System Archetypes in Water Resource Management Babak Bahaddin1, Ali Mirchi2, David Watkins Jr.3, Sajjad Ahmad4, Eliot Rich5, Kaveh Madani6 1
University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Information Science, email:
[email protected]. 2 Department of Civil Engineering and Center for Environmental Resource Management, The University of Texas at El Paso, email:
[email protected]. 3 Department Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, email:
[email protected]. 4 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. email:
[email protected]. 5 University at Albany, School of Business, email:
[email protected]. 6 Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, email:
[email protected]. ABSTRACT Many water resources management (WRM) problems are similar in nature, and yet they continuously appear in different forms and in different geographical locations. Understanding a malfunctioning system structure is essential for developing sustainable solutions, which should be further examined using detailed quantitative models. Persistent WRM problems can be explained at the strategic level using a set of generic system structures, commonly known as system archetypes. These causal-descriptive conceptual models can be used as diagnostic tools to identify weak links and problematic feedback loops in management schemes, facilitating the dissemination of policy-relevant insights for addressing the weaknesses. This paper illustrates the use of generic structures in water resources systems for uncovering the root cause of some ubiquitous WRM problems and potential unintended consequences of short-sighted solutions. The utility of system archetypes is discussed in terms of gaining big-picture systemic insights, developing effective technological solutions and complementary management policies, and monitoring sustainable system trajectories. 1. Introduction Grasping a holistic viewpoint on WRM problems is a challenge that is not easily resolved through sophisticated mathematical models that focus on details of systems without ever gaining the integrated vision to put it all together. Acquiring this kind of perspective is a tough-to-obtain skill (Haraldsson et al. 2006). Complexity in water systems sometimes limits decision makers’ ability to recognize the underlying long-term challenges. This paper argues that applying a number of well-known system archetypes to WRM problems will aid in gaining such big-picture understanding. Rooted in systems thinking, each archetype has its own characteristics, underlying causes, symptoms, and effects, which collectively can help generate ideas for effective solution strategies. Definitions of “system” are diverse, but they share the same idea of a set of objects (parts or components of a system) with relationships (those that tie the system together) among them and among their attributes (properties of objects) (Hall and Hagen 1956; Miller 1965; Bailey 1994; Page 1
Langefors 1995; Backlund 2000). Regardless of which definition is adopted, it is important to recognize what can be construed as a system. For instance, is a bowl of fruits a system or merely a collection of parts? The answer is not always obvious; it can be considered only a collection for most people, but a system for those who study the microscopic interaction between fruits to maximize the biodegrading process (Kim 1999). Identifying the visible tangible elements is often the easiest task when analyzing systems. What seems to be more important and more challenging is mapping the interconnections between elements (Meadows 2008). A system is more than just the sum of its parts; it includes the outcome of their interactions (Ackoff 1993). Discovering how a system works will help to better characterize its behavior and find ways to address poor performance. While individual systems have different details, properties, and attributes, similar patterns of behavior can be seen in most of them. A number of system archetypes have been identified to explain similar themes implemented in various managerial problems. Archetypes are generic system structures that are frequently observed in different problem settings, and “capture the essence of ‘thinking’ in systems thinking” (Wolstenholme 2004). Jay Forrester (1971) popularized “systems thinking” as it is known today, and Peter Senge (1990) further developed it in his book The Fifth Discipline. Senge describes systems thinking as “a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools … to make the full patterns clearer, and to help us see how to change them effectively” (Senge and Sterman 1992). To this end, systems thinking facilitates characterization of the closed-loop nature of feedback relationships within water resources systems. Furthermore, system archetypes provide a useful summary of system insights in order to guide technological and non-technological solutions. 2. System Archetypes in Water Resource Management At the heart of each system archetype is the common pattern of behavior based on a similar structure, making them applicable to water resources problems. Many water resources problems in different geographical locations are essentially very similar in nature. For instance, there are remarkable parallels between the shrinkage of Lake Urmia in northwestern Iran and the disappearance of the Aral Sea in central Asia (Aghakouchak et al. 2015). Herein, we focus on a few commonly used archetypes: Limits to Growth, Growth and Underinvestment, Tragedy of the Commons, Shifting the Burden, Eroding Goals, Escalation, Success to the Successful, and Fixes that Fail. These archetypes are made of two fundamental system substructures, namely balancing and reinforcing feedback loops. Balancing loops (B) comprise causal relationships attempting to reduce the discrepancy between the current state and a desired state, whereas reinforcing loops (R) characterize continual growth or decline. Feedback relationships are shown using Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs). CLDs are a combination of words and arrows with appropriate polarity; a plus (+) sign on an arrow from variable A to B indicates that a change in A will cause a change in the same direction in B (i.e., an increase/decrease in A will cause an increase/decrease in B), while a minus (-) sign denotes an opposite effect (Richardson 1986). 2.1. Limits to Growth This archetype posits that continuous growth in demand upon a natural system, driven by reinforcing feedback loops, will eventually cause the system to overshoot its limited resources
Page 2
(e.g., carrying capacity). Once the system has grown beyond a critical level, balancing feedback loops take over and dominate the system’s behavior, attempting to prevent its collapse (Meadows et al. 1971). Example: In an agricultural system that uses groundwater as its source of irrigation water, withdrawing groundwater is inexpensive at first. However, as the groundwater table declines due to continuous pumping beyond its natural recharge capacity, the feedback between increasing price due to the increased energy requirement of lifting deeper groundwater will make the agricultural activity less profitable. In other words, the reinforcing loop in Figure 1 boosts the agricultural growth at first. However, after a while pumping becomes too expensive; the balancing loop emerges as the dominant loop in the system and agricultural growth collapses.
