www.sci.monash.edu
Dr Terry Chan, Dr Paul McShane
Monash Sustainability Institute Seminar Series
Monash Clayton, Building 74, November 4, 2010
Assisting integrated catchment
management for water resources:
Risk assessment, Bayesian network models and
case studies from the Asia-Pacific
www.sci.monash.edu
Why catchments?
 Basic landscape
unit
 Connected by
water
 Increasing need
for water
management
Case Study: Development of Integrated
Catchment Management in the
Kongulai Catchment, Solomon Islands
www.sci.monash.edu
KONGULAI
CATCHMENT
Kongulai Catchment
Honiara
Kongulai
Catchment
Kongulai Catchment
Honiara
Kongulai
Catchment
Kongulai Catchment
Honiara
Kongulai
Catchment
Kongulai Catchment
Honiara
Kongulai
Catchment
Kongulai Catchment
Honiara
Kongulai
Catchment
www.sci.monash.edu
When to use a Risk-based
Approach?
 High values
 High risks
 Multiple threats/hazards (altered
flow, poor sanitation, sedimentation,
etc.)
 Multiple, diverse, conflicting uses
www.sci.monash.edu
Aims of Risk Assessment Approach
 Identify where to focus time and effort
- Quantitative assessment (numerical model)
- Prioritize threats
- Identify best management actions
 Assist managers in handling variability,
complexity and uncertainty
 To integrate knowledge and
understanding of water resources in a
catchment
Policy
Problem
Formulation
Review
Consequences
(Effects)
Risk Characterization
Iterative Process
(Adaptive Management)
Likelihood
(Exposure)
Iterative Process
(Model Development)
Quantitative Risk Analysis
Monitoring
Risk Management
Policy
Problem
Formulation
Review
Consequences
(Effects)
Risk Characterization
Iterative Process
(Adaptive Management)
Likelihood
(Exposure)
Iterative Process
(Model Development)
Quantitative Risk Analysis
Monitoring
Risk Management
www.sci.monash.edu
Stakeholders and Risk Assessment
 By engaging a range of stakeholders we
hope to increase the:
– Relevance (not just an academic /
scientific / technically driven exercise)
– Legitimacy
– Acceptability of the final product
www.sci.monash.edu
Participatory processes
 Identified stakeholder groups
and representatives
 Followed principles of public
participation, including
customised design for
circumstances and to meet
local expectations
www.sci.monash.edu
Participatory processes
 Solicited local advice and used a
local liaison (adviser-facilitatortranslator)
 Included both genders and a
range of ages
 Held events in comfortable,
familiar surroundings
www.sci.monash.edu
Participatory Outcomes
 Decision on key value: water
for human use
 Key threats/hazards:
pollution, geological change,
poor sanitation, sediment,
leakage, logging, social
disputes, etc…
 Other factors affecting
water in the Kongulai
catchment
 How the factors relate
Policy
Problem
Formulation
Review
Consequences
(Effects)
Risk Characterization
Iterative Process
(Adaptive Management)
Likelihood
(Exposure)
Iterative Process
(Model Development)
Quantitative Risk Analysis
Monitoring
Risk Management
Policy
Problem
Formulation
Review
Consequences
(Effects)
Risk Characterization
Iterative Process
(Adaptive Management)
Likelihood
(Exposure)
Iterative Process
(Model Development)
Quantitative Risk Analysis
Monitoring
Risk Management
www.sci.monash.edu
What is a Bayesian Network?
Made up of:
1. A diagram, the structure of the model showing
how different variables are connected
2. The relationships between the variables, (e.g.
probability table or difference equations)
Note: Whatever data is available can be used to
improve the initial relationships/probabilities
www.sci.monash.edu
Example: Model Structure
Crop Yield
www.sci.monash.edu
Example: Model Structure
Fertilizer
application
Water
application
Crop Yield
www.sci.monash.edu
Example: Model Structure
Water
amount
Water
timing
Soil type
Fertilizer
application
Water
application
Crop Yield
www.sci.monash.edu
Example: Defining variables
•
How could each variables be measured?
– “Crop yield” in tonnes/hectare
– “Water amount” = “irrigation volume” in
kL/hectare/day
• How can variable “states” be defined?
– “Crop yield” could be “good” = more than
10 tonnes/hectare and “poor” = less than
10 tonnes/hectare.
www.sci.monash.edu
Example
Irrigation Scheduling
RightTime
50.0
WrongTime 50.0
Irrigation Application
High
50.0
Low
50.0
Water Application
Effective
50.0
Ineffective 50.0
Soil Type
Sand 50.0
Clay
50.0
Fertilizer Application
Effective
50.0
Ineffective 50.0
Crop Yield
Good 50.0
Poor
50.0
www.sci.monash.edu
A
 Networks use Bayes’ theorem:
P(C A) = P(A C) P(C)
P(A)
Where P(C) is the probability of parameter C.
After collection of data A giving us P(A) and
P(A|C), we can calculate P(C|A), the
probability of C given A
C
www.sci.monash.edu
Example
Irrigation Scheduling
Right Time 75.0
Wrong Time 25.0
Irrigation Application
High
60.0
Low
40.0
Crop Water Application
Effective
68.9
Ineffective 31.0
Crop Yield
Good 63.5
Poor 36.5
Soil Type
Sand 70.0
Clay 30.0
Fertilizer Application
Effective
60.0
Ineffective 40.0
www.sci.monash.edu
Example
Irrigation Scheduling
RightTime
100
WrongTime
0
Irrigation Application
High
100
Low
0
Water Application
Effective
90.0
Ineffective 10.0
Soil Type
Sand
100
Clay
0
Fertilizer Application
Effective
100
Ineffective
0
Crop Yield
Good 85.0
Poor
15.0
www.sci.monash.edu
Why use a Bayesian network?
 Based on conceptual cause-effect links
 Relatively simple to build and simplifies
complexity
 Graphically based so can be used/understood by
different people (good for communication)
 Quantitative, allows prioritization
 Can use sparse data and can be combined with
expert opinion where there is no data
 Explicitly includes uncertainty
 Flexible and can be changed/updated easily
www.sci.monash.edu
Graphical
 Can involve a range of stakeholders,
not just scientists/researchers
 Gender and age representation
 Facilitates communication between
stakeholder groups
 Consensus and relationship-building
Quantitative
 Comparison/prioritization of largest risks
 Comparison/prioritization of management actions
www.sci.monash.edu
BN structure directly from conceptual diagram
Natural Disasters
- earthquakes
- volcanoes
- flooding
- drought
Government
- policy
- commitment
- funds
Resource
Owners
Management and
Legislation
Population Increase
Human Activities
Geological Change
Non-Human Activi
Climate Change
and Variability
Rainfall
Overextraction
Water Quantity
Pollution
Water Quality
Water for Human Survival
Leadership at all levels/sectors
good
50.0
poor
50.0
Land Tenure Type
customary
50.0
noncustomary
50.0
Kongulai Model
Policy and Planning
EasyToChange
50.0
DifficultToChange 50.0
Traditional Customs/Culture
Influential
50.0
LessInfluential
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
Government Management
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
33.3
nochange 33.3
drier
33.3
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Catchment Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
Logging Area
high
44.2
medium 21.2
low
34.5
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
Education
high 50.0
low
50.0
55 ± 29
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
* Cost of Supply
high 44.2
low
55.8
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
yes
no
* Runoff Quantity
high
53.1
medium 20.4
low
26.6
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
Household Income
high 47.0
low
53.0
2380 ± 2400
* Cost of Electricity
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
Employment
high 50.0
low
50.0
55 ± 29
Agriculture
high
33.3
medium 33.3
low
33.3
Rainfall
high
41.3
moderate 27.7
low
31.0
160 ± 89
# Household Demand/Usage
Overuse
46.7
NormalUse
53.3
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
27.2
medium 31.0
low
41.8
37.3 ± 27
Flooding
39.5
60.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
high
40.2
low
59.8
5.02 ± 5.9
* Supply Quantity
morethan210Lpd 64.4
from70to210Lpd
18.7
lessthan70Lpd
16.9
228 ± 120
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
50.0
no
50.0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
22.0
low
78.0
4.7 ± 4.8
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
55.0
inadequate
45.0
210 ± 120
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
50.0
inadequate
50.0
1.35 ± 1.6
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel 49.7
belowWHOlevel 50.3
3.98 ± 2.9
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable
45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water Quantity
high
42.6
adequate
24.2
inadequate 33.2
Water Quality
good
36.4
moderate
17.8
poor
45.8
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
48.2
sufficient
20.1
insufficient
31.7
# Other Pollutants
high 50.0
low
50.0
2.25 ± 1.5
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
EasyToChange
DifficultToChange
al Customs/Culture
50.0
ial
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
50.0
Kongulai Model
Government Management
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
33.3
nochange 33.3
drier
33.3
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Catchment Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
Logging Area
high
44.2
medium 21.2
low
34.5
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
yes
no
* Runoff Quantity
high
53.1
medium 20.4
low
26.6
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
Agriculture
high
33.3
medium 33.3
low
33.3
Rainfall
high
41.3
moderate 27.7
low
31.0
160 ± 89
# Household Demand/Usage
Overuse
46.7
NormalUse
53.3
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
27.2
medium 31.0
low
41.8
37.3 ± 27
Flooding
39.5
60.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
high
40.2
low
59.8
5.02 ± 5.9
* Supply Quantity
morethan210Lpd 64.4
from70to210Lpd
18.7
lessthan70Lpd
16.9
228 ± 120
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
50.0
no
50.0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
