Content uploaded by J.G. Timmerman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by J.G. Timmerman on Aug 20, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
J.J. Ottens', J.G. Timmerman
1
, B. van der Grift
2
and Th. Sprenger
3
PROSPECTS FOR THE USE OF INDICATORS IN WATER
MANAGEMENT
Despite dear benefits, indicators are not commonly used in water management yct.
In this study, we will not summarise their benefits as many papers have done beforc, but we
will try to demonstrate that supposed barriers that prevented the use of indicators so far are
ncither present nor valid any longer. Moreover, we try to demonstrate a step-wise approach or
a checklist of prerequisites that, when followed, can facilitatc the use and/or selection of
indicators.
A framework is also presented which helps in the tailor-made selection and
developmcnt of indicators and which links differcnt approaches like, for example, function
orientcd or policy oriented development of indicators.
Lastly it is recommended to start implementation of the use of indicators in
concordance with on-going optirnisation cfforts of information collection systems, since the
prcsentcd approach closely follows a recent methodology to specify information needs that
can be used to set up any information collection system.
Introduction
The need for tailor-made information for water management becomes
more urgent with growing fiows of information, since more data from different
disciplines are combined and the exchange of water data between organisations
increascs. Policy makers and water management bodies are also being
increasingly challenged to cope with conflicting interests resulting from pressures
brought upon ecological and drinking water supply functions of their waters [8]
[14]. A !argc part of the information needed comes from environmental
monitoring nctworks and systems. However, they have been set up in the past
for a variety of purposes, but they have generally not been designed to contribute
to a synthesis on a higher scale nor have they been designed to analyse the
cross-! inkages different environmcntal qua!ity aspects, impacts and socio-
economie driving forces [1].
lnstitutc for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment, RIZA, P0 Box 17, 8200
AA Lelystad, the Netherlands.
KIWA Research & Consultancy, P0 Box 1072, 3430 Nicuwcgein, the Netherlands.
BKH consulting engineers. P0 Box 5094, 2600 GB Delft, the Netherlands.
311
Monitoring networks should therefore enhance their capacity to tailor
the inonitoring objectives to the apparent information needs of policy makers
and water management bodies and analyse the resulting information in a way
that is relevant to policy. This will inciude a synthesis and appreciation of the
information in an integrated way. The use of indicators and indices will help in
the integrated assessment as well as in the specification of information needs
before setting monitoring objectives.
Regarding this, the question arises: "Why is it not common practice yet
to use indicators and indices in water management?" To enablc a discussion on
the prospects of indicator use in water management, the accessoiy answers or
hypotheses of this question have to be tested. In this study we will focus on the
following hypotheses why indicators are not used / implemented yet:
There is a general confusion on what indicators are.
There is a lack of knowledge and cxperiencc on possibilitics and lirnitations
of indicators.
The difficulty with specifying information nccds alone prcvents the usc of
indicators, since you have to specify your infonnation needs before indicators
are uscful.
Every organisation develops its own indicators based on their own conceptual
frameworks.
While testing these hypotheses and statements we hope to come to a
realistic view of the prospects for the use of indicators and tinally we hope to
state sorne recommendations on how indicators can hecome more casily and
progressively implemented within water management.
Hypothesis testing
What are indicators?
To enable an effectivc communication on indicators, definitions of
indicators and indices have to be stated explicitly and agreement on this has to
be reached. Here we will follow already existing definitions of indicators.
An indicator can be dcfined as a piece of information that is part of the
management process and has been assigned a significance beyond its face valuc
[1]. The construction of an indicator is a means of achieving a reduction in data
volume, while retaining significance for particular questions. An example of an
indicator is chlorophyll concentration in relation to the issue of eutrophication,
but also an indicator-species as the beaver in the River Elbe, which is related to
the issues of dispersion of toxins and fragmentation and to the functions
"ecosystem" and "biodiversity".
312
When further aggregatcd, the term index is used. An index can be a set
of aggrcgated or weighted parameters or indicators describing a situation [9].
Opposed to this type of index construction is the selection of a single-parameter
(an indicator species like for instance the salmon for the River Rhine) from a
multitude of variables that satisfies the criteria of an indicator [4].
Between indices and single-parameter-indicators are sets of indicators
or environmental profiles. A profllc consists of a number of harmonised single-
pararneter-indicators that together represent a larger issue, for example the
AMOEBA approach [2]. The distinction between indicator and index is mainly
based on a difference of aggregation level.
