Integrated urban water management modelling under climate change scenarios

2014 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 176-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santosh M. Pingale ◽  
Mahesh K. Jat ◽  
Deepak Khare
Urban Climate ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 247-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Kirshen ◽  
Semra Aytur ◽  
Jory Hecht ◽  
Andrew Walker ◽  
David Burdick ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-65
Author(s):  
Anvita Pandey ◽  
Manya Singh ◽  
Riyan Habeeb ◽  
Vishal Singh

According to the latest government reports, India is facing evident shortfall of water in various parts of the country, and Himalayan states are likely to suffer the impacts of climate change related to water more than non-Himalayan states. Water resources are expected to affect Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country, and future projections are far more upsetting. In this light, sustainable and adaptive strategies such as integrated water resources management, nature-based solutions have been promoted globally for sustainable and integrated urban water management. The paper inquires into functions of respective institutions and their possibilities to adopt possible nature-based solutions such as rain water harvesting in response to water insecurity and adaptation in times of climate change. Taking case of Haldwani city, the paper assesses water demand and supply gaps, the existing water institutions, their scope of work and water management mechanism. Further, the scope of adoption of possible nature-based solution is explored by the purview of their work in water management. This was derived through an in-depth literature review, stakeholder consultations as key informant interviews, and participatory mapping. Haldwani has experienced severe water scarcity due to depletion of groundwater, decline in the discharge rate of river Gaula, and drying of springs in and around the city. Various agencies manage the existing water resources in isolation and mismanagement of water is one of the prominent problems in the city. The paper delves into the nuances of various strategic interventions, and the respective institutional capability to undertake the same. While most of the strategies prevalent at international level are yet to be adopted in context of Himalayan cities, a key finding is that rain water harvesting system can be easily taken up as a nature based solution by each of the institutions since it also falls in their scope of work as well as to meet the city’s present and future water challenges.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (13) ◽  
pp. 4253-4269 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Matheus Bezerra dos Santos Amorim ◽  
Saulo de Tarso Marques Bezerra ◽  
Maísa Mendonça Silva ◽  
Lyanne Cibely Oliveira de Sousa

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Hunt ◽  
M. Anda ◽  
K. Mathew ◽  
G. Ho

Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) in land developments is becoming increasingly necessary in order to more efficiently utilise and manage water resources. Techniques including the control of stormwater runoff, increasing infiltration and providing opportunities for retention, treatment and reuse of both stormwater and wastewater, are well suited to being designed into the development rather than considered post-construction or not at all. There can be extensive capital investment by developers to implement IUWM which is often not returned in the land sales. This produces a disincentive for the developer unless the contribution is recognised and rewarded either financially or with appropriate marketing advantage. A system to rate land developments based upon IUWM has been developed that would quantifiably assess how effectively water resources would be utilised in a proposed land development. This assessment would provide a point of comparison between developments allowing property purchasers, developers, utilities and legislators to quickly compare how well the development performs in terms of IUWM, providing a mechanism for financial reward or recognition. This paper discusses the development of a model to quantifiably assess land developments for water efficient use and introduces a rating system with which land developments can be compared in terms of IUWM.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Hawxwell ◽  
Joerg Knieling

<p>Diverse concepts have emerged in recent decades which (at least in their rhetoric) aim to instigate processes that make cities more resilient to climate change and support more sustainable urban development (Coaffee and Lee 2016; Hodson and Marvin 2017). With regards to urban water management, the Water-Sensitive City (WSC) is one such concept that promotes urban water planning to “protect, maintain and enhance the multiple benefits and services of the total urban water cycle that are highly valued by society” (Wong and Brown 2009, 674). The WSC, along with related integrated urban water management concepts have seen growing scholarly attention in recent years (see e.g. Fletcher et al. 2015). The emergence of such concepts reflects the growing demand for more sophisticated and integrated understanding and management of urban water systems. Such an ambitious model represents a broadening of the competencies and responsibilities of practitioners involved in water management and improved coordination with other urban sectors. Thus, such changes (must) typically coincide with changes amongst actors engaged directly or indirectly in water management, along with the prevailing institutional arrangements that govern their activities.</p> <p>Yet very little is known about processes of institutionalisation of such concepts within socio-technical regimes such as those that characterise urban water systems (Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014). This paper aims to map processes of institutionalisation of concepts associated with the Water-Sensitive City amongst practitioners working in urban water management related fields in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. The research explores changes in the institutional arrangements between 1990 and 2020.</p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Coaffee, J., and P. Lee. 2016. <em>Urban Resilience:</em> <em>Planning for Risk, Crisis and Uncertainty</em>. Macmillan International Higher Education.</p> <p>Fletcher, T. D., W. Shuster, W. F. Hunt, R. Ashley, D. Butler, S. Arthur, S. Trowsdale, et al. 2015. ‘SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and More – The Evolution and Application of Terminology Surrounding Urban Drainage’. <em>Urban Water Journal</em> 12 (7): 525–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314.</p> <p>Fuenfschilling, L., and B. Truffer. 2014. ‘The Structuration of Socio-Technical Regimes - Conceptual Foundations from Institutional Theory’. <em>Research Policy</em> 43 (4): 772–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.010.</p> <p>Hodson, M., and S. Marvin. 2017. ‘Intensifying or Transforming Sustainable Cities? Fragmented Logics of Urban Environmentalism’. <em>Local Environment</em> 22 (sup1): 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1306498.</p> <p>Wong, T. H. F., and R. R. Brown. 2009. ‘The Water Sensitive City: Principles for Practice’. <em>Water Science and Technology</em> 60 (3): 673–82. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.436.</p> <p> </p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document