22.0
low
78.0
4.7 ± 4.8
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
55.0
inadequate
45.0
210 ± 120
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
50.0
inadequate
50.0
1.35 ± 1.6
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel
49.7
belowWHOlevel
50.3
3.98 ± 2.9
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Water Quantity
high
42.6
adequate
24.2
inadequate 33.2
Water Quality
good
36.4
moderate
17.8
poor
45.8
# Other Pollutants
high 50.0
low
50.0
2.25 ± 1.5
Supply
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable 45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
48.2
sufficient
20.1
insufficient
31.7
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
EasyToChange
DifficultToChange
al Customs/Culture
50.0
ial
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
50.0
Kongulai Model
Government Management
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
33.3
nochange 33.3
drier
33.3
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Catchment Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
Logging Area
high
44.2
medium 21.2
low
34.5
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
yes
no
* Runoff Quantity
high
53.1
medium 20.4
low
26.6
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
Agriculture
high
33.3
medium 33.3
low
33.3
Rainfall
high
41.3
moderate 27.7
low
31.0
160 ± 89
# Household Demand/Usage
Overuse
46.7
NormalUse
53.3
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
27.2
medium 31.0
low
41.8
37.3 ± 27
Flooding
39.5
60.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
high
40.2
low
59.8
5.02 ± 5.9
* Supply Quantity
morethan210Lpd 64.4
from70to210Lpd
18.7
lessthan70Lpd
16.9
228 ± 120
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
50.0
no
50.0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
22.0
low
78.0
4.7 ± 4.8
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
55.0
inadequate
45.0
210 ± 120
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
90.0
inadequate
10.0
2.35 ± 1.5
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel
18.9
belowWHOlevel
81.1
2.44 ± 2.3
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Water Quantity
high
42.6
adequate
24.2
inadequate 33.2
Water Quality
good
53.2
moderate
16.8
poor
30.0
# Other Pollutants
high 50.0
low
50.0
2.25 ± 1.5
Supply
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable 45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
51.1
sufficient
19.4
insufficient
29.5
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
EasyToChange
DifficultToChange
al Customs/Culture
50.0
ial
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
50.0
Kongulai Model
Government Management
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
33.3
nochange 33.3
drier
33.3
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Catchment Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
Logging Area
high
44.2
medium 21.2
low
34.5
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
yes
no
* Runoff Quantity
high
53.1
medium 20.4
low
26.6
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
Agriculture
high
33.3
medium 33.3
low
33.3
Rainfall
high
41.3
moderate 27.7
low
31.0
160 ± 89
# Household Demand/Usage
Overuse
46.7
NormalUse
53.3
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
27.2
medium 31.0
low
41.8
37.3 ± 27
Flooding
39.5
60.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
high
40.2
low
59.8
5.02 ± 5.9
* Supply Quantity
morethan210Lpd 64.4
from70to210Lpd
18.7
lessthan70Lpd
16.9
228 ± 120
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
50.0
no
50.0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
22.0
low
78.0
4.7 ± 4.8
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
55.0
inadequate
45.0
210 ± 120
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
90.0
inadequate
10.0
2.35 ± 1.5
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel
18.9
belowWHOlevel
81.1
2.44 ± 2.3
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Water Quantity
high
42.6
adequate
24.2
inadequate 33.2
Water Quality
good
53.2
moderate
16.8
poor
30.0
# Other Pollutants
high 50.0
low
50.0
2.25 ± 1.5
Supply
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable 45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
51.1
sufficient
19.4
insufficient
29.5
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
EasyToChange
DifficultToChange
al Customs/Culture
50.0
ial
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
50.0
Kongulai Model
Government Management
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
33.3
nochange 33.3
drier
33.3
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Catchment Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
Logging Area
high
44.2
medium 21.2
low
34.5
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
yes
no
* Runoff Quantity
high
53.1
medium 20.4
low
26.6
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
Agriculture
high
33.3
medium 33.3
low
33.3
Rainfall
high
41.3
moderate 27.7
low
31.0
160 ± 89
# Household Demand/Usage
Overuse
46.7
NormalUse
53.3
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
27.2
medium 31.0
low
41.8
37.3 ± 27
Flooding
39.5
60.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
high
40.2
low
59.8
