Digital catchment observatories: A platform for engagement and knowledge exchange between catchment scientists, policy makers, and local communities

Increasing pressures on the hydrological cycle from our changing planet have led to calls for a refocus of research in the sciences of hydrology and water resources. Opportunities for new and innovative research into these areas are being facilitated by advances in the use of cyberinfrastructure, such as the development of digital catchment observatories. This is enabling research into hydrological issues such as flooding to be approached differently. The ability to combine different sources of data, knowledge, and modeling capabilities from different groups such as scientists, policy makers, and the general public has the potential to provide novel insights into the way individual catchments respond at different temporal and spatial scales. While the potential benefits of the digital catchment observatory are large, this new way of carrying out research into hydrological sciences is likely to prove challenging on many levels. Along with the obvious technical and infrastructural challenges to this work, an important area for consideration is how to enable a digital observatory to work for a range of potential end-users, paving the way for new areas of research through developing a platform effective for engagement and knowledge exchange. Using examples from the recent local-scale hydrological exemplar in the Environmental Virtual Observatory pilot project (http://www.evo-uk.org), this commentary considers a number of issues around the communication between and engagement of different users, the use of local knowledge and uncertainty with cloud-based models, and the potential for decision support and directions for future research.

[1]  J. McDonnell,et al.  Debates—The future of hydrological sciences: A (common) path forward? A call to action aimed at understanding velocities, celerities and residence time distributions of the headwater hydrograph , 2014 .

[2]  Somayajulu Sripada,et al.  Communicating river level data and information to stakeholders with different interests: the participative development of an interactive online service , 2012 .

[3]  Roger Few,et al.  Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[4]  Göran Lindström,et al.  Virtual laboratories: new opportunities for collaborative water science , 2014, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.

[5]  Andrew Kusiak,et al.  End-to-End Cyberinfrastructure for Decision-Making Support in Watershed Management , 2013 .

[6]  Mary C. Hill,et al.  Integrated environmental modeling: A vision and roadmap for the future , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[7]  M. Muste,et al.  Information-Centric Systems for Underpinning Sustainable Watershed Resource Development , 2014 .

[8]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms , 2012, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

[9]  C. Maksimovic,et al.  Collaborative modelling for active involvement of stakeholders in urban flood risk management , 2012 .

[10]  Christopher J A Macleod,et al.  Integration for sustainable catchment management. , 2007, The Science of the total environment.

[11]  Christopher J.A. Macleod,et al.  Collaborative Knowledge in Catchment Research Networks: Integrative Research Requirements for Catchment Systems Science , 2015 .

[12]  J. Silvertown A new dawn for citizen science. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  Jeffery S. Horsburgh,et al.  Components of an environmental observatory information system , 2011, Comput. Geosci..

[14]  Mark Gahegan,et al.  Geospatial Cyberinfrastructure: Past, present and future , 2010, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[15]  Jeffery S. Horsburgh,et al.  A first approach to web services for the National Water Information System , 2008, Environ. Model. Softw..

[16]  Keith Beven,et al.  Smiling in the rain: Seven reasons to be positive about uncertainty in hydrological modelling , 2013 .

[17]  Martyn P. Clark,et al.  Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models , 2008 .

[18]  J. Cohn Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? , 2008 .

[19]  Peter A. Troch,et al.  The future of hydrology: An evolving science for a changing world , 2010 .

[20]  Johanna Alkan Olsson,et al.  Possibilities and problems with the use of models as a communication tool in water resource management , 2006 .

[21]  Caspar J. M. Hewett,et al.  Towards new types of water-centric collaboration , 2010 .

[22]  Yehia El-khatib,et al.  Web technologies for environmental Big Data , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[23]  S. Lane,et al.  Doing flood risk science differently: an experiment in radical scientific method , 2011 .

[24]  Johanna Alkan Olsson and Karin Berg Local Stakeholders' Acceptance of Model-generated Data Used as a Communication Tool in Water Management: The Rönneå Study , 2005, Ambio.

[25]  Keith Beven,et al.  On virtual observatories and modelled realities (or why discharge must be treated as a virtual variable) , 2012 .

[26]  Fergus L. Sinclair,et al.  Land use management effects on flood flows and sediments – guidance on prediction , 2013 .

[27]  A. Jonsson,et al.  Public Participation in Water Resources Management: Stakeholder Voices on Degree, Scale, Potential, and Methods in Future Water Management , 2005, Ambio.

[28]  P. Quinn,et al.  A framework for managing runoff and pollution in the rural landscape using a Catchment Systems Engineering approach. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[29]  Eben M. Haber,et al.  Creek watch: pairing usefulness and usability for successful citizen science , 2011, CHI.

[30]  K. Beven,et al.  A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology , 1979 .

[31]  Helen E. Roy,et al.  Guide to citizen science: developing, implementing and evaluating citizen science to study biodiversity and theenvironment in the UK , 2012 .

[32]  Mark Wilkinson,et al.  Runoff management during the September 2008 floods in the Belford catchment, Northumberland , 2010 .

[33]  Keith Beven,et al.  Towards integrated environmental models of everywhere: uncertainty, data and modelling as a learning process , 2007 .

[34]  Keith Beven,et al.  Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes , 2012 .

[35]  Upmanu Lall Debates—The future of hydrological sciences: A (common) path forward? One water. One world. Many climes. Many souls , 2014 .

[36]  Bertrand De Longueville,et al.  Community-based geoportals: The next generation? Concepts and methods for the geospatial Web 2.0 , 2010, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[37]  Somayajulu Sripada,et al.  Supply of Online Environmental Information to Unknown Demand: The Importance of Interpretation and Liability Related to a National Network of River Level Data , 2015 .

[38]  Keith Beven,et al.  Modelling everything everywhere: a new approach to decision-making for water management under uncertainty , 2012 .

[39]  Keith Beven,et al.  Developing a Translational Discourse to Communicate Uncertainty in Flood Risk between Science and the Practitioner , 2007, Ambio.

[40]  M. Hipsey,et al.  “Panta Rhei—Everything Flows”: Change in hydrology and society—The IAHS Scientific Decade 2013–2022 , 2013 .

[41]  M. Ek,et al.  Hyperresolution global land surface modeling: Meeting a grand challenge for monitoring Earth's terrestrial water , 2011 .

[42]  Hubert H. G. Savenije,et al.  Integrated water resources management: Concepts and issues , 2008 .

[43]  Laurence Smith,et al.  The role of expert opinion in environmental modelling , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..