M, Savenije H H, and Blöschl G. 2012. Socio‐hydrology: A new science of people and water. Hydrol. Processes, 26(8):1270-1276.

47.   Smith J, Moore R, Anderson D, and Siderelis C. 2012. Community Resilience in Southern Appalachia: A Theoretical Framework and Three Case Studies. Human Ecology. 40:341–353.

48.   Srinivasan V, Lambin E F, Gorelick S M, Thompson B H and Rozelle S. 2012. The nature and causes of the global water crisis: Syndromes from a meta‐analysis of coupled human‐water studies. Water Resour. Res. 48:W10516.

49.   Steffen W, Grinevald J, Crutzen P, and McNeill J. 2011. The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, A. 369:842–867.

50.   Tolun L G, Ergenekon S, Hocaoglu S M, Donertas A S, Cokacar T, Husrevoglu S, Beken C P, and Baban A. 2012. Socioeconomic Response to Water Quality: a First Experience in Science and Policy Integration for the Izmit Bay Coastal System. Ecology and Society. 17:40–53.

51.   Turner B L. 2010. Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science?. Glob. Environ. Change. 20:570–576.

52.   UNDP. 2015. Human Development report 2015. New York. NY 10017.

53.   van Emmerik T H M, Li Z, Sivapalan M, Pande S, Kandasamy J, Savenije H H G., Chanan A, and Vigneswaran S. 2014. Socio-hydrologic modeling to understand and mediate the competition for water between agriculture development and environmental health: Murrumbidgee River basin, Australia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci, 18:4239–4259.

54.   Wei J, Wei Y, Western A. 2017. Evolution of the societal value of water resoutces for economic development versus environmental sustainability in Australia from 1843 to 2011. Glob. Environ. Change. 42:82–92.

55.   Zilberman D, Dinar A, MacDougall N, Khanna M, Brown C, and Castillo F. 2011. Individual and institutional responses to the drought: the case of California agriculture. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 121:17–23.