5.02 ± 5.9
* Supply Quantity
morethan210Lpd 64.4
from70to210Lpd
18.7
lessthan70Lpd
16.9
228 ± 120
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
50.0
no
50.0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
22.0
low
78.0
4.7 ± 4.8
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
55.0
inadequate
45.0
210 ± 120
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
90.0
inadequate
10.0
2.35 ± 1.5
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel
18.9
belowWHOlevel
81.1
2.44 ± 2.3
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Water Quantity
high
42.6
adequate
24.2
inadequate 33.2
Water Quality
good
72.0
moderate
10.9
poor
17.1
# Other Pollutants
high
0
low
100
1 ± 0.58
Supply
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable 45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
53.7
sufficient
18.7
insufficient
27.5
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
EasyToChange
DifficultToChange
al Customs/Culture
50.0
ial
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
50.0
Kongulai Model
Government Management
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
33.3
nochange 33.3
drier
33.3
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Catchment Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
Logging Area
high
44.2
medium 21.2
low
34.5
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
yes
no
* Runoff Quantity
high
53.1
medium 20.4
low
26.6
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
Agriculture
high
33.3
medium 33.3
low
33.3
Rainfall
high
41.3
moderate 27.7
low
31.0
160 ± 89
# Household Demand/Usage
Overuse
46.7
NormalUse
53.3
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
27.2
medium 31.0
low
41.8
37.3 ± 27
Flooding
39.5
60.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
high
40.2
low
59.8
5.02 ± 5.9
* Supply Quantity
morethan210Lpd 64.4
from70to210Lpd
18.7
lessthan70Lpd
16.9
228 ± 120
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
50.0
no
50.0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
22.0
low
78.0
4.7 ± 4.8
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
55.0
inadequate
45.0
210 ± 120
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
90.0
inadequate
10.0
2.35 ± 1.5
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel
18.9
belowWHOlevel
81.1
2.44 ± 2.3
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Water Quantity
high
42.6
adequate
24.2
inadequate 33.2
Water Quality
good
72.0
moderate
10.9
poor
17.1
# Other Pollutants
high
0
low
100
1 ± 0.58
Supply
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable 45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
53.7
sufficient
18.7
insufficient
27.5
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
EasyToChange
DifficultToChange
al Customs/Culture
50.0
ial
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
50.0
Kongulai Model
Government Management
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
33.3
nochange 33.3
drier
33.3
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Catchment Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
Logging Area
high
44.2
medium 21.2
low
34.5
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
yes
no
* Runoff Quantity
high
53.1
medium 20.4
low
26.6
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
Agriculture
high
33.3
medium 33.3
low
33.3
Rainfall
high
41.3
moderate 27.7
low
31.0
160 ± 89
# Household Demand/Usage
Overuse
46.7
NormalUse
53.3
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
27.2
medium 31.0
low
41.8
37.3 ± 27
Flooding
39.5
60.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
high
40.2
low
59.8
5.02 ± 5.9
* Supply Quantity
morethan210Lpd 72.0
from70to210Lpd
14.3
lessthan70Lpd
13.8
244 ± 110
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
100
no
0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
10.0
low
90.0
3.5 ± 3.6
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
55.0
inadequate
45.0
210 ± 120
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
90.0
inadequate
10.0
2.35 ± 1.5
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel
18.9
belowWHOlevel
81.1
2.44 ± 2.3
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Water Quantity
high
45.1
adequate
23.8
inadequate 31.0
Water Quality
good
78.5
moderate
8.13
poor
13.3
# Other Pollutants
high
0
low
100
1 ± 0.58
Supply
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable 45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
56.1
sufficient
18.2
insufficient
25.6
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
EasyToChange
DifficultToChange
al Customs/Culture
50.0
ial
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
50.0
Kongulai Model
Government Management
effective
84.8
ineffective
15.2
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
33.3
nochange 33.3
drier
33.3
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
yes
no
* Runoff Quantity
high
53.1
medium 20.4
low
26.6
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
# Household Demand/Usage
Overuse
46.7
NormalUse
53.3
Catchment Population Increase
high
41.3
low
58.7
2.74 ± 1.7
Agriculture
high
0
medium
0
low
100
Rainfall
high
41.3
moderate 27.7
low
31.0
160 ± 89
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
Logging Area
high
0
medium
0
low
100
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
11.7
medium 22.5
low
65.8
25.4 ± 22
Flooding
39.5
60.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
high
31.5
low
68.5
4.15 ± 5.5
* Supply Quantity
morethan210Lpd 72.0
from70to210Lpd
14.3
lessthan70Lpd
13.8
244 ± 110
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
100
no
0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
10.0
low
90.0
3.5 ± 3.6
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
57.9
inadequate
42.1
216 ± 110
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
90.0
inadequate
10.0
2.35 ± 1.5
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel
18.6
belowWHOlevel
81.4
2.43 ± 2.3
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Water Quantity
high
45.1
adequate
23.8
inadequate 31.0
Water Quality
good
78.7
moderate
8.06
poor
13.2
# Other Pollutants
high
0
low
100
1 ± 0.58
Supply
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable 45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
56.2
sufficient
18.2
insufficient
25.6
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
DifficultToChange
Customs/Culture
50.0
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
Kongulai Model
Government Management
effective
84.8
ineffective
15.2
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
33.3
nochange 33.3
drier
33.3
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
Logging Area
high
0
medium
0
low
100
Agriculture
high
0
medium
0
low
100
Rainfall
high
41.3
moderate
27.7
low
31.0
160 ± 89
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
Catchment Population Increase
high
41.3
low
58.7
2.74 ± 1.7
yes
no
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
11.7
medium 22.5
low
65.8
25.4 ± 22
Flooding
39.5
60.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
31.5
68.5
4.15 ± 5.5
high
* Runoff Quantity
low
high
53.1
medium
20.4
low
26.6
* Supply Quantity
72.0
# Household Demand/Usage morethan210Lpd
Overuse
46.7
from70to210Lpd
14.3
NormalUse
53.3
lessthan70Lpd
13.8
244 ± 110
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
100
no
0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
10.0
low
90.0
3.5 ± 3.6
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
57.9
inadequate
42.1
216 ± 110
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
90.0
inadequate
10.0
2.35 ± 1.5
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel
18.6
belowWHOlevel
81.4
2.43 ± 2.3
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Water Quantity
high
45.1
adequate
23.8
inadequate
31.0
Water Quality
good
78.7
moderate
8.06
poor
13.2
# Other Pollutants
high
0
low
100
1 ± 0.58
upply
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable 45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
56.2
sufficient
18.2
insufficient
25.6
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
EasyToChange
DifficultToChange
al Customs/Culture
50.0
ial
50.0
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
50.0
Kongulai Model
Government Management
effective
84.8
ineffective
15.2
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
75.8
nochange 21.0
drier
3.23
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Geological Change
Recent
50.0
NotRecent 50.0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
50.0
infrequent
50.0
# Urban Population Increase
high
50.0
low
50.0
3 ± 1.7
# Water Use Awareness
high
50.0
low
50.0
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
Electricity
Discontinuous 50.0
Continuous
50.0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
54.0
poor
46.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
Logging Area
high
0
medium
0
low
100
Agriculture
high
0
medium
0
low
100
Rainfall
high
100
moderate
0
low
0
250 ± 29
* Sinks and Springs
blocked 35.8
clear
64.2
Catchment Population Increase
high
41.3
low
58.7
2.74 ± 1.7
yes
no
Sanitation
adequate
50.0
inadequate 50.0
50 ± 29
Soil Erosion
high
11.7
medium 22.5
low
65.8
25.4 ± 22
Flooding
78.3
21.7
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
50.3
49.7
6.03 ± 6.2
high
* Runoff Quantity
low
high
72.8
medium
10.6
low
16.6
* Supply Quantity
80.1
# Household Demand/Usage morethan210Lpd
Overuse
46.7
from70to210Lpd
10.9
NormalUse
53.3
lessthan70Lpd
9.01
263 ± 100
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
100
no
0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
10.0
low
90.0
3.5 ± 3.6
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
57.9
inadequate
42.1
216 ± 110
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
90.0
inadequate
10.0
2.35 ± 1.5
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel
18.6
belowWHOlevel
81.4
2.43 ± 2.3
Leakage and Losses
high
51.7
low
48.3
35.5 ± 18
Access/Availability of Water
good
54.0
poor
46.0
Water Quantity
high
48.2
adequate
23.7
inadequate
28.1
Water Quality
good
78.7
moderate
8.06
poor
13.2
# Other Pollutants
high
0
low
100
1 ± 0.58
Supply
* Price of Water
high 42.1
low
57.9
1.59 ± 1.1
Affordability
Affordable
54.7
Unaffordable 45.3
4.23 ± 3
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
58.3
sufficient
17.7
insufficient
24.0
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
ustomary
50.0
EasyToChange
DifficultToChange
ditional Customs/Culture
ntial
50.0
nfluential
50.0
