Next Article in Journal
Factors Affecting Runoff Retention Performance of Extensive Green Roofs
Previous Article in Journal
Inhibition of Cationic Polymer-Induced Colloid Flocculation by Polyacrylic Acid
Previous Article in Special Issue
On the Relationship between Aquatic Plant Stem Characteristics and Drag Force: Is a Modeling Application Possible?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Advances in Ecological Water System Modeling: Integration and Leanification as a Basis for Application in Environmental Management

by
Peter L.M. Goethals
and
Marie Anne Eurie Forio
*
Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2018, 10(9), 1216; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091216
Submission received: 25 July 2018 / Revised: 5 September 2018 / Accepted: 6 September 2018 / Published: 8 September 2018

Abstract

:
The art of applied modeling is determining an appropriate balance between integration of more processes and variables for the sake of increasing representativeness and reliability of the models, while also avoiding too long development and simulation times. The latter can be achieved via leanification, which can be based on reducing the number of variables and processes by focusing on key processes in the system and its management, but can be as well induced by using simplified methods for the description of relations among variables (such as regression and probabilistic methods) to, for instance, reduce the simulation time. In this way, integration and leanification can be combined and together contribute to models that are more relevant and convenient for use by water managers. In particular, it is crucial to find a good balance between the integration level of ecological processes answering environmental challenges in a relevant manner and costs for data collection and model development (and application).

1. Introduction

Water system models and ecological models have a long history [1]. Nevertheless, the practical use of integrated ecosystem models for decision-making in water management remains very limited and confined to specific applications [2].
This special issue presents case-studies and reviews related to the practical integration of relevant key components and processes, as well as the ‘leanification’ of water system models. Leanification can be based on the reduction of the number of variables and processes by focusing on key processes in a system and its management, but it can also be as induced by using simplified methods for the description of relations among variables (such as regression and probabilistic methods) to reduce the simulation time. In this way, integration and leanification can be combined and together contribute to models that are more relevant and convenient for use by water managers (Figure 1). Many water-related problems constitute diverse interactions and are part of a complex sustainable development challenge [3]. The art of applied modeling is determining an appropriate balance between the integration of more processes and variables for the sake of increasing representativeness and reliability of the models, while avoiding too long development and simulation times. The range in Figure 1 indicates that for some cases, very lean and simple models are very convenient (e.g., for the exploration and for real-time-control applications, as well as for education purposes), whereas for other applications, a higher level of integration and reliability are most critical and the objectives can allow for a longer development and simulation time. For the latter, reliability, detailed resolution, and a higher level of completeness are of paramount importance, such as for large-scale environmental design studies characterized by high investment, operational costs, and challenging risks.

2. Potential Applications of Models in Water Management

Integrated ecological models can support environmental management and policy development in various ways. These models provide insights into water-related disease control [4], assessments of environmental impact of wastewater and combined sewer overflows [5], wastewater treatment selection [6] and improvement [7], ecosystem services analysis [8,9], effects of land use on water quality [10] and aquatic community composition [11], as well as ecological water quality [12], determination of habitat restoration projects [13,14], distribution prediction and control of invasive species [15], integration of ecological insights into flood mitigation [16], and flow control related to reservoir management [17]. Moreover, models can be used for exploration purposes [18] and trade-off analysis [19], and environmental impact assessment [20] to inspire stakeholders and to support decision-making for policy developers. The effect of tipping points and environmental standards [21] can be analysed via models, as well as the uncertainty of assessment methods [22,23], or effects of particular choices made during assessments [24]. Models can also contribute to the leanification of data collection [5] and interpretation of data [25]. More conceptual approaches and (model) reviews can contribute to the overall improvement of the analysis of uncertainty, model development, and general applicability in water management, effective policy development, and improving water governance [26].