In this study, indicative methods, which are often placed within
indicators, are explicitly excluded (Figure 1). Indicative methods such as
bioassays are rnostly uscd as an operational tool to measure the effects of the
presence of certain substances in water or disturbances of the ecosystem.
Wd
Informdion
tnformction utiIisaticn
Informdion strc'j- Monitcing ne4wor
Ddacndysis ]
Mocids
Kn
systems
Other sources
Figure 1.Sources of information, after [12] [17].
Like substances or parameters, they have no part in a specific
management process, although they can measure changes in environmental
pressures and states of the environment. While selecting indicators, a choice
regarding the information collection method still has to he made, whereas
313
indicative methods are a part of the measurement systern in place. However, the
use of indicative methods requires a specified information need in terms of effccts
rather than the currently used parameter lists for monitoring.
What are the possibilities and limitations or prerequisites of indicators?
Possibi/ities
Indicators can be helpful in various ways. Their role can be in very
general tcrms: communication and presentation, simplification, quantification,
ordering, and allowing for comparison of different regions and aspects. More
specifically, indicators can be used in water management:
to report the state of the environment;
to evaluate the effectivcness ofpolicy measures;
to compare between countries/rcgions or between functions/uses;
as a communication tool between policy makers, monitors' and the public.
Indicators can be very useful tools in integrated water management.
They provide information about the interaction of water systems with other
cornpartmcnts of the environment. Also, they can help to manage the complex
of interests that resuits from conflicts between different functions and uses.
They can supply the exact information needcd for the different stages of
developmcnt of environmental problcms, they can include causes and effects,
and their interactions. Indicators can capture not only the quality of the
environment itself, but also the forces that change the environment. Lastly, they
can help when translating management information needs into monitoring
obj ecti ves.
Limitations or prerequisites
In order to fully cxploit the possibilitics of indicators, somc conditions
have to be satisfied. Indicators need to be part of a larger general framework.
They have to be related to a specific purpose or process and one has to know in
what stage of development the process is. The choice of indicators has to be
tailor-made, i.e. tailored to its scale (spatial or in time), tailored to its aim, and
tailored towards specific processes in the systern.
To facilitate the use of indicators, they can be classified according to
different aspects. This again enables a more tailor-made choice of indicators per
system and allows for a valid combination of indicators into an index.
Mainly, this classification systern is three dimensional and includes the
following aspects: usc/function, subjcct/issue, and position in the causality chain.
314
use/function
Use as early warning, general policy or scientific research clearly requires
different sets of indicators. Also, the developmental stage of the general
environmental policy (policy life cycle, Figure 2)
[15]
[16] determines the
type of indicator needed. Sorne examples of functions or uses are industrial
water, resource for drinking water, nature and recreation.
subject/issue
Indicators can be linked to, or describc cornpartments of the environment such
as air or water. They can also describe issues like acidification or cutrophication.
Classification by theme has the advantagc that the resulting information can
bc directly linked to political issues. It also facilitates co-operation in water
management internationally, when working with a common international list
of environmental issues. The disadvantage of a classification based on issues
is that priorities may diffcr between different countrics and that rapidly changing
priorities may rcsult in too short a life cycle (Figure 2) to allow for enough
time necessary to develop sound indicators.
PoI cy
Adm issio n form ula ti on so lut ion
Cont rol
Poti tical
we ig ht
T
- staci e
[Ii]
Resear ch
Env ir on m enta l beh avio r
Tox ico log ical pr oper t ies
Sur vey s
Mon it orin g - t emp oral t ren ds
spa ti al d ist ibut ion
LIII
II
Com plian ce m onit orin g
Figure 2. Policy life cycle [151 [161.
315
position in causality chain
This classification is based on a stress-response frarnework [6] that originally
dcscribes the ecosystem only. At present, international organisations have
used response to denote societal response. A pressure-state-impact-response
concept is shown in Figure 3 [7].
Socio-eco,wnzic system
response
.-.
Water systern
pressure
state
impact
Figure 3.
PSIR-conccpt [7].
Environmental prcssurc can be direct or indirect. Direct iressurcs are, for
example, emissions or dischargc of poi lutants. Indirect prcssures are related
to socio-economic issues such as population growth and economie
dcve lopment.