Royalty Payments
regular
50.0
irregular 50.0
Climate Variability
wetter
0
nochange
0
drier
100
Geological Change
Recent
100
NotRecent
0
Social Disputes (e.g. land, ethnic)
frequent
58.6
infrequent
41.4
0
100
Electricity
Discontinuous
100
Continuous
0
* Dependability of Hh Supply
good
12.0
poor
88.0
* Cost of Treatment and Infrastructure
high
50.0
low
50.0
Cost of Supply
68.3
31.7
* Price of Water
high 61.1
low
38.9
1.97 ± 1.2
Agriculture
high
100
medium
0
low
0
yes
no
* Runoff Quantity
high
17.7
medium 27.2
low
55.1
Maintenance
Regular
50.0
Irregular 50.0
# Household Demand/Usage
Overuse
76.7
NormalUse
23.3
Catchment Population Increase
high
100
low
0
4.5 ± 0.87
Logging Area
high
100
medium
0
low
0
Rainfall
high
4.00
moderate 24.0
low
72.0
82 ± 62
# Urban Population Increase
high
100
low
0
* Sinks and Springs
4.5 ± 0.87
blocked
100
clear
0
# Water Use Awareness
high
low
Pessimistic
scenario
Government Management
effective
19.2
ineffective
80.8
Lease Agreement/ Management Partnership
effective
50.0
ineffective
50.0
me
city
Land Tenure Recognition
agreed
50.0
disputed
50.0
50.0
50.0
Sanitation
adequate
0
inadequate
100
25 ± 14
Soil Erosion
high
60.0
medium 23.3
low
16.7
55.8 ± 28
Flooding
11.5
88.5
* Runoff Quality (Sediment )
high
37.6
low
62.4
4.76 ± 5.8
* Supply Quantity
morethan210Lpd 49.7
from70to210Lpd
22.5
lessthan70Lpd
27.8
193 ± 130
* Treatment (Settling)
yes
50.0
no
50.0
* Supply Quality (Sediment)
high
21.3
low
78.7
4.63 ± 4.7
Animal waste
high 50.0
low
50.0
* Runoff Quality (Microbial)
adequate
6.67
inadequate
93.3
113 ± 76
* Treatment (Chlorination)
adequate
0
inadequate
100
0.1 ± 0.058
* Supply Quality (Microbial)
aboveWHOlevel 89.8
belowWHOlevel 10.2
5.99 ± 2.5
Leakage and Losses
high
61.7
low
38.3
38.5 ± 17
Access/Availability of Water
good
12.0
poor
88.0
Affordability
Affordable
46.2
Unaffordable 53.8
3.81 ± 2.9
Water Quantity
high
26.4
adequate
25.3
inadequate 48.4
Water Quality
good
14.5
moderate 19.3
poor
66.2
Water for Human Survival
morethansufficient
34.1
sufficient
20.9
insufficient
45.0
# Other Pollutants
high 50.0
low
50.0
2.25 ± 1.5
Environment/ Ecosystem Health
good
33.3
moderate
33.3
poor
33.3
www.sci.monash.edu
Sensitivity Analysis: Risk Prioritization
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Water Quantity
Supply Quantity
Water Quality
Sediment in Supply
Affordability
Runoff Quantity
Demand/Use/Overuse
Microbes in Water Supply
Supply Dependability
Access/Availability
Leakage/Unaccounted Losses
Electricity
Treatment (Chlorination)
Household Income
Supply Price
Sinks/Springs
Infrastructure Maintenance
Other Pollutants
Treatment (Settling)
Supply Cost
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Sediment in Runoff
Urban Population Increase
Employment
Rainfall
Water Use Awareness
Soil Erosion
Electricity Cost
Education
Climate Variability
Geological Change
Treatment Cost
Social Disputes
Logging
Runoff Microbial
Management
Catchment Population Increase
Sanitation
Agriculture
Flooding
Animal Waste
Policy
Problem
Formulation
Review
Consequences
(Effects)
Risk Characterization
Iterative Process
(Adaptive Management)
Likelihood
(Exposure)
Iterative Process
(Model Development)
Quantitative Risk Analysis
Monitoring
Risk Management
www.sci.monash.edu
Key Outcomes
 Consensus on how the catchment worked
 Working model, in adoption, with staff
capability
- ability to illustrate scenarios and compare “what could
happen?” and “what should happen?” and estimate
likelihood
 Initial evidence base for system improvement,
funding applications
 New activity proposals
- Skill building (mentored project at another catchment)
- Hydrology study (fill key knowledge gap)
- Settling tank
www.sci.monash.edu
Key Outcomes
 New uses
– communication with wider community
– health promotion/education
– policy discussion
 Strengthened government relationships
– Water Resources, SIWA, Health (not Lands)
 Opened government-landowner relationships
 Mobilised landowner interest and motivation
 Capacity building
– Government: participatory processes, risk assessment,
modelling
– Community: catchment understanding,
engagement/communication with government
Policy
Problem
Formulation
Review
Consequences
(Effects)
Risk Characterization
Iterative Process
(Adaptive Management)
Likelihood
(Exposure)
Iterative Process
(Model Development)
Quantitative Risk Analysis
Monitoring
Risk Management
www.sci.monash.edu
Summary
 Multi/Inter-disciplinary: represent complex
systems, combine demographic, social,
economic as well as environmental factors
 Quantitative: Tools that allow us to identify
which impacts are most important to
communities/stakeholders
 Participatory: Allow better representation of
stakeholder views (including the role of women
and children)
www.sci.monash.edu
Summary
 Multi/Inter-disciplinary: represent complex
systems, combine demographic, social,
economic as well as environmental factors
 Quantitative: Tools that allow us to identify
which impacts are most important to
communities/stakeholders
 Participatory: Allow better representation of
stakeholder views (including the role of women
and children)
Chan et al., 2010, Water Resources Research 46 DOI:10.1029/2009wr008848
Chan et al., 2010, River Research and Applications 26 DOI: (tba).
