Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Changing water systems and the “tyranny of small problems”—Socio‐hydrology

Abstract

We are well and truly in the Anthropocene. Humans can no longer be considered as mere external drivers or boundary conditions in the hydrologic systems we study. The interactions and feedbacks between human actions and water cycle dynamics on the planet, combined with the evolution of human norms/values in relation to water, are throwing up a range of emergent ''big problems.'' Understanding and offering sustainable solutions to these ''big problems'' require a broadening of hydrologic science to embrace the perspectives of both social and natural scientists. The new science of socio-hydrology was introduced with this in mind, yet faces major challenges due to the wide gulf that separates the knowledge foundations and methodologies of natural and social sciences. Yet, the benefits of working together are enormous, including through adoption of natural science methods for social science problems, and vice versa. Bringing together the perspectives of both social and natural scientists dealing with water is good for hydrologic science, having the salutary effect of revitalizing it as use-inspired basic science. It is good for management too, in that the broader, holistic perspectives provided by socio-hydrology can help recognize potential ''big'' problems that may otherwise be unforeseen and, equally, identify potential ''alternative'' solutions to otherwise intractable problems.Organizations with narrow fields of vision become institutionally incapable of spotting where the icebergs ahead are located.Demby [2012] 1. Debating Socio-hydrology I am delighted to join this timely debate on socio-hydrology. The starting point for me is the accompanying paper by Di Baldassarre et al. [2015], which addresses the issue of estimating and managing flood risk under human-induced changes in the emergent Anthropocene. The paper contrasts the traditional scenariobased approach based on assumed quasi-stationarity with a more sophisticated approach that permits analysis of the dynamic interactions and feedbacks between floods and societies. In the old paradigm, for a chosen design period, flood risk is estimated as a combination of the probability of flooding under assumed quasi-stationarity and the potential damages. In the new paradigm, however, a coupled socio-hydrologyflood model is proposed that permits exploration of the resulting coevolution of floods and societies, with a focus on estimation of emergent flood risk.In my opinion, there are two important lessons to be learned from this paper that go beyond mere estimation of flood risk. First, the paper is an example of the broadening of the foundations of hydrologic science to accommodate the emergent dynamics resulting from the two-way coupling of social and hydrological systems, the defining feature of the new discipline of socio-hydrology [Sivapalan et al., 2012. Second, it is the richness of the resulting socio-hydrologic dynamics, including possible (otherwise unimaginable) vistas about the future, in two different types of societies (e.g., green and techn...

Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Socio‐hydrologic modeling: Tradeoffs, hypothesis testing, and validation

“…However, just because it is difficult, does not mean it should not be done. As both Sivapalan [2015] and Loucks [2015] point out: if the hydrologic community does not engage in incorporating human behavior into models, someone else will, possibly poorly. There are new opportunities for hydrological modelers and social science modelers to work together to improve our understanding of how future water problems may affect social and environmental systems.…”

Progress in socio‐hydrology: a meta‐analysis of challenges and opportunities

“…There have been several commentaries on the originality of the concept behind socio-hydrology and clarifications of definitions involved 13,39,[42][43][44][45] since the introduction of the field 4 years ago. 41 These activities have illustrated the meaning and usefulness of socio-hydrology for understanding coupled human-water systems and toward sustainable water management.…”

Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Capturing feedbacks between physical and social processes

“…To address the ''big problems'' that arise in Anthropocene, Sivapalan [2015] discusses the need to go beyond the ''tyranny of small problems'' and suggests socio-hydrology as the way forward. We fully agree on the fact that the study of the dynamic interplay between water and human systems will not only broaden hydrological sciences, but also contribute to better coping with water-related issues in a rapidly changing world.…”

“…In our opinion, the evaluation (validation or falsification) of socio-hydrological models should not only be based on fitting data of specific test sites (which can be easily achieved given a sufficient number of parameters), but also on diagnosing whether the model is able to represent emerging behaviors, such as adaptation and levee effects, within an iterative process of empirical research and theory development. These dynamics are generic macroscale mechanisms that may occur anywhere in the world in the spirit of Sivapalan's [2015] ''big problems.'' This paper showed an example of model diagnosis of such generic mechanisms.…”