The state of the environment describes the quality of the water system and
inciudes both natural aspects, as well as socio-economic aspects. The state
of the system is dependent on the pressure and the vulnerability of the system.
Impact denotes the state while accounting for the function of the system. It
gives information about the effects of pressure expressed as a change of the
state in relation to the denoted function (for example: water quality and/or
quantity dernands neccssaiy to guarantee the sustainability of the function
concerned). Impact indicators can be expresscd in units like the volume of a
specific source, the fraction of a total amount of the water system that satisfics
the demands of the specific functions, the loss of yields, or the cost to rnamtam/
restore the function of the water system.
Impact indicators are often inciuded in the state indicators
[91,
but then vciy
valuable information rcmains hiddcn.
Responsc indicators represent the soc lo-economic reaction on cnvironniental
316
stress. These can be measures, which society takes to improvc the
environment. These can also be individual or collective actions to reduce or
avoid undesirable effects on the environment. Response indicators can
measure regulatoiy action, environmental or research expenditure, public
opinion, consumer prcference, change in management strategies, and the
provision of environmental information [10].
The usefulness of this framework lies in the fact that politicians and scientists
are used to thinking in causality chains when interpreting indicators and when
considering responses like measures. However, the suggested linear
relationship rnight obscure more complex relationships between the water
systcm, the socio-economic system and other systems.
These differcnt classification categories can be linked through function
and issues tables (an example is shown in Table 1) and through an indicator
frarnework (Figure 4), which is proposed here. The table links functions and
issues since the requirements for specific functions will be opposed to the threats
or pressures from certain issues. Issues are related to the causality chain (PSIR
concept), since pressures are those parts of issues that can be quantificd. In the
indicator framework pressures and responses can be linked to target groups,
which is helpful when formulating, for exampic, tailor-rnadc responses.
Tahie 1. Function and tssue table.
lssue
function
transport1
hydropower
industrial
roureatlorr
tishing
-
irrigatlori
drrrikutq
etrosyst&trr
ivaegallurr
cootrng
uso
(agrrculturo)
water
ctorratt strarntu
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VV
actdrhrrtruo
V
V
V
V
V
VV
otrla
V
V
VV
V
V
V
VV
drsporur.n trazarduus sobstancos
-
V
V
-
V
-
V
V
VV
desrrrtatroo
v
v
v
v
1
V
v v
vv
hun!
V
V
VV
500rcrty
V
V
V
V
V
V V
VV
V = function that is conflicting with specific prcssurcs that are linked with these issues;
VV
more strongly conflicting.
The issue and function tables are in tum linked to the management life-
cycle, since issues reflect environmental problems that have become part of the
management life cycle and which have been placed on the political agenda.
This function/issue table inciudes all aspects of the PSIR concept; depending on
the dcvelopmental stage of the management cycle, attention will shift from
pressure and state towards impact and rcsponsc.
317
IJrinking
water supp/jt'
Pressure
State
Impact
Response
Acidification
Excess nutrients
Dispersion
Des iccation
Salinization
Figure 4. The indicator franiework according to the PSIR-concept. (Pressure: indicators for the
pressure on the environment; State: indicators for the state of the environment; Impact:
indicators for the impact and Response: indicators for social-response).
How can information needs be specified for the development or choice of
indicators?
Most qucstions in water management are often related to the specific
functions and uses of the water under consideration. However, different functions
and uses may have conflicting requirements to fulfil. Since most indicators will
be linked to functions and uses, they can be a tool to prioritise the different
needs or thcy can help in integrating requirernents related to these functions and
are therefore very helpful whcn specifying information needs [11] [17]. Moreover,
the development of an indicator involves running through the different steps of
the monitoring cycle (Figure
5).
Therefore, the development of an indicator
forrns an exercise in specifying a very specified confined information need
(confined to information needs linked with pressurc, state, impact, response,
and functions and target groups).
318
Water management
[
—
Inforiiiition needs
Information utilisation
W
__
Reporting
Data analysis
n
Data handling
Laboratory analysis
Figure 5. Monitoring cycle [17].
The more specific information needed to use indicators can be formulated
in a number of questions or a kind of chccklist:
What is the functionluse of the water system?
What issues are involved?
What is the spatial and tcrnporal scale of the system?
Who are the users of information?
What will the resulting information be used for?
In what stage is the management (management life cycle)?
What are the measures?
