A multicriteria analysis of groundwater development pathways in three river basins in Sub-Saharan Africa
A multicriteria analysis of groundwater development pathways in three river basins in Sub-Saharan Africa
复制标题
撒哈拉以南非洲三个河流流域地下水开发路径的多标准分析
DOI：
10.1016/j.envsci.2022.09.010
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Bellwood-Howard I
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bellwood-Howard I
撒哈拉以南非洲地区对地下水的依赖正在增加，随着气候变化下地表水资源变异性的增加，预计对地下水的依赖将增加。主要的问题仍然是如何使用地下水，以及谁来为这些决定提供信息。我们通过“途径”代表了地下水利用的不同愿景：政治上和环境上嵌入的社会技术制度，用于治理和管理地下水系统。我们向埃塞俄比亚、尼日尔和坦桑尼亚三个河流流域的政策参与者（9组）、开发和研究利益相关者（4组）和用水者（6组）介绍了6条“地下水开发路径”的社会和环境影响信息，然后通过多标准制图（MCM）收集了他们对每条路径的意见。与高强度的单一用途路径相比，参与者更喜欢低强度利用的路径，包括多种农业、畜牧业和家庭用途。水的供应和环境的可持续性，包括水质，是中心问题。与会者认识到，所有地下水的使用都可能相互影响，影响抽取水的数量和质量。在所有的参与者群体中，对于什么是最重要的水资源利用存在歧义；每个人都表达了对更详细、更确定的建模数据的需求。用水者更喜欢社区或市政规模的管理制度，认为这些级别的机构更有可能保护水质，而政策和发展行动者则更喜欢个人规模的管理，因为在操作和维护方面效率更高。我们的结论是，MCM与更详细的建模相结合，可以为政策行为者提供一个有效的框架，以了解其他利益相关者对地下水开发未来的看法，从而实现公平、包容的决策和治理。
Reliance on groundwater in Sub-Saharan Africa is growing and expected to rise as surface water resource variability increases under climate change. Major questions remain about how groundwater will be used, and who informs these decisions. We represent different visions of groundwater use by ‘pathways’: politically and environmentally embedded socio-technological regimes for governing and managing groundwater systems. We presented policy actors (9 sets), development and research stakeholders (4 sets), and water users (6 sets) in three river basins in Ethiopia, Niger and Tanzania with information on the social and environmental impacts of six ‘Groundwater Development Pathways’, before gathering their opinions on each, through Multicriteria Mapping (MCM). Participants preferred pathways of low-intensity use, incorporating multiple agricultural, pastoral and domestic purposes, to high-intensity single-use pathways. Water availability and environmental sustainability, including water quality, were central concerns. Participants recognised that all groundwater uses potentially impinge upon one another affecting both the quantity and quality of abstracted water. Across participant groups there was ambiguity about what the most important water use was; each expressed demands for more detailed, certain modelling data. Water users preferred community or municipal-scale management regimes, perceiving that water quality was more likely to be safeguarded by institutions at these levels, whereas policy and development actors preferred individual-scale management, viewed as more efficient in terms of operation and maintenance. We conclude that MCM, combined with more detailed modelling, can provide an effective framework for policy actors to understand other stakeholders’ perspectives on groundwater development futures, enabling equitable, inclusive decision-making and governance.