60
4.3 Discussion
We are facing a “pandemic array” (see www.gwsp.org ) of transformations in the
global water cycle, including fundamental changes in physical characteristics and
biogeochemical and biological processes. Demographic and economic development
increases the pressure on freshwaters and, together with an increasing frequency of
fl oods and droughts, causes a dramatic increase in water stress and insecurity of
water availability. At the same time, water security – the availability of freshwater
in the eligible quantity and quality and at the right time – is a prerequisite for human
wellbeing and ecosystem integrity.
Consequently, water security is one of the greatest challenges we are facing globally. Water shortage will require signifi cant shifts in the way this precious resource
will be managed. This is particularly the case if we want to manage freshwaters as
a hybrid system, as both a medium for life and a resource for humanity. It is an
interdisciplinary and cross-sectorial challenge linking economic, social, cultural
and ecological systems. One of the proposed solutions is an engineering approach,
although alternative ways to manage water as a resource and as a medium need to
be established. However, in areas and during periods of water shortage, environmental damage and social consequences may receive less attention.
Megaprojects, such as major water engineering projects, are a sign of “high modernisms” (Scott 1998 ), an ideology that builds on self-confi dence about technological progress. These projects are considered as a scaling-up of earlier successful
projects and as a continuation of century-old practices (Forest and Forest 2012 ).
Major infrastructure projects are believed to stimulate and guide economic development
and to improve the living conditions for humans. At the same time, re-shaping the
landscape is considered as a sign of progress as well as of regional and global power.
In the Soviet Union, nuclear explosions were used to support major engineering
projects, and their use had also been proposed for the NAWAPA project in North
America. In this respect, Forest and Forest ( 2012 ) analysed the powerful role of
visual rhetoric of water-transfer maps. Maps generalise and simplify, may ignore
political boundaries, represent technology as an unproblematic approach and present water as a virtual entity. Therefore, we need to be very careful and responsible
in using maps and visualisation tools in the decision making of major water engineering projects.
A fundamental problem with the planning and construction of large infrastructure projects is pervasive misinformation about costs, benefi ts and risks involved. A
comprehensive analysis of large infrastructure projects in the UK and US (with
emphasise on transportation infrastructure projects) demonstrated that in most cases
the “unfi ttest proposals”, which underestimated costs and overestimated benefi ts,
were approved (Flyvbjerg 2007 ). The causes of misinformation and risk are mainly
cognitive and political biases such as optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation.
This is also most likely true for water-related megaprojects, such as for large dam
and IBT projects. Therefore, Lovallo and Kahnemann ( 2003 ) and Flyvbjerg ( 2007 )
recommend the use of a “reference-based forecasting” approach, taking an outsideK. Tockner et al.
4.3 Discussion
We are facing a “pandemic array” (see www.gwsp.org ) of transformations in the
global water cycle, including fundamental changes in physical characteristics and
biogeochemical and biological processes. Demographic and economic development
increases the pressure on freshwaters and, together with an increasing frequency of
fl oods and droughts, causes a dramatic increase in water stress and insecurity of
water availability. At the same time, water security – the availability of freshwater
in the eligible quantity and quality and at the right time – is a prerequisite for human
wellbeing and ecosystem integrity.
Consequently, water security is one of the greatest challenges we are facing globally. Water shortage will require signifi cant shifts in the way this precious resource
will be managed. This is particularly the case if we want to manage freshwaters as
a hybrid system, as both a medium for life and a resource for humanity. It is an
interdisciplinary and cross-sectorial challenge linking economic, social, cultural
and ecological systems. One of the proposed solutions is an engineering approach,
although alternative ways to manage water as a resource and as a medium need to
be established. However, in areas and during periods of water shortage, environmental damage and social consequences may receive less attention.
Megaprojects, such as major water engineering projects, are a sign of “high modernisms” (Scott 1998 ), an ideology that builds on self-confi dence about technological progress. These projects are considered as a scaling-up of earlier successful
projects and as a continuation of century-old practices (Forest and Forest 2012 ).
Major infrastructure projects are believed to stimulate and guide economic development
and to improve the living conditions for humans. At the same time, re-shaping the
landscape is considered as a sign of progress as well as of regional and global power.
In the Soviet Union, nuclear explosions were used to support major engineering
projects, and their use had also been proposed for the NAWAPA project in North
America. In this respect, Forest and Forest ( 2012 ) analysed the powerful role of
visual rhetoric of water-transfer maps. Maps generalise and simplify, may ignore
political boundaries, represent technology as an unproblematic approach and present water as a virtual entity. Therefore, we need to be very careful and responsible
in using maps and visualisation tools in the decision making of major water engineering projects.
A fundamental problem with the planning and construction of large infrastructure projects is pervasive misinformation about costs, benefi ts and risks involved. A
comprehensive analysis of large infrastructure projects in the UK and US (with
emphasise on transportation infrastructure projects) demonstrated that in most cases
the “unfi ttest proposals”, which underestimated costs and overestimated benefi ts,
were approved (Flyvbjerg 2007 ). The causes of misinformation and risk are mainly
cognitive and political biases such as optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation.
This is also most likely true for water-related megaprojects, such as for large dam
and IBT projects. Therefore, Lovallo and Kahnemann ( 2003 ) and Flyvbjerg ( 2007 )
recommend the use of a “reference-based forecasting” approach, taking an outsideK. Tockner et al.