ADDRESSING THE WICKED
PROBLEM OF WATER
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
APPROACH
By E. Hearnshaw, J. Tompkins and R. Cullen
Faculty of Commerce, Lincoln University
INTRODUCTION
Increasing water demand in Canterbury for irrigation
 Problem is water resources are scarce:
 Rivers have reached maximum allocation limits
while maintaining acceptable minimum river flows
 Investment in large water storage projects the solution?
 Water storage provides gains to farmers, but can result
in losses to in-stream values
 Gains and losses lead to stakeholder disputes
 Systematic assessment required to ascertain whether
this solution is sustainable

A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION?
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Ecosystem services:
 Used to assess the many values from rivers

The collection of goods and services provided by
ecosystems (e.g. rivers) that provide human well-being

Produced from ecological processes through
‚complex interactions between biotic and abiotic
[factors]‛ (De Groot et al., 2002)
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Agriculture and
water resource
management
HUMAN SYSTEM
Internal ecological
processes of river
Ecosystem services
provided by river
RIVER SYSTEM
External
environmental
processes
Human well-being
for stakeholder
groups
WICKED PROBLEMS

Managing water resources in Canterbury is identified
as a wicked problem (Frame & Russell, 2009)

Wicked problems arise from:
 Stakeholders with conflicting preferences
 Incomplete and contradictory understanding of
complex interactions between numerous factors

Over-simplifying wicked problems leads to
unsustainable solutions
POST-NORMAL SCIENCE
High
Investment stakes
Post-normal
science
Low
PERSPECTIVE
Consultancy
Normal
science
Low
Uncertainties
High
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT
Post-normal science recognizes the impossibility of
transcending perspective to value-free objectivity
 Using many perspectives of ‘scientists’ improves
objectivity towards a common ’factual’ perspective
 Integration between scientists and stakeholders required
 Integrated water resource management provides
greatest promise for sustaining ecosystem services
 Lack of research with methods that aid integration and
accommodate conflict/contradiction, yet remain
quantitative

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INDEX
Missing markets for ecosystem services leave them
undervalued
 Problem usually tackled with non-market valuation
 But, these methods can be costly and time-consuming
 Despite difficulty monetizing ecosystem services,
Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) recognize the need for
‚standardized units of account to measure the value of
ecosystem services‛
 Fortunately, ecosystem services can be assessed by a
utility index; ESI = ∑wnsn

Irrigation
Other Water
Supply Uses
Spiritual Values
Recreational Values
Educational Values
Conservation Values
Regulating Ecosystem
Services
Aesthetic Values
Water Regulation
Water Purification
Pest Regulation
Natural Hazard
Regulation
Provisioning Ecosystem
Services
Erosion Control
Disease Regulation
Climate Regulation
Water Supply
Food
Fibre
Biological Products
Abiotic Products
MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS
Ecosystem Services Index
Cultural Ecosystem
Services
tic
Pr
o
du
ct
s
Fi
br
e
W
Fo
D
a
is
ea ter od
Su
se
N
at
Re pp
ur
Er
l
g
al
os ula y
H
az ion tion
ar
C
o
d
Re ntr
ol
Pe
g
st ula
W
Re tio
at
er gul n
a
W Pur tio
n
i
at
er fica
t
A Reg ion
e
u
s
C
on the lati
t
o
se
i
rv c V n
Ed ati alu
uc on
es
a
Re tio Val
u
n
cr
ea al V es
tio
al
ue
n
Sp al
s
iri Va
lu
tu
e
al
V s
al
ue
s
bi
o
A
Preferential Weight
PREFERENTIAL WEIGHTS
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
CONFLICT
Stakeholder representatives placed into 4 groups:
 Steering Group
 Water Consumers Group
 Water Conservators Group
 Government Group
 Non-parametric statistical tests to be used to assess
potential conflicts in preferential weights

Friedman’s Q statistic
37.622
Significance
<0.001
N
6
GRAPHS & CONTRADICTION
GRAPH ANALYSIS & UTILITY SCORES

Graph analysis with and without water storage project:
 Static graph analysis indicates utility scores by
centrality index
 Centrality: Li = id(Ci) + od(Ci)

Dynamic graph analysis indicates utility scores by
simulated activation values
a1
e1
e2
a2
n
f
INPUTS
an
j 1
a3
NODE
e3
a4
e4
en
OUTPUTS
SUSTAINABILITY
Weak sustainability:
 Indicated by non-declining ecosystem services
index with water storage project
 Strong sustainability:
 ‚... minimum quantity of ecosystem processes ...
required to maintain a well-functioning ecosystem‛
(Fisher et al., 2009)
 Indicated by targets met with water storage project
 e.g. native fish population shows no decrease
(CWMS, 2010)
 Lexicographic method applied for assessment

CONCLUSION

Novel approach to address the wicked problem of
water resource management

Indicates conflicts in preferences and contradictions
in understanding to aid integration

Systematic assessment will indicate the sustainability
of rivers impacted by water storage projects