Acquifer Capacity
+ Agricultural Growth +
R
+
Groundwater Pumping
B
Pumping Cost
-
Figure 1. Limits to Growth Behavioral Graph of Agricultural Systems 2.2. Growth and Underinvestment Growth and Underinvestment characterizes cases where capacity investment is needed to ensure the system will continue to provide its expected services. The Growth and Underinvestment archetype is grounded on Limits to Growth by containing an extra balancing loop. This archetype addresses a system’s need to invest in its own resources, capabilities and core competencies. Development seeks to stimulate and reinforce demand, while the current performance level may behave as the limit to its growth (Braun 2002). Lack of adequate investment for maintaining environmental quality and ecological integrity are examples of sustainability challenges due to presence of this archetype. Example: Socioeconomic growth without regard for maintaining environmental integrity and ecosystem resilience create environmental quality problems (Bishop 1993; Arrow et al. 1995). Feedback relationships exist between socioeconomic development and environmental damages. Mirchi and Watkins (2012) use this archetype to analyze the human-induced environmental degradation of Lake Allegan in Michigan (Figure 2). Socioeconomic growth in the basin drives land use change, increasing total phosphorous loading into the lake. Lack of adequate investment to implement non-point source nutrient abatement programs limit the effectiveness of total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs. They illustrate the potential long-term role of socioeconomic factors in nutrient loading. In the 1990’s, Lake Allegan was classified as hypereutrophic, and its recovery appears to be taking longer than anticipated, although a total phosphorus TMDL has since been enacted in the lake basin (Mirchi 2012). In figure 2, this structure has been displayed in a causal loop diagram. The two parallel lines on the link between
Page 3
“Phosphorus Reduction” and “Lake Phosphorus Concentration” represents the delay in the process. Delays usually play a huge role + + Business Growth
R
+
Phosphorus Reduction
Phosphorus Loading
+
+
Population Around the Lake
B
Lake Phosphorus Concentration
B
Investment in Phosphorus Reduction +
Environmental Degradation
+ +
Perceived Need to Reduce Phosphorus -
Target Phosphorus Concentration Attainment
Figure 2. Growth and Underinvestment: Eutrophication of Lake Allegan, MI. 2.3. Fixes that Fail Quick-fix (short-term) solutions that alleviate the symptoms of a problem rather than addressing its root causes can be explained using the Fixes that Backfire archetype. In this case, the problem often reappears in an exacerbated form and the quick-fix solution creates unintended consequences. This is a common problem in management when the managers see themselves dealing with the same problem symptoms repeatedly, despite their investments to solve it. Example: Structural solutions like dam building and inter-basin water transfers are the most common remedies when policy makers face water scarcity in an area (Hutchinson et al. 2010). However, it is now evident that the leading cause of water scarcity is the imbalance between water supply and water demand, which grows commensurate with ongoing, expansive socio-economic growth (Gleick 1998; Cai 2003). While supply-oriented water management practices are promising in the short-run, they are typically associated with unintended secondary consequences in the long-run, such as intensified water scarcity due to increased imbalance between supply and demand (Madani and Mariño 2009; Gohari et al., 2013 and 2017). Population growth coupled with recent municipal, industrial, and agricultural developments has continuously increased water shortage in the Zayandeh-Rud River Basin in Isfahan, Iran. To solve the problem, large investments have been made in inter-basin water transfer projects in this region. However, after building a multi-purpose reservoir and three inter-basin water transfer projects in the last six decades, the problem persists and has intensified. Three additional water transfer projects are in
Page 4
various stages of planning and construction to increase the water supply (Gohari et al. 2013), amidst controversies due to growing tension between donor and receiving basins. +
Inter-Basin Water Transfer
B
Water Supply
Water Shortage +
+
-
R Water Demand
+ Watershed Development
+
Figure 3. Fixes that Fail: Inter-basin water transfer and its long-term impacts 2.4. Shifting the Burden This archetype explains a common mistake in complex macro-systems where symptomatic solutions with instant gratification due to symptom relief lead to concealment of the fundamental, systemic problem. There are many managerial cases in which policy-makers attempt to rectify obvious problem symptoms by interventions leading to short-term successes. However, these solutions can prevent people within the system from paying attention to the fundamental solutions. Example: Megacities, all over the world, may draw water resources from economically poorer exporters of goods and services, and outsource their pollution through virtual quantity and quality water flows associated with trade. The rapid increase in urbanization requires higher amounts of virtual water to support growing consumption demand in megacities (Figure 4). The water stress in megacities can be seen as the symptom of a fundamental problem. Water transfers and also importing goods and services to reduce the water needed for their production is the current common solution in water resource management of these cities. However, this policy only creates a temporary gratification, because it discourages policy-makers from paying more attention to fundamental solutions, such as sharing responsibility for reducing water quantity and quality stress in trading partners through taking measures at provincial, industrial, and consumer levels, or enhancing demand side management by reducing water consumption. This concept has been well discussed for Shanghai, the third largest city in the world (Zhao et al. 2016). One of the unintended consequences of this kind of behavior is that it puts the exporting cities under water quantity and quality stress. Smaller cities lose their charm, and megacities become a more attractive place to live in. This process will be further discussed later in the Success to the Successful archetype.
Page 5
Importing (Virtual) Water +
B
+ Water Supply
-
Water Demand in a Developed Region
R Awareness about the Fundamental Solution
B + Demand Management Incentives
+
Figure 4. Shifting the Burden: Megacity Shanghai shifts water quantity and quality stress to its trading partners 2.5. Eroding Goals This archetype hypothesizes situations where goals are lowered to close the gap between the current and desired conditions. A target goal that was originally set may be lowered once the system faces a crisis in hope of meeting the original target after the current emergency. Nonetheless, since the main drivers of the problem are not addressed, the process of adjusting the target goal continues to the point that the bar is set too low compared to the original target. The structure of eroding goals archetype is very similar to shifting the burden with two balancing loops and the tension between them (a symptomatic solution and a fundamental one). Example: Investments in maintaining environmental quality or the effects of interventions are typically delayed. This situation is observed in many TMDL programs, including Lake Allegan’s TMDL implementation. There is a risk of failing to continue to provide necessary resources to solve the problem, or adopting lower performance standards, as opposed to more aggressive intervention to attain the desired goal (Figure 5).
Page 6
+ Target Phosphorus Concentration Attainment
B
Pressure to Adjust Goal +
-
Gap
+ + Current Phosphorus Concentration
B
Phosphorus Reduction Investment
-
Figure 5. Eroding Goals: The goal is lowered to close the gap between desired and existing system performance.
2.6. The Success to the Successful The Success to the successful archetype explains cases where good performance of an entity secure more resources relative to others, enabling the entity to generate even better results and obtain still more resources. As a result, the successful entity continuously grows, while other entities gradually decline and possibly collapse due to lack of adequate resources. Example: Re-allocation of water from agricultural and environmental sectors to urban areas is a common adaptation policy in water-scarce regions due to higher economic value of urban water (Bagheri and Hjorth 2007). Another example is water management practices that favor mega-cities in arid regions, depriving smaller population centers of adequate water. Within the example for the Shifting the Burden archetype, we briefly explained how growth in water demand in megacities would subsequently put more pressure on government to stay away from the fundamental solution. Continuously increasing urban water supply for major metropolitan areas makes megacities more attractive and prosperous compared to poorer, marginalized places whose water sources are diverted to meet the growing demand in the mega-cities (Figure 6).