3. The Challenging Path from Data, to Model and Environmental Manager

Although integrated ecological water system models have a high potential to contribute to a more sustainable use of water resources, there are several remaining challenges to overcome, such as data collection in a highly complex ecosystems, model uncertainties, the focus on too specific subparts (e.g., merely hydrological, chemical, or biological), the high complexity of models and their use, the continuous change in environmental conditions which can affect model accuracy and representativeness, the irrelevance of possible simulations, or a combination of these elements [27]. A key element remains that data collection is in line with model development, training, and simulation to solve environmental models, and is not, for instance, focusing too much on representativeness and reliability, or elements such as costs (thus determining also the potential benefits in the context of the model selection and use).
Another main challenge to overcome for the success of models is their midfield position between data collection and environmental management. Importantly, the fact remains that (field) data collectors, data storage and dissemination managers, model developers, and potential direct and indirect model users (environmental policy makers and managers, stakeholders, and citizens) ‘live’ in different worlds with (aside from the partly common and general) specific objectives and key performance indicators. Good communication via appropriate data and information flows remains a very critical element and major bottleneck, combined with discipline-specific customs and beliefs. New and more integrated roles of environmental data managers [28], in addition to stakeholder involvement and close cooperation with data collectors, are needed in the future. Furthermore, social media, citizen science, and dashboard systems might increasingly play a new and resolving role via a continuous sharing of information and insights beyond discipline and professional borders. Last but not least, new monitoring and analytical tools, as well as new insights will result in new opportunities for obtaining data that are more reliable and much more abundant, but also to challenges for incorporating new insights and elements in models, such as new molecular and other biotechnological methods.

4. Model Complexity and Functionality: The Leanest Possible While Integrating the Necessary

A key question for model application is what to include in models—within a project management triangle confined by available staff, budget, and timeframe—and reflects in particular four elements: the selection of input variables, parameters, processes, and output variables. The key to the determination of the best combination is related to what is the available budget, the timeframe for data collection, model development, and model simulation, and the required reliability and resolution of the model. To answer this question, it is moreover very crucial to know what is already available of (field) data or other existing models to further build on.
During the past years, many practical concepts and software systems were developed related to environmental decision support [29]. Basically, one can opt to build a new model for each application (integrative approach) or to utilize existing models where possible (coupling approach). The first approach has the benefit of control in the models’ design and linkage, but requires a longer development time. The second approach saves on the development time, but requires additional work to link up existing models [30]. From this perspective, integration, and leanification have practical challenges even beyond the project management triangle. In particular, one has to gain insight into how much of previous modelling and data collection studies can be reused and coupled to answer a problem, and decide whether the existing models are compatible and complete enough. Moreover, it is necessary to determine whether enough data can be gathered for model training, validation, and simulation. In several cases, one can reduce the complexity via a selection of key processes (for example via network models such as Bayesian Belief Networks), or via the training of a data driven and reduced model from a set of simulations of an integrated and complex model. The latter combines the knowledge span of an integrated and complex model, while strongly reducing the simulation time. Nevertheless, one has to take care of conditions that are not covered by this derived model. Examples of this include data-driven models generated from mechanistic hydrological models, for instance, to be used for real-time control related to flood management which can practically help citizens to determine what actions they need to take in their houses in case of such events. These models might be used for this particular type of short-term simulations, continuously fed by very recent data from probes, but have for instance no use for long-term predictions needed for investments in flood-defence infrastructure related to climate change. Leanification can thus also rely on different approaches, depending on needs and priorities, as well as what is and can be available.

5. Conclusions

Although several technical and cultural challenges remain to make integrated ecological models more successfully used, several practical cases and examples have shown that a smart modeling approach is key to the benefits of the use of models. In particular, it is crucial to find a good balance between the integration level of ecological processes answering environmental challenges in a relevant manner and costs for data collection and model development and application. This can be achieved through a more thoughtful problem definition, analysis, and (re)use of existing data of the system, model selection and data collection, as well as through the optimal consideration of the project triangle (available time, staff, and budget) in relation to the problem questions (focus, level of detail, and accuracy), for which leanification is of paramount importance. Thus, the models need to provide an answer on the raised water system questions and challenges, not only clearly embedded in a context of sustainable development, but also in a feasible time and cost frame that can be achieved by the available project development and implementation team(s).