www.sci.monash.edu
Other Examples
 Kongulai Catchment, Guadalcanal,
Solomon Islands
 Daly River Catchment, Northern Territory,
Australia
 Yarra, Latrobe, Loddon, Agnes, Franklin
and Woori Yallock River Catchments,
Victoria, Australia
www.sci.monash.edu
www.sci.monash.edu
Water and Carbon
Management Program
Integrated
Forest
Knowledge
Catchment Management Management
Management
Ciliwung
River,
Indonesia
Mahanadi
River,
India
Red
River,
Vietnam
Capacity
Building
www.sci.monash.edu
Water and Carbon
Management Program
Integrated
Forest
Knowledge
Catchment Management Management
Management
Ciliwung
River,
Indonesia
Mahanadi
River,
India
Red
River,
Vietnam
Capacity
Building
www.sci.monash.edu
Water and Carbon
Management Program
Integrated
Forest
Knowledge
Catchment Management Management
Management
Ciliwung
River,
Indonesia
Mahanadi
River,
India
Red
River,
Vietnam
Capacity
Building
Lower catchment:
dense residential
(JAKARTA )
Ciliwung Catchment
Area: 37,472 ha
Forest area: 3709 ha
Population: 1,892,980
Density 5.100 people/km2
Middle catchment:
dense residential
(cities of Bogor,
Cibinong, Depok)
Upper catchment:
Forests/parks, plantations
DAS Ciliwung 2003, IPB and DAS CC
Lower catchment:
dense residential
(JAKARTA )
Middle catchment:
dense residential
(cities of Bogor,
Cibinong, Depok)
Upper catchment:
Forests/parks,
tea plantations
Ciliwung Catchment
Area: 37,472 ha
Forest area: 3709 ha
Population: 1,892,980
Density 5.100 people/km2
Ciliwung Conceptual Diagram
Education
Leadership
Community
Pressure
Political
Decisions
Funding
Topography/Slope
Natural
Forest Area
Urban
Area
Revegetation
Microdams
Forest
CATCHMENT
Area
CHARACTERISTICS
Land
Degradation
SOCIO-ECONOMIC/
MANAGEMENT FACTORS
Population
Density
Jurisdictional
Uncertainty
Bioretention
Tea Plantation
Area
Commonly
Owned Land
Terracing
Equivalent
Urban Area
Climate Change
Scenarios
Equivalent
Common Land
Likelihood
Of Event
Average Catchment
Imperviousness
Precipitation
Volume
SurfaceStorage
Infiltration1
Precipitation
Event Frequency
SurfaceFlow
SubsurfaceStorage
Erodability
Infiltration2
SubsurfaceFlow
IntermediateStorage
Sanitation
Infiltration3
IntermediateFlow
CATCHMENT
PROCESSES
SubBaseFlowStorage
Infiltration4
SubBaseFlow
BaseFlowStorage
BaseFlow
TDML_Sediment
TDML_E_Coli
Cost To
Fisheries
Cost Of
Dredging
Cost Of
Health Impacts
Nutrients
IMPACTS/OBJECTIVES
Cost Of Poor
Water Quality
Overall
Cost
Flood
Magnitude
Toxic
Pollutants
Cost Of
Flooding
Cost To
Infrastructure
Cost To
Agriculture
Area of Land
Inundated
Flood
Frequency
Ecosystem
Health
www.sci.monash.edu
Hydrological
modelling
www.sci.monash.edu
Hydrological modelling
Education
Leadership
Community
Pressure
Political
Decisions
Funding
Topography/Slope
Example Causal Chain
Population
Density
Jurisdictional
Uncertainty
Urban
Area
Natural
Forest Area
Revegetation
Bioretention
Microdams
Forest
Area
Commonly
Owned Land
Terracing
Equivalent
Urban Area
Tea Plantation
Area
Ciliwung River
Catchment,
Indonesia
Climate Change
Scenarios
Equivalent
Common Land
Likelihood
Of Event
Land
Degradation
Average Catchment
Imperviousness
Precipitation
Volume
SurfaceStorage
Infiltration1
Precipitation
Event Frequency
SurfaceFlow
SubsurfaceStorage
Erodability
Infiltration2
SubsurfaceFlow
IntermediateStorage
Sanitation
Infiltration3
IntermediateFlow
SubBaseFlowStorage
Infiltration4
SubBaseFlow
BaseFlowStorage
BaseFlow
TDML_Sediment
TDML_E_Coli
Cost Of
Health Impacts
Nutrients
Cost To
Infrastructure
Cost To
Fisheries
Cost Of
Dredging
Flood
Magnitude
Toxic
Pollutants
Cost Of Poor
Water Quality
Overall
Cost
Cost Of
Flooding
Cost To
Agriculture
Area of Land
Inundated
Flood
Frequency
Ecosystem
Health
Education
Leadership
Community
Pressure
Political
Decisions
Funding
Topography/Slope
Population Density
LessThanCurrent 33.3
Current
33.3
MoreThanCurrent 33.3
Jurisdictional
Uncertainty
Urban
Area
Natural
Forest Area
Revegetation
Bioretention
Microdams
Forest
Area
Ciliwung
Bayesian
Network
Tea Plantation