Page 7
+ Development of Megacity
Megacity's Water Resources +
R
+ -
Megacity's Share Compared to Neighboring Towns R
Development of Neighboring Towns
Neighboring Towns' Water Resources
+
Figure 6. Success to the Successor: Structure and long-term behavior of the urban water development problem. 2.7. Tragedy of the Commons The Tragedy of the Commons archetype is observed when multiple users exploit a shared water resource, even though the shared water resource can last longer under a regulated scheme, maximizing the long-term gains of individual stakeholders. Tragedy of the Commons happens when individuals exploit a shared limited resource exclusively based on their individual rationality (Hardin 1968) without regard to longer term sustainability. If at first, the resource is abundant and the exploitation is inexpensive, they will enjoy immediate rewards. During the time that resource use is profitable for individuals, more people will start using the common resource. Exploitation will increase to the point that the resource will diminish gradually. While it gets harder to use the shared resource, individuals will invest more on their unregulated and uncoordinated operations cost to obtain scarcer resource. Without any external policy, this process results in a tragic situation in which the resource will be completely exhausted. To clarify why the Tragedy of the Commons takes place particularly in the use of renewable resources such as fish, pastures, forests, and groundwater, two distinct explanations have been provided (Moxnes 1998): 1. Having open access to a common resource, a user benefits from overexploitation while the costs are borne by all. In these cases, also known as “appropriation problems” (Ostrom 1990), designing rules and institutions to allocate rights and responsibilities can solve the problem or provide partial compensation.
Page 8
2. Sometimes the mismanagement in the system remains, even though the commons problem is absent or has been solved. This challenge can be classified as a dynamic, nonlinear optimization problem under uncertainty and ambiguity (Moxnes 1998). Example: Perhaps the most obvious example of this archetype in WRM is the widespread problem of groundwater depletion. The Ogallala Aquifer in the Western United States, the aquifer system in northwest China, and the Arabian Aquifer in the Wadi As-Sirhan Basin in Saudi Arabia are a few examples. Signs of stress on groundwater resources are also observed in California (UCIrvine/NASA, 2015). As the water table continues to decline due to ongoing competition to maximize individual gain from groundwater withdrawal, impacts of resource depletion start emerging in terms of increased groundwater pumping cost, which, in turn, reduces gain per individual farmer. Subsequently, all the water resources in that area will be used to the point that not only farming but also living become impossible. + Farmer A's Groundwater Use
R
Net Profit for Farmer A
-
+ B + -
Total Groundwater Exploitation +
-
Groundwater Level
Pumping Cost
B + Farmer B's Groundwater Use
R
Net Profit for Farmer B
-
+
Figure 7. Tragedy of the Commons: Individual gain decreases in the long run as groundwater is depleted. 3. Discussion and Conclusion The archetypes described above are important, and they can be useful when managers face similar settings. It can also be helpful to understand the relationships between archetypes. A fundamental archetype, which has a relatively simple CLD, is Limits to Growth. Tragedy of the Commons and Growth and Underinvestment are special cases of the Limits to Growth archetype. Likewise, shifting the Burden, Eroding Goals, Fixes that Fail, and Success to the Successful are all special cases that arise essentially due to the problem of Limits to Growth, which has been a controversial topic ever since it was formally examined by Meadows et al. (1971) due to the generally perceived opportunity for continuous growth (Nørgaard 2010).
Page 9
Wolstenholme (2003) conceived of the idea of generic problem archetypes and solution archetypes. In problem archetypes, the system’s net behavior is significantly different from what was originally intended by decision makers. A solution archetype is a closed-loop archetype that minimizes the side effects and unintended consequences of the problem archetype. For all problem archetypes, a closed-loop solution archetype can be suggested (Figure 8). In both problem and solution archetypes, the defined system boundary plays a vital role. During the decision making process, if a manger does not define the system’s boundary, it will hide the unintended consequences from the view of those instigating the intended consequences (as shown in Figure 8 by diagonal lines). Examining problem archetypes and solution archetypes in actual WRM settings will be important for guiding holistic water resources development and management schemes. For example, as described in the success for successful section, the unintended consequence is a decline in water resources in neighboring towns. In this case, the form of a closed loop solution might be to introduce a regulatory loop where balance of water between megacities and their neighboring towns is controlled by an outsider organization.
Figure 8. Problem and Solution Archetypes: The structure of a generic two-loop system archetype (Wolstenholme, 2003) To some analysts, the structure and findings of archetypes may seem too obvious. The described system archetypes are indeed meant to be simple for use as qualitative communication and diagnostic tools and for sharing big-picture insights. They are not meant to replace detailed quantitative analyses and modeling required for water resources planning and management. In some cases, these archetypes can facilitate a constructive dialogue about water resources management problems by identifying important components of mental models that are missing
Page 10
from the big-picture qualitative analysis, and by providing a framework for sharing holistic insights and knowledge from detailed quantitative models of a problem (e.g., Gohari et al., 2013). Different archetypes may be at play over time during the course of system evolution. Identifying the governing system archetype is a good conceptual tool for monitoring the sustainability of a system’s trajectory. This is the merit of using system archetypes for process-based water resources management. System archetypes can provide insights for sustainable solutions that could not be obtained using conventional models based on linear thinking. They facilitate a systemic synthesis of the intended water management actions and unintended reactions, essential for mitigating or preempting the long-term adverse side-effects of well-intentioned management actions.