What is the available knowledge of the system?
What are the available (technical and financial) means?
Whcn setting up a monitoring programme, questions posed in the first
step of the monitoring cycle: "the specification of information needs" will more
or less follow the same steps as when selecting or developmg indicators. It starts
with a fairly general inventory of the information needed with a focus on use/
function (policy or operationally oriented), on subjcct/issue and on parts of the
causality chain. Often a function/issue table will be used. To determine
prerequisites of the information collection system the monitoring cycle will be
followed clockwise (contrary to the order ofprocess steps). Then the information
to be produced will be described in detail with the help of the checklist above.
This dcscribed integrated information need will then be used to choose an
319
information collection system, which will often be monitoring networks, but
also models, decision support systems or other sources of information.
Thus, a similar methodology can be used for specifying information
needs for monitoring as for the selcctionldeveloprnent of indicators. Additionally,
indicator criteria, like high aggregation or timely response, can be added.
Ever y or g a nisa t i on d e v e l o ps it s ow n in d i ca t ors base d on t he ir ow n
conce p t u a l f r a m ew or k
Hcre we will discuss the approach and frarneworks used, when
developing environmental indicators. Firstly, we will look at the Commission of
the European Communities, and secondly the Unites States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
[5].
10 policy fields of Sth EAP
examples pressure indice.
exampies pressure indiccs
cii bon dioidt ernission.
Ciijnate
IindlilI area
i 1
fl..
h izai dous wistu
/IflO
1t,er
halonemissions
(kpletjfl
ollution
pesticide use
los, of
nait
PC Cn\ ii iflmCnt
fiagmenration index
_
hlodi',Ci
tV
&
oastai is.nes
ossil enctgy use
iCsOUrLe
f]pp
&
i
oundwaei' extraction
(Ji4J101 tO
rit.
tosic dischai ges
tIf)erson
UrhL
n
p
ohicins.
of
OOSt.
&
0
Our
Figure 6.
Indicators, pressures and themes of the 5th Environmental Acton Programmo (EAP).
Only some examples of pressure indicators are presented.
As concerns the Commission, the Directorate-General XI, the
Directorate-General XII and Eurostat follow two approaches within their Fifth
Environmental Action Programme (Sth EAP):
development of satellite accounts (physical and monetary; in Gross National
Product terms);
development/calculation of physical indices related to pressures of human
and economie activities on the environment.
320
This second approach resuits in a European system of environmental
pressure indices. In the Sth EAP only pressures are monitored. Pressures change
the state, which will lead to a societal response (or lack of), which may in turn
lead to reduced (or increased) pressure. These pressures are linked to ten policy
fields that cover the themes of the Sth EAP (Figure 6).
The approach of the EPA (USA) environmental indicators are based on:
water quality objectives that have to be niet;
water quality objectives based upon designated use or function (for example
drinking water);
water quality objectives necessary to reach certain goals/milestones (for
exarnple ten-year targets);
indicators that measure progress toward water quality goals.
These indicators can then be aggregated into indices in a way that water
quality objectives have to be aggregated to reach the overall goal: the protection
of public health and aquatic ecosystems. These indicators can also present
information on pressure, state and response and thereby closely follow
frameworks as used by the OECD, the Commission and the framework proposed
here. Additionally, state and pressure indicators are linked closely to
environmental data/information, whereas response indicators will primarily be
administrative data/information.
Thus, indicators developed by international organisations are based on
fairly sirnilar approaches such as the recognitlon of functions, issues, and
pressures (which represent the causality chain). The management life cycle is
also wicicly used in environmental management.
Although indicators can hardly be internationalised, they can present
harmonised environmental information on a global scale when the development
or choice of indicators is based on the same approach.
Con clusions and recommendations
From the elaboration on the first hypothesis we deduce that not the
absence of an agreed upon definition is a major problem that hampers the
implementation of indicators in water management, but rather the absence of a
step-wise approach of how to implement them. Moreover, the sparse
methodologies to specify information needs might be a major obstacle in the
use of indicators. Therefore, we present a framework which helps in the tailor-
made selection and development of indicators and which links different
approaches such as function oriented or policy oriented development of
indicators, for cxample.
321
Although it seems that every international organisation uses their own
conceptual framework when developing indicators, we dernonstratcd that fairly
similar approaches bascd on functions and pressurcs are being used.