Area
Commonly
Owned Land
Terracing
Equivalent
Urban Area
Climate Change
Scenarios
Equivalent
Common Land
Likelihood
Of Event
Land
Degradation
Average Catchment
Imperviousness
Precipitation
Volume
SurfaceStorage
Infiltration1
Precipitation
Event Frequency
SurfaceFlow
SubsurfaceStorage
Erodability
Sanitation
Low
33.3
Medium 33.3
High
33.3
63.3 ± 31
Infiltration2
SubsurfaceFlow
IntermediateStorage
Infiltration3
IntermediateFlow
SubBaseFlowStorage
Infiltration4
SubBaseFlow
BaseFlowStorage
BaseFlow
TDML_E_Coli
Low
39.4
TDML_Sediment
Medium 33.0
High
27.6
Cost To
Fisheries
Cost Of
Dredging
Cost Of Health Impacts
Low
50.1
Nutrients
Medium
19.9
High
30.0
Flood
Magnitude
Toxic
Pollutants
Overall Cost
Cost Of Poor Water Quality
Low
23.4
Cost Of
Low
39.5
Medium 34.7
Flooding
Medium
30.0
High
41.9
High
30.5
2.68e9 ± 8.4e8
Cost To
Infrastructure
Cost To
Agriculture
Area of Land
Inundated
Flood
Frequency
Ecosystem
Health
Education
Leadership
Community
Pressure
Political
Decisions
Funding
Topography/Slope
Population Density
LessThanCurrent
0
Current
0
MoreThanCurrent
100
Jurisdictional
Uncertainty
Urban
Area
Natural
Forest Area
Revegetation
Bioretention
Microdams
Forest
Area
Ciliwung
Bayesian
Network
Tea Plantation
Area
Commonly
Owned Land
Terracing
Equivalent
Urban Area
Climate Change
Scenarios
Equivalent
Common Land
Likelihood
Of Event
Land
Degradation
Average Catchment
Imperviousness
Precipitation
Volume
SurfaceStorage
Infiltration1
Precipitation
Event Frequency
SurfaceFlow
SubsurfaceStorage
Erodability
Sanitation
Low
100
Medium
0
High
0
25 ± 14
Infiltration2
SubsurfaceFlow
IntermediateStorage
Infiltration3
IntermediateFlow
SubBaseFlowStorage
Infiltration4
SubBaseFlow
BaseFlowStorage
BaseFlow
TDML_E_Coli
Low
6.67
TDML_Sediment
Medium 20.0
High
73.3
Cost To
Fisheries
Cost Of
Dredging
Cost Of Health Impacts
Low
17.7
Nutrients
Medium
16.0
High
66.3
Flood
Magnitude
Toxic
Pollutants
Overall Cost
Cost Of Poor Water Quality
Low
17.6
Cost Of
Low
27.6
Medium 32.1
Flooding
Medium
28.7
High
50.2
High
43.7
2.83e9 ± 8.1e8
Cost To
Infrastructure
Cost To
Agriculture
Area of Land
Inundated
Flood
Frequency
Ecosystem
Health
Education
Leadership
Community
Pressure
Political
Decisions
Funding
Topography/Slope
Population Density
LessThanCurrent
100
Current
0
MoreThanCurrent
0
Jurisdictional
Uncertainty
Urban
Area
Natural
Forest Area
Revegetation
Bioretention
Microdams
Forest
Area
Ciliwung
Bayesian
Network
Tea Plantation
Area
Commonly
Owned Land
Terracing
Equivalent
Urban Area
Climate Change
Scenarios
Equivalent
Common Land
Likelihood
Of Event
Land
Degradation
Average Catchment
Imperviousness
Precipitation
Volume
SurfaceStorage
Infiltration1
Precipitation
Event Frequency
SurfaceFlow
SubsurfaceStorage
Erodability
Sanitation
Low
0
Medium
0
High
100
95 ± 2.9
Infiltration2
SubsurfaceFlow
IntermediateStorage
Infiltration3
IntermediateFlow
SubBaseFlowStorage
Infiltration4
SubBaseFlow
BaseFlowStorage
BaseFlow
TDML_E_Coli
Low
80.0
TDML_Sediment
Medium 20.0
High
0
Cost To
Fisheries
Cost Of
Dredging
Cost Of Health Impacts
Low
80.0
Nutrients
Medium
16.0
High
4.00
Flood
Magnitude
Toxic
Pollutants
Overall Cost
Cost Of Poor Water Quality
Low
28.2
Cost Of
Low
49.4
Medium 36.7
Flooding
Medium
30.8
High
35.1
High
19.8
2.57e9 ± 8.4e8
Cost To
Infrastructure
Cost To
Agriculture
Area of Land
Inundated
Flood
Frequency
Ecosystem
Health
www.sci.monash.edu
On-going Work
 Indonesia: Ciliwung Catchment,
additional spatial planning proposal with
BHP Billiton
 India and Bangladesh: Ganges
Catchment, interdisciplinary workshop in
Kolkata, water and forests
 Vietnam: Red River Catchment, Mekong
Delta
www.sci.monash.edu
Future Work
 Brahmaputra Catchment impacts from
climate change – bringing in Nepal and
Bhutan (IITB, TERI, IDSK, Uni Dhaka,
Khulna Uni, and possibly IITD)
 Climate and hydrology – biophysical and
socio-economic linkages (AISRF)
 Forthcoming AusAID workshop on
international river management –
research and policy
www.sci.monash.edu