3.1 Five FIWs (Foundational Ideas About WUS)
31
FIW5b) Adaptive water management should advance at multiple levels within a
learning approach.
In dealing with the uncertainties of the future, and the complexities of policies and
technologies adaptive systems should be planned and engineered. The traditional
approaches on averages should be modified in order to engineer systems that are
more closely deal with how real situations change. This is because “average of all
the possible outcomes associated with uncertain parameters, does not equal (except if
system linear) the value obtained from using the average value of the parameters” (de
Neufville and Scholtes 2011). Such systems need flexibility, which is “the ability to
adapt with minimal cost to a wide range of possible futures. Building in this flexibility
may cost more, but may be still desirable insurance against risks society does not
want to take” (Loucks and Van Beek 2005). In coming up with such solutions, all the
stakeholders should be involved within a learning approach in order to promote equitable and sustainable allocation mechanisms in a transparent manner. Such adaptive
systems increase resiliency and reduce risks associated with uncertainty. It should be
noted that (a) systems that are based on maladaptive solutions or simply inaction (no
solution) may have costs with steeper trade-offs, and (b) adaptation should consider
all the possible levels of a systems, i.e., all the positions and extents related to a
WUS. The final decisions should be based on bounded rationality as explained here,
promoting reasonable and good-enough solutions.
FIW5c) Performance of the interactions between water demand and supply depends
on the differentials of its three Pillars.
Description of a WUS is different from its performance, which includes targets.
There are two complementary focus into the performance of a WUS; one has to do
with combining together the three Pillars, which also reveals integrated trade-offs.
The other is about the performance of each WPI and its attributes under specific
objectives. These two should be advanced using the following two interrelated types
of principles and targets:
• Aggregative: along this policy, the targets should be in percentage (100%) as in
the sustainable efficiency (Sefficiency) of a WUS,
• Distributive: according to this policy, the targets are defined in relation to the
maximum and minimum values of an indicator of interest for the adequate
functioning of the members of a WUS as in the sustainable equity (Sequity).
Quantification of the aggregative performance indicator of a WUS must be based
on the differentials of all its three Pillars, i.e., all the inflows and outflows and their
beneficial and quality attributes. Such comprehensive and systemic analysis is crucial
in order to understand the integrated trade-offs of the three Pillars on a WUS. This
means that, it is the difference between what enters into a WUS and what leaves
it that gives its performance and not just what enters (e.g., water supply, benefits)
or leaves (e.g., water pollution, evapotranspiration). Additionally, the differentials
should be employed for both IN and OUT performances, parallel to what is written
in FIW2c.
31
FIW5b) Adaptive water management should advance at multiple levels within a
learning approach.
In dealing with the uncertainties of the future, and the complexities of policies and
technologies adaptive systems should be planned and engineered. The traditional
approaches on averages should be modified in order to engineer systems that are
more closely deal with how real situations change. This is because “average of all
the possible outcomes associated with uncertain parameters, does not equal (except if
system linear) the value obtained from using the average value of the parameters” (de
Neufville and Scholtes 2011). Such systems need flexibility, which is “the ability to
adapt with minimal cost to a wide range of possible futures. Building in this flexibility
may cost more, but may be still desirable insurance against risks society does not
want to take” (Loucks and Van Beek 2005). In coming up with such solutions, all the
stakeholders should be involved within a learning approach in order to promote equitable and sustainable allocation mechanisms in a transparent manner. Such adaptive
systems increase resiliency and reduce risks associated with uncertainty. It should be
noted that (a) systems that are based on maladaptive solutions or simply inaction (no
solution) may have costs with steeper trade-offs, and (b) adaptation should consider
all the possible levels of a systems, i.e., all the positions and extents related to a
WUS. The final decisions should be based on bounded rationality as explained here,
promoting reasonable and good-enough solutions.
FIW5c) Performance of the interactions between water demand and supply depends
on the differentials of its three Pillars.
Description of a WUS is different from its performance, which includes targets.
There are two complementary focus into the performance of a WUS; one has to do
with combining together the three Pillars, which also reveals integrated trade-offs.
The other is about the performance of each WPI and its attributes under specific
objectives. These two should be advanced using the following two interrelated types
of principles and targets:
• Aggregative: along this policy, the targets should be in percentage (100%) as in
the sustainable efficiency (Sefficiency) of a WUS,
• Distributive: according to this policy, the targets are defined in relation to the
maximum and minimum values of an indicator of interest for the adequate
functioning of the members of a WUS as in the sustainable equity (Sequity).
Quantification of the aggregative performance indicator of a WUS must be based
on the differentials of all its three Pillars, i.e., all the inflows and outflows and their
beneficial and quality attributes. Such comprehensive and systemic analysis is crucial
in order to understand the integrated trade-offs of the three Pillars on a WUS. This
means that, it is the difference between what enters into a WUS and what leaves
it that gives its performance and not just what enters (e.g., water supply, benefits)
or leaves (e.g., water pollution, evapotranspiration). Additionally, the differentials
should be employed for both IN and OUT performances, parallel to what is written
in FIW2c.