We can concludc that indicators are prornising tools in water management
and that the implernentation of indicators should lead to a comprehensive system
that is not only understandable by experts, but by the general public, as well.
However, a rapid start bas to be made with the implementation of the use
indicators in water management and this also has to inciude an educational phase
in which water managers can become at ease and acquaintcd with the prospects
for the use of indicators in water management.
Finally, we recomrnendcd to start an implementation of the use of
indicators in concordance with on-going optimisation efforts of information
collcction systems, since the prcscnted approach closely foliows a recent
mcthodology to specify information nccds that can be used to set up any
information collection system.
References
J.A. Bakkes, G.A. van den Bom, J.C. Helder, R.J. Swart, C.W. Hope. J.D.E. Parker, An overview
of environmental indicators: State of the art and perspectives, RIVM/402001001, HNEP/
EATR.94-0 1, 1994.
B. Brink, The AMOEBA approach as a useful tool for establishing sustamable development,
in: 0. Kuik and H. Verbruggen (eds.). In search for indicators for sustainable development,
Kluwer Academie PubI., Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp. 71-88, 1991.
Commission of the European Communities, DG XI, DG XII, and Eurostat, 1996, Environmental
indicators and green accounting - practical steps towards the implementation of the
communication from the commission to the council and the European Parliament
onDzrection,v
,for the European Union on c'ni'i,o,unental indicators and green iiational accounting
(COM(94)
670 Oma!).
ECE, Draft set of [CE Environmental Indicators, United Nations Economie and Social Council.
Statistical Commission and Economie Commission for Europe. CES/548/Add.6/Rcv. 1, 1985.
EPA, Environmental indicators of water quality in the Unites States, EPA 841-R-967-002,
1996.
A. Friend, D. Rapport, Towards a comprchensive framcwork for environment statistics: ii
stress-rcsponse approach. Statistics Canada, catalogue 11-510, Ottawa, 1979.
l-I.A.J van Harten, G.M. van Dijk, H.A.M. dc Kruijff, Water quality indicators: overview,
methodology development and application (in Dutch), RIVM report 733004001, National
lnstitutc of Public Hcalth and the Erivironment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands, 1995.
Lorenz, C.M., van Dijk, G.M., van Harten, H.A.J., and de Kruijff, H.A.M., 1996. Indicator
development on the basis of river ecosystem concepts. In: J.J. Ottens, F.A.M. Claessen, P.G.
Stoks, J.G. Timmerman and R.C. Ward (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop
Monitoring Tailor-made-II, Nunspeet, the Netherlands.
OECD, 1993. Group on the State of the Environmcnt Workshop on Indicators for Use in
Environmental Performance Reviews, Draft Synthesis Report, Paris.
322
10. P.C. Rump, State of the environment rcporting: Source book of methods and approaches,
Environment Canada, RIVM, UNEP, 1996.
II. J.G. Timmerman, J.J. Ottens. The information cycle - a framework for the management of our
water resources. Proccedings of the 7th Stockholm Water Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden,
1997.
J.G. Timmerman, J.J. Ottens, R.C. Ward, in press, The information cycle as a framework for
defining information goals for water quality monitoring. Environmental Management.
ECE Task Force on Monitoring & Assessment, Biological Assessment methods for
watercourses, vol 3, 1996.
R.C. Ward. Monitoring progress toward sustainable development": implications for water
quality monitoring, in: J.J. Ottens, F.A.M. Claessen, P.G. Stoks, J.G. Timmerman and R.C.
Ward (eds.). Proceedings of the international workshop Monitoring Tailor-made-lI, Nunspeet,
the Netherlands, 1997.
P. Winsemius, Gast in eigen huis, beschouwingen over milieumanagement, (Guest at home,
reflections on environmental management, in Dutch), PubI.: H.D. Samson, Tjeenk Willink,
Alphen aan den Rijn, 1986.
W. Cofino, Quality management ofmonttoring programmes, in: M. Adriaanse, J. v.d. Kraats,
P.G. Stoks and R.C. Ward (cds.). Proceedings of the international workshop Monitoring Tailor
Made, Beekbergen, the Netherlands, 1995.
ECE, Guidclines on Water-quality Monitoring and Assessment ofTransboundary Rivers, in:
Protection ofTransboundary Watcrs. Water Series No. 3, ECE/CEP/I 1, New York and Geneva,
1996.
323