productivity and contributing to climate mitigation (the “4per1000” proposal of Paris climate
conference in 2015).
Before continuing, the basic question has to
be raised as to the significance of soil water
regimes when dealing with wastewater use.
Some may argue that hydrologists and soil scientists only pursue and push their own disciplinary activities that may be relatively
unimportant in the broader context. Such comments should be taken seriously by showing, for
example, that only measuring the quality of
groundwater at certain locations does answer the
question as to “what”. But also the “why” is
important because only this will increase understanding of processes involved and allow
extrapolation of results. Some of the case studies
report that chemical concentrations in some wells
in a given area were below environmental
thresholds while others were above. So what’s
the conclusion? Only when differences can be
explained because of different application rates,
different hydraulic properties of soils or different
travel times, results can be interpreted and
extrapolated and can be used to improve designs.
This is important because the overall significance of the water-soil-waste nexus is very high:
SDGs on food (2), water (6), climate (13) and
biodiversity (15) are directly related to the
wastewater issue as water and food shortages
become increasingly urgent in future, as climate
change threatens the existence of mankind. But
an additional emphasis on technical aspects of
soil water regimes in different soils only covers
part of the challenges ahead. The 17 case studies
dramatically illustrate that the issue of acceptance
by citizens and introduction of effective rules and
regulations urgently needs attention as well.
4 The Challenge to Reach Effective
Governance
Kurian et al. (2016) provide a well-documented
study on relations between science and policy in
the environmental arena. They correctly emphasize the importance of transdisciplinarity, where
scientists of different disciplines work together
with stakeholders and policy makers. Kurian
(2017) also emphasizes the importance of tradeoffs and thresholds when dealing with the waterenergy-food nexus and defined a wastewater
reuse effectiveness index (WREI) that considers
physical aspects in an institutional and socioeconomic context, this deserves further development. In line with this, Bouma et al. (2015)
analyzed six already published case studies
related to land use in the Netherlands and Italy,
not only showing which SDGs were being
addressed but also how problems were defined
and worked out in interaction with stakeholders,
operating in a policy-defined context. Linking
soil and water data directly with the policy arena,
defacto bypassing the involved stakeholders or
just paying lip service to their contributions, was
shown to be undesirable and this would certainly
apply when addressing a sensitive issue such as
waste application to soils. A primary focus on
stakeholders is advisable but only when based on
a “joint learning” approach. Results can then next
be communicated to the policy arena, preferably
by stakeholders and not by researchers (e.g.,
Bouma 2015, 2019; De Vries et al. 2015). The
concept of Data Observatories, as proposed by
Kurian et al. (2016), is attractive as it emphasizes
a bottom-up and transdisciplinary approach, but
the question remains which data should be
deposited, how data should be combined and
balanced as they come from different sources and
how they will be integrated aiming at information (seen as data with meaning) and knowledge
(seen as internalized information). Next to this
approach, presentation and a thorough analysis
of completed and successful case studies, as
reported by Hettiarachichi and Ardakanian
(2016b), would appear to be also suitable to be
used as examples for others to follow, while an
analysis of the many opportunities and pitfalls
during the realization of the case study would
present inspiration for both practitioners and
future research.
Future water-soil-waste research could, next
to emphasizing data observatories, be focused on
such case studies covering technical aspects in a
socio-economic context, including increasingly
important modes of communication (e.g., Bouma
20
J. Bouma
conference in 2015).
Before continuing, the basic question has to
be raised as to the significance of soil water
regimes when dealing with wastewater use.
Some may argue that hydrologists and soil scientists only pursue and push their own disciplinary activities that may be relatively
unimportant in the broader context. Such comments should be taken seriously by showing, for
example, that only measuring the quality of
groundwater at certain locations does answer the
question as to “what”. But also the “why” is
important because only this will increase understanding of processes involved and allow
extrapolation of results. Some of the case studies
report that chemical concentrations in some wells
in a given area were below environmental
thresholds while others were above. So what’s
the conclusion? Only when differences can be
explained because of different application rates,
different hydraulic properties of soils or different
travel times, results can be interpreted and
extrapolated and can be used to improve designs.
This is important because the overall significance of the water-soil-waste nexus is very high:
SDGs on food (2), water (6), climate (13) and
biodiversity (15) are directly related to the
wastewater issue as water and food shortages
become increasingly urgent in future, as climate
change threatens the existence of mankind. But
an additional emphasis on technical aspects of
soil water regimes in different soils only covers
part of the challenges ahead. The 17 case studies
dramatically illustrate that the issue of acceptance
by citizens and introduction of effective rules and
regulations urgently needs attention as well.
4 The Challenge to Reach Effective
Governance
Kurian et al. (2016) provide a well-documented
study on relations between science and policy in
the environmental arena. They correctly emphasize the importance of transdisciplinarity, where
scientists of different disciplines work together
with stakeholders and policy makers. Kurian
(2017) also emphasizes the importance of tradeoffs and thresholds when dealing with the waterenergy-food nexus and defined a wastewater
reuse effectiveness index (WREI) that considers
physical aspects in an institutional and socioeconomic context, this deserves further development. In line with this, Bouma et al. (2015)
analyzed six already published case studies
related to land use in the Netherlands and Italy,
not only showing which SDGs were being
addressed but also how problems were defined
and worked out in interaction with stakeholders,
operating in a policy-defined context. Linking
soil and water data directly with the policy arena,
defacto bypassing the involved stakeholders or
just paying lip service to their contributions, was
shown to be undesirable and this would certainly
apply when addressing a sensitive issue such as
waste application to soils. A primary focus on
stakeholders is advisable but only when based on
a “joint learning” approach. Results can then next
be communicated to the policy arena, preferably
by stakeholders and not by researchers (e.g.,
Bouma 2015, 2019; De Vries et al. 2015). The
concept of Data Observatories, as proposed by
Kurian et al. (2016), is attractive as it emphasizes
a bottom-up and transdisciplinary approach, but
the question remains which data should be
deposited, how data should be combined and
balanced as they come from different sources and
how they will be integrated aiming at information (seen as data with meaning) and knowledge
(seen as internalized information). Next to this
approach, presentation and a thorough analysis
of completed and successful case studies, as
reported by Hettiarachichi and Ardakanian
(2016b), would appear to be also suitable to be
used as examples for others to follow, while an
analysis of the many opportunities and pitfalls
during the realization of the case study would
present inspiration for both practitioners and
future research.
Future water-soil-waste research could, next
to emphasizing data observatories, be focused on
such case studies covering technical aspects in a
socio-economic context, including increasingly
important modes of communication (e.g., Bouma
20
J. Bouma