4. References Ackoff, R. L. (1993). From mechanistic to social systemic thinking. Pegasus Communications, Incorporated. AghaKouchak, A., Norouzi, H., Madani, K., Mirchi, A., Azarderakhsh, M., Nazemi, A., Nasrollahi, N., Farahmand, A., Mehran, A. and Hasanzadeh, E. (2015). Aral Sea syndrome desiccates Lake Urmia: call for action. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 41(1), pp.307-311. Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C. S. (1995). Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecological Economics, 15(2), 91–95. Backlund, A. (2000). The definition of system. Kybernetes, 29(4), 444–451. Bagheri, A., and Hjorth, P. (2007). A framework for process indicators to monitor for sustainable development: practice to an urban water system. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 9(2), 143–161. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Sociology and the new systems theory: Toward a theoretical synthesis. Suny Press. Bishop, R. C. (1993). Economic efficiency, sustainability, and biodiversity. Ambio, 69–73. Braun, W. (2002). The system archetypes. System, 2002, 27. Cai, X., McKinney, D. C., and Rosegrant, M. W. (2003). Sustainability analysis for irrigation water management in the Aral Sea region. Agricultural Systems, 76(3), 1043–1066. Forrester, J. W. (1971). World dynamics. Wright-Allen Press. Gleick, P. H. (1998). Water in crisis: paths to sustainable water use. Ecological Applications, 8(3), 571–579. Gohari, A., Eslamian, S., Mirchi, A., Abedi-Koupaei, J., Bavani, A. M., and Madani, K. (2013). Water transfer as a solution to water shortage: a fix that can backfire. Journal of Hydrology, 491, 23–39. Gohari, A., Mirchi, A. and Madani, K. (2017). System Dynamics Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Water Resources Management in Central Iran. Water Resources Management, 31(5), pp.1413-1434. Haraldsson, H. V., Belyazid, S., and Sverdrup, H. U. (2006, June). Causal Loop Diagrams– promoting deep learning of complex systems in engineering education. In 4th Pedagogical Inspiration Conference (Vol. 1). Hutchinson, C. F., Varady, R. G., and Drake, S. (2010). Old and new: Changing paradigms in arid lands water management. In Water and Sustainability in Arid Regions (pp. 311–332). Springer.
Page 11
Kim, D. H. (1999). Introduction to systems thinking (Vol. 16). Pegasus Communications Waltham, MA. Langefors, B. (1995). Essays on Infology: Summing Up and Planning for the Future, Student literature. Lund, Sweden. Madani, K., and Mariño, M. A. (2009). System dynamics analysis for managing Iran’s Zayandeh-Rud river basin. Water Resources Management, 23(11), 2163–2187. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., and William W. Behrens, I. (1971). The Limits to Growth. London: Pan Books, Ltd. Meadows, D. H., and Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing. Miller, J. G. (1965). Living systems: Basic concepts. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 10(3), 193-237. Mirchi, A., and Watkins Jr, D. (2012). A systems approach to holistic total maximum daily load policy: case of Lake Allegan, Michigan. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139(5), 544–553. Moxnes, E. (1998). Not only the tragedy of the commons: misperceptions of bioeconomics. Management Science, 44(9), 1234–1248. Nørgaard, J., Ragnarsdóttir, K. V., and Peet, J. (2010). The history of the limits to growth. Solutions Journal, 1(2), 59–63. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. Senge, P. M., and Sterman, J. D. (1992). Systems thinking and organizational learning: Acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1), 137–150. UC-Irvine/NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). (2015). Third of Big Groundwater Basins in Distress. < https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4626> Accessed 15 January 2018. Wolstenholme, E. (2004). Using generic system archetypes to support thinking and modelling. System Dynamics Review, 20(4), 341–356. Wolstenholme, E. F. (2003). Towards the definition and use of a core set of archetypal structures in system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 19(1), 7–26. Zhao, X., Liu, J., Yang, H., Duarte, R., Tillotson, M. R., and Hubacek, K. (2016). Burden shifting of water quantity and quality stress from megacity Shanghai. Water Resources Research, 52(9), 6916–6927.
Page 12