Author Contributions

PG conceived the ideas and structure of the manuscript. Both contributed to writing and editing of text.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Goethals, P.; De Pauw, N. Development of a concept for integrated ecological river assessment in Flanders, Belgium. J. Limnol. 2001, 60, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Everaert, G.; Bennetsen, E.; Goethals, P.L.M. An applicability index for reliable and applicable decision trees in water quality modelling. Ecol. Inform. 2016, 32, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Goethals, P.; Volk, M. Implementing sustainability in water management: Are we still dancing in the dark? Sustain. Water Qual. Ecol. 2016, 7, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ambelu, A.; Mekonen, S.; Koch, M.; Addis, T.; Boets, P.; Everaert, G.; Goethals, P. The application of predictive modelling for determining bio-environmental factors affecting the distribution of blackflies (diptera: Simuliidae) in the Gilgel Gibe watershed in southwest Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e112221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Jerves-Cobo, R.; Córdova-Vela, G.; Iñiguez-Vela, X.; Díaz-Granda, C.; Van Echelpoel, W.; Cisneros, F.; Nopens, I.; Goethals, P. Model-based analysis of the potential of macroinvertebrates as indicators for microbial pathogens in rivers. Water 2018, 10, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Holguin-Gonzalez, J.E.; Everaert, G.; Boets, P.; Galvis, A.; Goethals, P.L.M. Development and application of an integrated ecological modelling framework to analyze the impact of wastewater discharges on the ecological water quality of rivers. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 48, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ho, L.; Pham, D.; Van Echelpoel, W.; Muchene, L.; Shkedy, Z.; Alvarado, A.; Espinoza-Palacios, J.; Arevalo-Durazno, M.; Thas, O.; Goethals, P. A closer look on spatiotemporal variations of dissolved oxygen in waste stabilization ponds using mixed models. Water 2018, 10, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, H.-S. Establishment and application of wetlands ecosystem services and sustainable ecological evaluation indicators. Water 2017, 9, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Landuyt, D.; Lemmens, P.; D’hondt, R.; Broekx, S.; Liekens, I.; De Bie, T.; Declerck, S.A.J.; De Meester, L.; Goethals, P.L.M. An ecosystem service approach to support integrated pond management: A case study using Bayesian belief networks–highlighting opportunities and risks. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Singh, G.; Saraswat, D.; Sharpley, A. A sensitivity analysis of impacts of conservation practices on water quality in L’Anguille River Watershed, Arkansas. Water 2018, 10, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Damanik-Ambarita, M.; Everaert, G.; Goethals, P. Ecological models to infer the quantitative relationship between land use and the aquatic macroinvertebrate community. Water 2018, 10, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Forio, M.A.E.; Landuyt, D.; Bennetsen, E.; Lock, K.; Nguyen, T.H.T.; Ambarita, M.N.D.; Musonge, P.L.S.; Boets, P.; Everaert, G.; Dominguez-Granda, L.; et al. Bayesian belief network models to analyse and predict ecological water quality in rivers. Ecol. Model. 2015, 312, 222–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pauwels, I.S.; Mouton, A.M.; Baetens, J.M.; Van Nieuland, S.; De Baets, B.; Goethals, P.L.M. Modelling a pike (Esox lucius) population in a lowland river using a cellular automaton. Ecol. Inform. 2013, 17, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Everaert, G.; Pauwels, I.S.; Boets, P.; Verduin, E.; de la Haye, M.A.A.; Blom, C.; Goethals, P.L.M. Model-based evaluation of ecological bank design and management in the scope of the European Water Framework Directive. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 53, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Boets, P.; Pauwels, I.S.; Lock, K.; Goethals, P.L.M. Using an integrated modelling approach for risk assessment of the 'killer shrimp' Dikerogammarus villosus. River Res. Appl. 2014, 30, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Łoboda, A.; Karpiński, M.; Bialik, R. On the relationship between aquatic plant stem characteristics and drag force: Is a modeling application possible? Water 2018, 10, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cartwright, J.; Caldwell, C.; Nebiker, S.; Knight, R. Putting flow–ecology relationships into practice: A decision-support system to assess fish community response to water-management scenarios. Water 2017, 9, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mouton, A.M.; Van der Most, H.; Jeuken, A.; Goethals, P.L.M.; De Pauw, N. Evaluation of river basin restoration options by the application of the Water Framework Directive explorer in the Zwalm River basin (Flanders, Belgium). River Res. Appl. 2009, 25, 82–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Landuyt, D.; Broekx, S.; D’hondt, R.; Engelen, G.; Aertsens, J.; Goethals, P.L.M. A review of Bayesian belief networks in ecosystem service modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 46, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nguyen, T.; Everaert, G.; Boets, P.; Forio, M.; Bennetsen, E.; Volk, M.; Hoang, T.; Goethals, P. Modelling tools to analyze and assess the ecological impact of hydropower dams. Water 2018, 10, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Donoso, N.; Gobeyn, S.; Villa-Cox, G.; Boets, P.; Meers, E.; Goethals, P. Assessing the ecological relevance of organic discharge limits for constructed wetlands by means of a model-based analysis. Water 2018, 10, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Landuyt, D.; Van der Biest, K.; Broekx, S.; Staes, J.; Meire, P.; Goethals, P.L.M. A GIS plug-in for Bayesian belief networks: Towards a transparent software framework to assess and visualise uncertainties in ecosystem service mapping. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 71, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gobeyn, S.; Bennetsen, E.; Van Echelpoel, W.; Everaert, G.; Goethals, P.L.M. Impact of abundance data errors on the uncertainty of an ecological water quality assessment index. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 746–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Forio, M.A.E.; Goethals, P.L.M.; Lock, K.; Asio, V.; Bande, M.; Thas, O. Model-based analysis of the relationship between macroinvertebrate traits and environmental river conditions. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 106, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jerves-Cobo, R.; Everaert, G.; Iñiguez-Vela, X.; Córdova-Vela, G.; Díaz-Granda, C.; Cisneros, F.; Nopens, I.; Goethals, P. A methodology to model environmental preferences of EPT taxa in the Machangara River Basin (Ecuador). Water 2017, 9, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vannevel, R. Using DPSIR and balances to support water governance. Water 2018, 10, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Goethals, P.L.M.; Dedecker, A.P.; Gabriels, W.; Lek, S.; De Pauw, N. Applications of artificial neural networks predicting macroinvertebrates in freshwaters. Aquat. Ecol. 2007, 41, 491–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Gibert, K.; Horsburgh, J.S.; Athanasiadis, I.N.; Holmes, G. Environmental data science. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 106, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Voinov, A.; Fitz, C.; Boumans, R.; Costanza, R. Modular ecosystem modeling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2004, 19, 285–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lam, D.; Leon, L.; Hamilton, S.; Crookshank, N.; Bonin, D.; Swayne, D. Multi-model integration in a decision support system: A technical user interface approach for watershed and lake management scenarios. Environ. Model. Softw. 2004, 19, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. User convenience in relation to the level of complexity. Many water-related problems constitute many interactions. Thus, the art of applied modeling determines an appropriate balance between integration of more processes and variables while avoiding too long development and simulations times. The range indicates that for some cases, very lean and simple models are very convenient (e.g., for exploration of potential solutions and for real-time control applications), whereas for other applications, a higher level of integration is more critical than a fast simulation time.
Figure 1. User convenience in relation to the level of complexity. Many water-related problems constitute many interactions. Thus, the art of applied modeling determines an appropriate balance between integration of more processes and variables while avoiding too long development and simulations times. The range indicates that for some cases, very lean and simple models are very convenient (e.g., for exploration of potential solutions and for real-time control applications), whereas for other applications, a higher level of integration is more critical than a fast simulation time.
Water 10 01216 g001

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Goethals, P.L.M.; Forio, M.A.E. Advances in Ecological Water System Modeling: Integration and Leanification as a Basis for Application in Environmental Management. Water 2018, 10, 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091216

AMA Style

Goethals PLM, Forio MAE. Advances in Ecological Water System Modeling: Integration and Leanification as a Basis for Application in Environmental Management. Water. 2018; 10(9):1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091216

Chicago/Turabian Style

Goethals, Peter L.M., and Marie Anne Eurie Forio. 2018. "Advances in Ecological Water System Modeling: Integration and Leanification as a Basis for Application in Environmental Management" Water 10, no. 9: 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091216

APA Style

Goethals, P. L. M., & Forio, M. A. E. (2018). Advances in Ecological Water System Modeling: Integration and Leanification as a Basis for Application in Environmental Management. Water, 10(9), 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091216

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop