Grand Challenges for Hydrology Educationin the 21st Century

Benjamin L. Ruddell, M.ASCE1; and Thorsten Wagener, M.ASCE2

Abstract: A thorough understanding of the hydrosphere is crucial for the sustainable evolution of human society and the ecosystem in arapidly changing world. This understanding can only come from well-trained professionals in the field of hydrology working in research andpractice. In civil and environmental engineering, this knowledge is the basis for the design of infrastructure and its management. This paperbriefly reviews the historical development of engineering hydrology education from the middle of the twentieth century. The twentiethcentury was characterized by the establishment in the 1950s and 1960s of a clear, modern, and durable vision for hydrology educationas a distinct formal program of study, and the consolidation in the 1990s of the original vision. In recent years, a series of publicationshas expanded the traditional vision of hydrology education. This recent literature emphasizes formalized approaches to hydrology education,including community-developed curricular resources, data-based and modeling-based curricula, formally assessed pedagogies, and formali-zation of nontraditional pedagogies. Based on these findings, the authors present several challenges for hydrology education in the 21stcentury. Central themes of the challenges for hydrology education are the development of international hydrology education communitiesand networks, shared learning technologies—partially driven by the need for a more mechanistic approach to engineering hydrology, for-malized and validated pedagogies, and adaptations of international best educational practices to regionally specific hydrology and socio-economic context. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000956. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Author keywords:Hydrology; Education; Pedagogy; Priorities; Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); Engineering;Challenges.

Introduction

“Knowledge required for understanding and solving complex waterproblems may be considered as a continuum extending from thebasic physical and biological sciences, through the applied naturalsciences, and a thrust into the behavioral sciences. The breadth ofknowledge encompassed is greater than in any other field of study.A complete educational program in hydrology and water resourcesneeds to provide the opportunity for students to specialize in anysegment of the continuum as well as the opportunity for others toobtain a general education across the continuum. Historically, train-ing in water science has been compartmented on campuses withinseveral established disciplines, with little integration among thesedisciplines. Also, training in the behavioral sciences with emphasison water resources administration has been very limited, especiallyin the political, social, and legal fields. Recently, there has beenconcerted effort on several campuses to integrate and broaden hy-drology and water resources education by the development of inter-disciplinary programs.”

Harshbarger and Evans (1967)“If the apocalypse is still a little way off, it is only because the

four horsemen and their steeds have stopped to search for something

to drink” (Grimmond 2010). Today, society has clearly recognizedthat a thorough understanding of the hydrosphere is crucial for thesustainable evolution of human society and the ecosystem in a rap-idly changing world. This understanding can only come from well-trained professionals in the field of hydrology working in researchand practice. In civil and environmental engineering, this knowledgeis the basis for the design of infrastructure and its management.

This paper reviews the historical development of hydrology ed-ucation from the middle of the last century to the present. It is ap-propriate to begin in the “Historical Trajectory of HydrologyEducation” section by reviewing the broad history of hydrologyeducation to understand the long-term trajectory of the field. Thiswill help understanding of what has been accomplished, what hasnot been accomplished, and what new priorities should be estab-lished. In the “Recent Developments” section, the recent develop-ments and accelerated interest in formal hydrology education sinceroughly the year 2000 are reviewed. In the “Grand Challenges inHydrology Education for the 21st Century” section, the literature issynthesized to develop several grand challenges for engineering hy-drology education in the 21st century.

The authors have found that the hydrology education conversa-tion in the (mainly) peer-reviewed international literature from themid-twentieth century to the present is dominated by United Statesand European institutional priorities, structures, and views, and byapplications to engineering hydrology educational programs. Thisreview will therefore be of greatest utility to those subcommunities.This bias is a natural result of the historical trajectory of academicscience and education during the twentieth century, and of the his-torically applied roots of hydrology. Although the foundations ofthe field remain a solid starting point for future developments, theexisting formal literature is not fully representative of the needs ofthe rapidly globalizing and internationalizing hydrology commu-nity in the 21st century, or of the rapidly increasing socioeconomic

1Assistant Professor, Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona StateUniv., Tempe, AZ 85287; formerly, College of Technology and Innovation,Arizona State Univ., Mesa, AZ (corresponding author). E-mail:bruddell@asu.edu

2Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Bristol, 1.51 Queen’sBuilding, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, U.K. E-mail: thorsten.wagener@bristol.ac.uk

Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 24, 2013; approved onDecember 7, 2013; published online on December 10, 2013. Discussionperiod open until October 22, 2014; separate discussions must be submittedfor individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic En-gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/A4014001(8)/$25.00.

© ASCE A4014001-1 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

NA

NY

AN

G T

EC

HN

OL

OG

ICA

L U

NIV

on

06/0

3/14

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

embedding of hydrology and water resources problems. Therefore,central themes of the grand challenges for hydrology education arethe development of international hydrology education communitiesand networks, shared learning technologies, formalized and validatedpedagogies, and adaptations of international best educational practi-ces to regionally specific hydrology and socioeconomic context.

Historical Trajectory of Hydrology Education

W. B. Langbein (1958) traced the origins of hydrology education,at least in the United States, to early U.S. military hydrologic en-gineering textbooks in 1862, and internationally to the formaliza-tion of the academic field with the 1923 establishment of theInternational Association of Scientific Hydrology [now theInternational Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS)] andthe first modern hydrology textbooks in the 1920s. Langbein(1958) summarized the state of hydrology education in 1958 asunderdeveloped and in need of formalization, citing statistics thatno formal hydrology degree programs existed in the United States,that less than a third of U.S. institutions had a hydrology course,and that only 12% of practicing hydrologists had taken an under-graduate course in hydrology topics. Roughly half of practicinghydrologists had a civil engineering background, and the vast ma-jority had received their hydrology training through field practiceand applied apprenticeship, often within governmental resourcemanagement or military agencies, rather than through formal uni-versity study (e.g., Wilm 1957). Formalization of university under-graduate programs in hydrology was identified as a priority. Thesepatterns were generally representative of the international situationat the time, at least within the developed world (Gray 1969).

Early efforts correctly recognized the inherent interdisciplinarynature of hydrology, and that defining hydrology was essential tothe establishment of a coherent research and education agenda orfocused hydrology education programs. Price and Heindl (1968)cited 31 different definitions of hydrology. Harshbarger and Evans(1967), as quoted, provided a remarkably timeless definition of theeducational requirements for hydrological research and educationthat has been echoed for the last half century. They recognized theneed for complex systems approaches, interdisciplinary integrationof physical, biological, socioeconomic, legal, and behavioralknowledge, a combination of professional breadth with deep tech-nical specialization, and the practical problem of interdisciplinarytraining in a disciplinary university curricular structure.

The 1960s were the first landmark period of development informal hydrology education. For example, in 1961, the Universityof Arizona’s Hydrology and Water Resources program was estab-lished, joining a small number of formal international programs.The Technical University of Dresden in Germany, having offereda course in hydrology as early as 1899, established a formal degreeprogram in hydrology in 1968—interestingly, within the Depart-ment of Physics. A second German hydrology degree program,offered through the Department of Geography, followed in the1970s at the University of Freiburg. Similar efforts and timescalescan be found in other countries, e.g., the Netherlands started offer-ing postgraduate education courses in water-related topics in 1957through an organization now known as UNESCO-Institute forWater Education (IHE) Delft. This attention coincided with the1965–1974 declaration of the International Hydrological Decade(IHD) by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO), which initiated an intense period of fo-cus in dozens of countries on the creation and standardization of acoherent research and education agenda [Gilbrich 1991; UNESCO1974; Universities Council on Water Resources (UCOWR) 1971;

United States National Committee for the International Hydrolog-ical Decade (USNC-IHD) 1976].

The UNESCO IHP was established in 1975 to continue thework of the IHD. Gilbrich (1991) provided a 25-year summaryof the IHP. Maniak (1993) published an assessment of modelhydrology curricula that implement the IHP’s agenda. Kovar andGilbrich (1995) explored emerging needs for postgraduate train-ing and generally reemphasized the earlier IHP findings, addingthe establishment of professional hydrologist certifications forM.S. degrees and the need for geographical information systems(GIS) and modeling software training. The UNESCO-IHP contin-ues to implement this evolving agenda with a variety of programsthat have educational or community building components, suchas Hydrology for the Environment, Life, and Policy (HELP)(e.g., Camkin and Neto 2013) and Flow Regimes from Interna-tional Experimental and Network Data (FRIEND), with theUNESCO-IHP international training programs.

The period between the end of the IHD in 1974 and the 1991publication of the so-called Blue Book (Eagleson et al. 1991), socalled based on the blue color of the book cover, was marked asbuilding momentum in the international university communityaround the concept of hydrology as an independent science. TheBlue Book is considered a landmark in hydrology science and ed-ucation in the United States, and perhaps embodies the moment intime when the consolidated ideas of the 1960s reached a degree ofinternational critical mass after three decades of work.

Several other cotemporaneous publications mark the early1990s as the second landmark period for hydrology education.A survey assessment by ASCE (1990) found that the industryand academic communities were generally satisfied with the stateof the educational practice, with the specific exception thatprofessional industry practitioners were becoming critical of inade-quate training in field practice methods, tools of the trade, profes-sional and business skills, and engineering licensure prerequisites.MacDonald (1993) proposed specific field educational curricula asa remedy. Nash et al. (1990) identified other problems with the ed-ucational paradigm, including too much reliance of hydrologic sci-ence education on the empiricism of civil engineering programs,inadequate undergraduate training in the physical fundamentalsof hydrologic science, and a growing divide between hydrologyscience and engineering that slows the translation of hydrology sci-ence into practice (see also Dyck 1990). James (1993) favorablyreviewed the progress of the educational efforts of the prior threedecades, but noted the potential danger of stagnation of the emerg-ing core hydrology curriculum and the resulting need for the cre-ation of a process of continuous improvement to keep waterresources education programs up-to-date with the rapidly acceler-ating and diversifying development of theory, computer tools, mod-els, and methods. Lee (1992) discusses the need for a broadundergraduate hydrology core including ecology and transportprocesses in addition to the basics of the water balance, as prepa-ration for specialized graduate studies. Salz (1996) presents aspecial issue with 22 papers on graduate hydrology education em-phasizing themes of hydroinformatics, international approaches,and necessary undergraduate preparation. Zojer (1996) echoedthe trends of other studies from the 1990s: in the 1970s, hydrologycourses were general and qualitative, in the 1980s, postgraduatecourses became highly specialized and quantitative instrumentationand computer models were emphasized, and the 1990s saw empha-sis on the practical applicability of hydrologic science, on interdis-ciplinarity and breadth, and on the incorporation of socioeconomics.Elaboration and implementation of these priorities continues todaywith increasing emphasis on the human role in the water cycle(Miller and Gray 2008).

© ASCE A4014001-2 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

NA

NY

AN

G T

EC

HN

OL

OG

ICA

L U

NIV

on

06/0

3/14

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Recent Developments

It may be observed that since the 1990s, there has been simultane-ously a concern, from the university hydrologic science perspective,over inadequate fundamental training in hydrologic theory, and fromthe engineering practitioner’s perspective, over inadequate engineer-ing, professional, and practical training. There is a general perceptionthat whereas formal training in hydrology has been improving, prac-tical and field experience has not (Wagener et al. 2007), althoughefforts are being made (Wagener et al. 2012). In the authors’ opinion,this tension and diversity of opinion is a natural and healthy resultof the successful establishment by the 1990s of hydrologic science asa distinct and diverse set of educational programs, both within andseparate from civil engineering departments. However, recent surveysof the community of hydrology educators also suggest that the in-creasing demands for more holistic education, although appreciatedby hydrology educators, are difficult to fulfill. Declining educationalbudgets, increasing student numbers, and the time commitmentneeded to develop appropriate courses are barriers to investment ofthe needed time. Meanwhile, adverse incentives are present, suchas an extremely competitive research and publication culture that failsto adequately reward pedagogical contributions (Wagener et al. 2007).

In the first decade of 2000, advances in research on science,technology, engineering, and mathematics education (STEM) be-gan to benefit the hydrologic education community. These advan-ces brought awareness that education is itself a science and a fieldof practice that can be improved through applied research, and thatthis research is a priority for the university community (Boyer1990). This literature is too broad to summarize, but specific ex-amples are representative of the general trends pertaining to hydrol-ogy education. Much of this literature challenges the historicalnorms in the university classroom, and advances by way of theoryand learning outcome assessment an emerging constructivist orstudent-centered pedagogy of active exploration, as opposed tothe traditional positivist or instructor-centered pedagogy of infor-mation conveyance (Felder 2012; Prince and Felder 2006; Prince2004). Constructivist theories of knowledge assert that humanlearning occurs when new information interacts with a student’sexisting experiences in the context of an activity or problem; itis experiential learning, as opposed to rote learning. Bransfordet al. (2000) demonstrated that curiosity is necessary for learning,and that it can be motivated in the classroom by carefully craftedproblems; hence, the focus on problem-based learning. Sheppardet al. (2008) argued for a project-based and practicelike curriculumthat builds broad professional skills like teamwork, problem solv-ing, and ethics. Much of this work has taken place in the specific con-text of undergraduate engineering education (Shulman 2005), but hasdirectly impacted the broader hydrology education communitythrough its roots in undergraduate engineering programs. Research ex-periences for undergraduates (REU) and summer institutes or summerschools are examples of implementations of these STEM pedagogicalconcepts in the context of undergraduate and graduate research.

A shift in the emerging paradigm is facilitated by the near-universal availability by the 2000s of the Internet, which rendersredundant the instructor’s traditional gatekeeper role as a conveyerof content, but reemphasizes the instructor’s role as a guide to criti-cal thinking and proper application of information to problems.Technology, notably for hydrology education including Internet re-sources, modeling, visualization, GIS methods, and hydroinfor-matics, is an important part of many emerging pedagogies.However, technology is not a panacea, and must be used carefullyto enhance learning (Felder and Brent 2000).

The focused public attention during the 2000s on climate sci-ence, on the applied problems created by climate change, and

on urban and natural resources sustainability issues has placeda new urgency on specific hydrologic science problem-solvingabilities and related educational priorities. The recognition that“stationarity is dead” (Milly et al. 2008), or at least that historicalstatistical norms are no longer a sufficient basis for planning thefuture, has been particularly transformative in hydrologic science.However, the methods needed to overcome nonstationarity havebeen slow to enter the engineering hydrology classroom, especiallyat the undergraduate level. This new awareness is particularlyrelevant for motivating the use of mechanistic models (ratherthan statistical/empirical models), the use of holistic systems ap-proaches, and the incorporation of human socioeconomic systems(the anthroposphere’ within coupled natural human system modelsof the hydrosphere as a direction for 21st century hydrologic sci-ence (Wagener et al. 2010a). It is remarkable that these prioritieshave been closely held by the hydrologic science and educationcommunity for several decades, and that only recent events havebrought focus and urgency to the implementation of these prioritieswithin the university hydrologic science curriculum.

The appearance of the term hydrophilanthropy during the2000s, describing “ : : : the altruistic efforts : : : to provide sustain-able, clean water for people and ecosystems worldwide,” is notableas recognition by the community of hydrology education and prac-tice of the increasing popularity of service-based, problem-based,and project-based approaches to university education (Kreamer2010). Such projects are by definition culturally embedded andoften embody a combination of field work, use of instrumentationand observations, engineering, science, communication, teamwork,and sustainability thinking, in the context of problems with socio-economic implications. These hydrophilanthropic projects are anattractive way to motivate and engage students of diverse back-grounds in a context that teaches across most of the hydrologyeducation agenda. The second Blue Book (Hornberger et al.2012)—an approach to revisit the state of hydrology 30 years afterthe first review was led by Peter Eagleson—touches on hydrophi-lanthropy. Hydrophilanthropy is an important development for hy-drology education because it may enhance student motivation and itprovides context for constructivist learning, not to mention the real-world benefits of these projects.

Perhaps motivated by the developments in STEM education, cli-mate science, and sustainability, or by the mainstreaming of theInternet, the past few years have seen a remarkable amount of ac-tivity in the hydrologic education community, including numerousmeetings (e.g., Showstack 2010) and special issues focused on thetopic (Seibert et al. 2013; Missingham and McIntosh 2013). In noparticular order, the common themes of recent publications includepractical, professional, and field experience education, especiallyas addressed using virtual trips and gaming (Kingston et al.2012; Hoekstra 2012; Rusca et al. 2012; Lyu et al. 2013;Leff et al. 2013), sociohydrology, coupled natural human systems,the decision-making anthrosphere (Sivapalan et al. 2012;Sivakumar 2012; King et al. 2012; Hoekstra 2012; Wagener et al.2010b), emerging student-centered, case-based, and problem-based pedagogies (Shaw and Walter 2012; Lyon et al. 2013;Popescu et al. 2012; Ngambeki et al. 2012; Dennison and Oliver2013; Missingham 2013; Camkin and Neto 2013; Elshorbagy2005; Lyon and Teutschbein 2011; Wagener et al. 2010b), formalassessment of pedagogy and learning outcomes (Merwade andRuddell 2012; Marshall et al. 2013; Pathirana et al. 2012; Lyonand Teutschbein 2011; Majdi et al. 2012; Marshall et al. 2013),establishment of community-based core concepts and materialfor hydrology education (Aghakouchak and Habib 2010; Wageneret al. 2007, 2012), enhancement of the curriculum using models,data, and visualization [data and modeling driven geoscience

© ASCE A4014001-3 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

NA

NY

AN

G T

EC

HN

OL

OG

ICA

L U

NIV

on

06/0

3/14

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

cybereducation (DMDGC)] (Merwade and Ruddell 2012; Mohtarand Engel 2000; Habib et al. 2012; Dolliver and Bell 2006;Majdi et al. 2012; Popescu et al. 2012; Wagener et al. 2004; Seibertand Vis 2012), regionally customized approaches (Jonker et al.2012; Bol et al. 2011), and the training of the professionally broadbut technically deep T-shaped hydrologist (Uhlenbrook and deJong 2012; Pathirana et al. 2012; McIntosh and Taylor 2013; Pinteret al. 2013; Cap-Net 2008).

These and other recent publications indicate that a third land-mark has been reached in the history of hydrology education.The first landmark was characterized by the establishment of a vi-sion for formal university hydrology education, and was put intoaction during the IHD in 1965. In retrospect, it is clear that theleadership provided during the 1950s and 1960s set an agendafor hydrology education that has proven durable and actionablein the past half century. Great progress has been made on most,although not all, of this agenda, and active work continues today.The second landmark was characterized by a consolidation in the1990s around the creation of an independent hydrologic scienceand formal university hydrologic education program, and the im-plementation of most of the original vision. This emerging thirdlandmark is characterized by expansion of the original vision be-yond the horizon of the 1950s, driven by the practical demands andopportunities of the 21st century. As of 2013, this expanded visionmost notably adds modernization and innovation in the areas ofcommunity-developed and Internet-based free hydrology curricularresources, interactive data, modeling, visualization-based curricularresources, formal pedagogical design and quantitative educationaloutcome assessment, and formal adoption of student-centered andother emerging nontraditional pedagogies.

Grand Challenges in Hydrology Education for the21st Century

The original visions for hydrology education articulated byLangbein (1958), Harshbarger and Evans (1967), and others areremarkably timeless. Those early leaders envisioned a hydrologyeducation that was interdisciplinary, systems-oriented, appliedbut rooted in science, both broad and specialized, and interdepart-mental, with additional emphasis on political, social, legal, andeconomic aspects of water resources management. Meanwhile,as new technologies, new opportunities, and new problems con-tinue to emerge, the potential for this vision to be realized continuesto expand. Having reviewed the history and state of the practice inengineering hydrology education, and to a degree for global hydrol-ogy education in general, and with the benefit of many recent au-thors’ views on the subject, an opinion on grand challenges forhydrology education in the 21st century is presented.

Formalize the T-Shaped Hydrologist by BringingAuthentic, Student-Centered, Practicelike, CoupledNatural Human System, and Field Experiences tothe Classroom

The metaphor of a T-shaped educational profile expresses the needto combine the depths in training in a specific area (i.e., the verticalbar of the T), with the ability to work across disciplines in multi-disciplinary teams (i.e., the horizontal bar of the T). The T-shapedprofile is described by Harshbarger and Evans (1967) in their origi-nal vision statement, in which “ : : : a complete educational programin hydrology and water resources needs to provide the opportunityfor students to specialize in any segment of the continuum as wellas the opportunity for others to obtain a general education acrossthe continuum.” Both broad and specialized skills have always been

demanded from practicing hydrologists, and have often been taughtinformally in hydrology programs. The importance of these skills isincreasing as hydrologists find themselves at the center of interdis-ciplinary projects—given the role water often plays as the connect-ing agent. Student-centered pedagogies including problem-based,project-based, case-based, hydrophilanthropic, and fieldwork con-tent are ideally suited to provide the breadth required by professio-nals. Carefully designed projects and fieldwork with formalizedT-shaped outcomes should have a place in the 21st century hydrol-ogy course. These pedagogies should incorporate socioeconomic,sustainability, decision-making, legal, cultural, and other couplednatural human system concepts that are difficult to teach using tra-ditional lecture and theory (Sheppard et al. 2008). This type ofpedagogy is also a natural fit for undergraduate and graduate re-search projects that interface with the classroom, but formal modelsand validated best practices for this pedagogy are lacking. Formalwork is beginning to emerge to address this (Blöschl et al. 2011).

Translate Scientific Hydrology Advances into Practicethrough the Classroom

A criticism of hydrologic science is that recent advancement inmodeling and instrumentation has not done enough to changethe operational norms of applied engineering and hydrology prac-tice and water resource management. In the authors’ opinion, thebest way to remedy this issue is to bring the state of the art in hydro-logic science and modeling into the upper-division undergraduateand M.S. postgraduate classroom, where the state of the art can becomparatively cotaught along with established and codified meth-ods to the next generation of professionals. This is particularly truein the increasingly important area of urban water engineering, inwhich the rational method is still standard practice despite long-understood recognition of its limitations and inadequacy for inte-grated urban socioeco-hydrological design (Hawkins et al. 2008;Jones 1971). Unfortunately, teaching both the state of the practiceand the state of the art takes more time and energy from an instructor,and asks more of the curiosity and attention of the typical student ofapplied engineering hydrology. Efficient approaches that do morewithless time and energy will therefore require additional development.

Replace Historical Stationarity with Physics-BasedDynamics, Feedback, Connectivity, and Variability inEngineering Hydrology Applications

The hydrology of physical dynamics, in combination with anunderstanding of system connectivity, feedback, variability re-gimes, and physically limiting boundaries, must urgently replacehistorical stationarity and statistical error bars in the methods taughtin the undergraduate engineering hydrology classroom (Milly et al.2008; Kumar 2007). Most (if not all) engineering hydrology text-books follow engineering practice in their heavy emphasis on theempirical and statistical applications of hydrology (e.g., flood fre-quency analysis). Connecting the process understanding of scien-tific hydrology with quantitative analysis and design applicationsrequired by engineers is a crucial challenge for hydrology educa-tion. If there is to be success in transforming historical stationarityassumptions in engineering hydrology practice, graduates must beable to apply physics-based quantitative methods to solve the sameproblems. The need for a better understanding of hydrologic vari-ability in both space and time is part of this effort (e.g., Blöschlet al. 2013). The applied engineering hydrologists of today are fac-ing the challenges of land use transformation and climate change,and they need these skills to design the water supply and stormwater management solutions of the future.

© ASCE A4014001-4 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

NA

NY

AN

G T

EC

HN

OL

OG

ICA

L U

NIV

on

06/0

3/14

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Develop an International Faculty Learning Communityfor Hydrology Education

Hydrology education is a challenging, complicated, and valid areaof scholarship (Boyer 1990). For example, hydrology textbookswill generally publish generic methods (e.g., Darcy’s Law) thatcan more or less be applied anywhere as long as some basic criteriaare met. However, hydrologic systems are not that simple, andgeneric equations are not easily translated into local solutions.Hence, experience with specific hydrologic systems (e.g., semiaridor mountainous) is crucial for hydrologic practice and research.

This might best be done as a part of a community approach tocurriculum development and publication. This can be achievedthrough teaching notes, i.e., published guidelines on how to conveymaterial to specific groups of students in specific places (Wageneret al. 2012). International communities of hydrology education spe-cialists can form the core of the network that will develop, dissemi-nate, and transfer best practices and resources across geographicaland cultural boundaries.

Hydrologic science, in contrast to sciences such as physics andmathematics, depends heavily on tacit knowledge gained by work-ing with many data sets and by analyzing many systems. This tacitknowledge is not easily shared between educators using textbooks,but can be transmitted by emphasizing and formalizing as educa-tional methods field work, team teaching, integration of researchwith education, and workshops. These activities will often beorganized around shared multiuniversity interests in a regionalhydrological location.

Develop Community-Published Core Curriculumand Materials

The Internet has transformed the marketplace of information, suchthat information is virtually free. The role of the hydrology educa-tor is now to help students filter information, contextualize it, andapply it correctly. The textbook of the future is a customized col-lection of online resources. Owing to the extreme breadth and rapidpace of advancement of the field of hydrology, no single informa-tion source, including the best textbook, is adequate. The emer-gence of Internet-based communities and social networks hascreated the potential for a new solution to this problem: a commu-nity of hydrology educators that collectively publishes, reviews,quality-controls, and updates modular curriculum materials. Thisis the idea behind the modular curriculum for hydrologic advance-ment (MOCHA) (Wagener et al. 2012). The authors believe thatthis type of approach is the next logical step and is an appropriate21st-century approach to the development of core concepts and cur-riculum. It also satisfies arguments for the creation of a continuousimprovement process for the curriculum (James 1993) that lever-ages the energy of the entire community for improvements. Incen-tives are a part of this challenge, because the prevailing academicpublication culture fails to adequately reward those who invest inthe formal development of high-quality and peer-reviewed cur-ricula. The formalization of a subdisciplinary hydrology educationcommunity will help to balance the incentive structure and speeddissemination and adoption of the results of the work.

Augment Theoretical Instruction with Data andModeling Driven Cybereducation

Data and modeling driven cybereducation (DMDC) methods, in-cluding some hydroinformatics methods, have been utilized sincethe 1980s, but are increasingly valuable as a natural form of for-malized student-centered learning strategies. These approaches arebelieved to be most effective at the upper-division undergraduate

and postgraduate levels after theoretical concepts have been intro-duced to learners (Merwade and Ruddell 2012; Habib et al. 2012),but with effort, may be translated to lower levels of the curriculum.Crucially, DMDC including systems models, data analysis, andvisualization is arguably the best way to teach complex systemsconcepts, dynamics, feedback, connectivity, and uncertainty. Thismight best be done as a part of a community approach to the devel-opment and publication of up-to-date DMDC materials. A largenumber of hydrology DMDC resources are already available onthe Internet, but these are not organized in a coherent, updated,or quality-controlled venue. At the very least, the hydrologycommunity should undertake to review and curate the best of thesematerials so that excellent resources can be highlighted and dis-seminated, and their creators rewarded and recognized.

Continuing Education of Practicing Hydrologists

The rapidly changing world continues to reduce the time periodsover which certain learned skills or knowledge could be consideredstate-of-the-art, or at least best practice. In this sense, hydrology isno different from other fields; on the contrary, it might even bemore exposed because of heavy dependence on observationaland computational capabilities. Providing opportunities to refineand update the tool-set a hydrologist once learned at a universitytherefore has to be part of the hydrology education landscape. Thiscan be in the form of stand-alone online modules (see, for example,the NOAA COMET program), through summer schools or shortcourses now offered by many universities, or by part-time coursesthat allow working hydrologists to gain additional qualifications. Insome parts of the world, e.g., the United Kingdom, there is also anincreasing focus on engineering doctoral centers that focus on ap-plied science questions that a student investigates while working ina company, rather than being a full-time student.

Education for Culturally Specific and InternationalHydrology Applications

In the developing world, hydrology and water resource is followinga remarkably Western trajectory, emphasizing first the constructionof centrally managed dams, canals, levees, and drainage networksto mitigate damaging drought and flood cycles and to provide watersupply and flood protection, and second, investment in water andwastewater treatment and environmental protection (e.g., China;Jun and Chen 2001). This is perhaps an intended outcome of50 years of UNESCO-IHP efforts to develop and standardizeworldwide professional hydrology education. However, recentwork suggests that alternative paradigms of hydrologic scienceand water resource engineering are possible and perhaps desirable,as an expression of the unique socioeconomic, ethical, religious, ortechnological characteristics of the local culture (Chamberlain2008; Rongchao et al. 2004; Kreamer 2010). India, for example,relies on a much more decentralized and distributed water storagesystem, and distributed approaches can be more effective in con-texts with highly diverse legal, economic, or social contexts, orwhere centralized systems are impractical. To the extent that emerg-ing research establishes actionable knowledge regarding localhydro-economics, sociohydrology, and eco-hydrology, this knowl-edge should be translated into the hydrology curriculum at theundergraduate and professional levels, particularly in universitieslocated within that cultural context. The global hydrology commu-nity should discover whether and how hydrology and hydrologyeducation needs to be done differently in the global south andbeyond the scope of the historical mainstream of United Statesand European led engineering hydrology. To date, this type of

© ASCE A4014001-5 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

NA

NY

AN

G T

EC

HN

OL

OG

ICA

L U

NIV

on

06/0

3/14

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

hydrology education work is underrepresented in the formal peer-reviewed literature.

Hydro-Economics: Sustainably Managing Waterwith Markets

The Water-Energy Nexus is a popular talking point, but as pointedout by Zetland (2011) water is also connected to every aspect ofthe human and natural economy (the water-everything nexus).Even when public agencies provide regulatory control, futuresolutions to water resource challenges will increasingly involvebusinesses, water markets, water rights, private contracts forenvironmental services, conservation easements, and impact off-sets. These arrangements are already transforming water supply,storm water management, and water quality in many locations(e.g., Sunding 2000; McCrea and Niemi 2007). Water professio-nals, including those destined for public service positions, neededucation on the economic side of water management and onmarket-based solutions to hydrological problems. In addition toformal economics, related methods such as life cycle analysis, con-cepts of embedding of water in goods and services or of goodsand services in water, and other methods can help understandingof how decisions impact water resource sustainability through aweb of connections in the complex coupled natural human system.

More University Students Learning Hydrology First

Perceptions of employability are one reason that engineering hy-drology has historically been the dominant choice of degree pro-grams for students of hydrology. Most students have historicallypreferred to study hydrology as a specialization or focus fromwithin engineering or broader geosciences degree programs. Thisis particularly true at the undergraduate level. This problem is as oldas hydrology, but the increasing socioeconomic importance ofwater issues in the 21st century presents an opportunity. A histori-cal and ongoing challenge for the hydrology field is to create lead-ership roles outside academia for hydrologists, and also fororganizations that primarily emphasize hydrology. This will drivedemand for students that specialize in hydrology, and in turn sub-scription to hydrology courses and programs at all educationallevels. As an exemplar, China’s President Hu Jintao was a hydraulicengineer, reflecting the societal importance China places on waterresource issues.

Additionally, the university educational system is currentlystruggling to adapt its model to serve an incoming student popu-lation with different abilities, interests, qualifications, and demo-graphics than it did during the mid-twentieth century, when thevision for hydrology education was first established. Promotinghydrology as a subject in the science curriculum in primary schoolsmay be an important step toward attracting more students to under-graduate hydrology programs. Without an introduction to hydrol-ogy before attending a university, students are less aware of thefield and less likely to choose to enroll in universities and degreeprograms that specialize in hydrology.

Conclusions

Hydrology education has become an increasing focus in recentyears. This is driven by the realization that the current approachto hydrology education is inadequate for current and future societalchallenges, and that opportunities created by new media andcomputational advancements remain underutilized. The authorsreviewed how hydrology education has evolved over the decades,and where the community appears to be headed. This review was

written from the perspective of the United States and Europeanengineering hydrology communities that have historically domi-nated the conversation, but with an attempt to understand thebroader global hydrology education concerns. Based on the liter-ature, the authors presented a synthesis of the challenges for hydrol-ogy education in the 21st century. These challenges require thedevelopment of new disciplinary subcommunities, the developmentof formal pedagogies, new technologies, and a broadening andglobalization of hydrology education to meet the unique needsof society beyond the historical scope of the hydrology educationcommunity’s work.

Acknowledgments

TW was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundationthrough the CCLI Program under grant DUE-06335. BR was sup-ported by the U.S. National Science Foundation through the TUESProgram under grant DUE-1035985. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.National Science Foundation.

References

Aghakouchak, A., and Habib, E. (2010). “Application of a conceptualhydrologic model in teaching hydrologic processes.” Int. J. Eng. Educ.,26(4), 1–11.

ASCE. (1990). “Perspective on water resources education and training.”J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1990)116:1(99), 99–133.

Blöschl, G., et al. (2011). “Promoting interdisciplinary education–TheVienna doctoral programme on water resource systems.” Hydrol. EarthSyst. Sci. Discuss., 8, 9843–9887.

Blöschl, G., Sivapalan, M., Wagener, T., Viglioni, A., and Savenije, H.(2013). Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)—A Synthesis Rep.across Processes, Places and Scales, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, U.K.

Bol, Z., Weil, W., Ying, L., Yongzhen, L., and Jun, X. (2011). “Study oneducational reform of hydrology and water resources engineeringcourse.” Environ. Sci. Manage., 6.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professori-ate, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Learning, Princeton,NJ.

Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn:Brain, mind, experience, and school, National Academy, Washington,DC.

Camkin, J., and Neto, S. (2013). “New learning foundations for buildingwater knowledge bridges.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 150(1),72–79.

Cap-Net. (2008). “Economics in sustainable water management trainingmanual and facilitators’ guide.” ⟨http://www.cap-net.org/sites/cap-net.org/files/Economics%20and%20sust%20WRM%20Manual.pdf⟩(May 22, 2013).

Chamberlain, G. (2008). Troubled waters: Religion, ethics, and the globalwater crisis, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

Dennison, W., and Oliver, P. (2013). “Studying nature in situ: Immersiveeducation for better integrated water management.” J. Contemp. WaterRes. Educ., 150(1), 26–33.

Dolliver, H. A. S., and Bell, J. C. (2006). “Using scientific visualization torepresent soil hydrology dynamics.” J. Nat. Res. Life Sci. Commun.,35(1), 5–11.

Dyck, S. (1990). Integrated planning and management of water resources(guidance material for courses for engineers, planners, and decision-makers), UNESCO-IHP, Paris, France.

Eagleson, P. S., et al. (1991). Opportunities in the hydrologic sciences,National Academy, Washington, DC.

© ASCE A4014001-6 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

NA

NY

AN

G T

EC

HN

OL

OG

ICA

L U

NIV

on

06/0

3/14

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Elshorbagy, A. (2005). “Learner-centered approach to teaching watershedhydrology using system dynamics.” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 21(6),1203–1213.

Felder, R. M. (2012). “Engineering education: A tale of two para-digms.” ⟨http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/TwoParadigms.pdf⟩ (May 22, 2013).

Felder, R. M., and Brent, R. (2000). “Is technology a friend or foe of learn-ing?” Chem. Eng. Educ., 34(4), 326–327.

Gilbrich, W. H. (1991). 25 years of UNESCO’s programme in hydrologicaleducation under IHD/IHP, UNESCO, Paris.

Gray, D. M. (1969). Hydrologic education in Canada, Univ. of Saskatch-ewan Centre for Hydrology, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

Grimmond, J. (2010). “Special Report on Water.” The Economist.Habib, E., Ma, Y., Williams, D., Sharif, H. O., and Hossain, F. (2012).

“HydroViz: Design and evaluation of a web-based tool for improvinghydrology education.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3767–3781.

Harshbarger, J. W., and Evans, D. D. (1967). “Educational progress inwater resources present and future.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.,3(1), 29–44.

Hawkins, R. H., Ward, T. J., Woodward, D. E., and Van Mullem, J. A.(2008). Curve number hydrology: State of the practice, ASCE,Reston, VA.

Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). “Computer-supported games and role plays inteaching water management.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16,2985–2994.

Hornberger, G., et al. (2012). Challenges and opportunities in the hydro-logic sciences, National Academies, Washington, DC.

James, L. D. (1993). “An historical perspective on water resources educa-tion.” Water Resour. Update Univ. Counc. Water Resour., 91(1),19–21.

Jones, D. E. (1971). “Where is urban hydrology practice today?” J. Hy-draul. Div., 97(2), 257–264.

Jonker, L., Van Der Zaag, P., Gumbo, B., Rockstrom, J., Love, D., andSavenije, H. H. G. (2012). “Why a regional approach to postgraduatewater education makes sense—The WaterNet experience in SouthernAfrica.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 9(3), 3581–3606.

Jun, X., and Chen, Y. D. (2001). “Water problems and opportunities in thehydrological sciences in China.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 46(6), 907–921.

King, E. G., O’Donnell, F. C., and Caylor, K. K. (2012). “Reframing hy-drology education to solve coupled human and environmental prob-lems.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 4023–4031.

Kingston, D. G., Eastwood, W. J., Jones, P. I., Johnson, R., Marshall, S.,and Hannah, D. M. (2012). “Experiences of using mobile technologiesand virtual field tours in physical geography: Implications for hydrol-ogy education.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1281–1286.

Kovar, P., and Gilbrich, W. H. (1995). Postgraduate education in hydrol-ogy, UNESCO-IHP, Paris.

Kreamer, D. K. (2010). “Hydrophilanthropy and education.” J. Contemp.Water Res. Educ., 145(1), 1–4.

Kumar, P. (2007). “Variability, feedback, and cooperative process dynam-ics: Elements of a unifying hydrologic theory.” Geogr. Compass, 1(6),1338–1360.

Langbein, W. B. (1958). “Hydrologic education.” Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol.Bull., 3(3), 27–30.

Lee, J. (1992). “The education of hydrologists.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 37(3),285–289.

Leff, L. G., Bade, D. L., Scaffid, J., Williamson, C. E., and Woolverton, C.(2013). “Environmental aquatic resource sensing: Basic sciences, busi-ness education, and outreach.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 150(1),63–71.

Lyon, S. W., and Teutschbein, C. (2011). “Problem-based learning and as-sessment in hydrology courses: Can non-traditional assessment betterreflect intended learning outcomes?” J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ.,40(1), 199–205.

Lyon, S. W., Walter, M. T., Jantze, E. J., and Archibald, J. A. (2013).“Training hydrologists to be ecohydrologists: A ‘how-you-can-do-it’example leveraging an active learning environment for studyingplant–water interaction.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17(1), 269–279.

Lyu, X., Hirsch, P., Kimkong, H., Manorom, K., and Tubtim, T. (2013).“Cross-boundary peer learning in the Mekong: A case of field-based

education in natural resources management.” J. Contemp. Water Res.Educ., 150(1), 41–52.

MacDonald, L. H. (1993). “Developing a field component in hydrologiceducation.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 29(3), 357–368.

Majdi, R. A. N., Mohtar, R. H., Cherkauer, K. A., and French, B. F. (2012).“Effect of integrating hydrologic scaling concepts on students learningand decision making experiences.” Adv. Eng. Educ., 2(1), 1–20.

Maniak, U. (1993). Curricula and syllabi for hydrology in university edu-cation, UNESCO, Paris.

Marshall, J. A., Castillo, A. J., and Cardenas, M. B. (2013). “Assessingstudent understanding of physical hydrology.” Hydrol. Earth Syst.Sci., 17, 829–836.

McCrea, M. E., and Niemi, E. (2007). “Technical Rep. on Market-BasedReallocation of Water Resources Alternative: A Component of theYakima River Basin Storage Feasibility Study.” Publication Number07-11-044, Washington State Dept. of Ecology.

McIntosh, B. S., and Taylor, A. (2013). “Developing T-shaped water pro-fessionals: Building capacity in collaboration, learning, and leadershipto drive innovation.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 150(1), 6–17.

Merwade, V., and Ruddell, B. L. (2012). “Moving university hydrologyeducation forward with community-based geoinformatics, data andmodeling resources.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2393–2404.

Miller, C., and Gray, W. (2008). “Hydrogeological research, education, andpractice: A path to future contributions.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:1(7), 7–12.

Milly, P. C. D., et al. (2008). “Stationarity is dead: Whither water manage-ment?” Science, 319(5863), 573–574.

Missingham, B. (2013). “Participatory learning and popular educationstrategies for water education.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 150(1),34–40.

Missingham, B., and McIntosh, B. S. (2013). “Water education for sustain-ability in higher education.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 150(1), 1–5.

Mohtar, R. H., and Engel, B. E. (2000). “www-based water quality mod-eling systems to enhance student learning.” J. Eng. Edu., 89(1), 89–94.

Nash, J. E., Eagleson, P. S., Philip, J. R., Van der Molen, W. H., andKlemeše, V. (1990). “The education of hydrologists.” Hydrol. Sci.J., 35(6), 597–607.

Ngambeki, I., Thompson, S. E., Troch, P. A., Sivapalan, M., and Evangelou,D. (2012). “Engaging the students of today and preparing the catchmenthydrologists of tomorrow: Student-centered approaches in hydrology ed-ucation.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 9(1), 707–740.

Pathirana, A., Koster, J. H., de Jong, E., and Uhlenbrook, S. (2012). “Onteaching styles of water educators and the impact of didactic training.”Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3677–3688.

Pinter, N., Baer, S., Chevalier, L., Kowalchuk, R., Lant, C., and Whiles, M.(2013). “An ‘IGERT’ model for interdisciplinary doctoral educationin water-related science and policy.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ.,150(1), 53–62.

Popescu, I., Jonoski, A., and Bhattacharya, B. (2012). “Experiences fromonline and classroom education in hydroinformatics.” Hydrol. EarthSyst. Sci., 16, 3935–3944.

Price, W. E., Jr., and Heindl, L. A. (1968). “What is hydrology?” Trans.Am. Geophys. Union, 49(2), 529–533.

Prince, M. (2004). “Does active learning work? A review of the research.”J. Eng. Edu., 93(3), 223–231.

Prince, M. J., and Felder, R. M. (2006). “Inductive teaching and learningmethods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases.” J. Eng. Edu.,95(2), 123–138.

Rongchao, L., Van Beek, E., and Gijsbers, P. (2004). “Integrated waterresources management for the Yellow River in China: A discussionof scientific and ethical approaches.” The basis of civilization—Waterscience?, International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publica-tion 286, IAHS Press, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, U.K., 150–159.

Rusca, M., Heun, J., and Schwartz, K. (2012). “Water management sim-ulation games and the construction of knowledge.” Hydrol. Earth Syst.Sci., 16, 2749–2757.

Salz, H. (1996). “Past, present, and future of postgraduate education in hy-drology.” Proc., Prague Workshop, UNESCO-IHP, Paris.

Seibert, J., Uhlenbrook, S., and Wagener, T. (2013). “Hydrology educationin a changing world.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 17, 1393–1399.

© ASCE A4014001-7 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

NA

NY

AN

G T

EC

HN

OL

OG

ICA

L U

NIV

on

06/0

3/14

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Seibert, J., and Vis, M. J. P. (2012). “Teaching hydrological modeling witha user-friendly catchment-runoff-model software package.” Hydrol.Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3315–3325.

Shaw, S. B., andWalter, M. T. (2012). “Using comparative analysis to teachabout the nature of nonstationarity in future flood predictions.” Hydrol.Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1269–1279.

Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., and Sullivan, W. M. (2008).Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field, Wiley,New York.

Showstack, R. (2010). “Future of hydrology education explored duringEGU town hall meeting.” Eos, 91(20), 182–183.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). “If not now, when? The timelines of scholarship ofthe education of engineers.” J. Eng. Edu., 94(1), 11–12.

Sivakumar, B. (2012). “Socio-hydrology: Not a new science, but a recycledand re-worded hydrosociology.” Hydrol. Process., 26(24), 3788–3790.

Sivapalan, M., Savenije, H. H. G., and Blöschl, G. (2012). “Socio-hydrology: A new science of people and water.” Hydrol. Process.,26(8), 1270–1276.

Sunding, D. (2000). “The price of water: Market-based strategies areneeded to cope with scarcity.” California Agric., 54(2), 56–63.

Uhlenbrook, S., and de Jong, E. (2012). “T-shaped competency profilefor water professionals of the future.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.,9(3), 2935–2957.

UNESCO. (1974). The teaching of hydrology, UNESCO, Paris.United States National Committee for the International Hydrological

Decade (USNC-IHD). (1976). “Education in hydrology and waterresources in the United States-1965–1974—An overview with

recommendations.” United States National Committee for theInternational Hydrological Decade, ed., National Research Council,National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

Universities Council on Water Resources (UCOWR). (1971). Rep. ofSpecial Task Force on Federal Government-University Programsand Policies Concerned with Manpower Production in Water Resour-ces and Related Environmental Activities, Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR.

Wagener, T., et al. (2004). “A hydroarchive for the free exchange of hydro-logical software.” Hydrol. Process., 18(2), 389–391.

Wagener, T., et al. (2007). “Taking the pulse of hydrology education.”Hydrol. Process., 21(13), 1789–1792.

Wagener, T., et al. (2010a). “The future of hydrology–An evolving sciencefor a changing world.” Water Resour. Res., 46(5), W05301.

Wagener, T., et al. (2012). “It takes a community to raise a hydrologist: Themodular curriculum for hydrologic advancement (MOCHA).” Hydrol.Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3405–3418.

Wagener, T., Reed, P., and Zappe, S. (2010b). “Using real-world case stud-ies to advance hydrology education in a changing world.”Geophys. Res.Abstr., 12, 5382.

Wilm, H. G. (1957). “The training of men in forest hydrology and water-shed management.” J. Forest., 55(4), 268–272.

Zetland, D. (2011). The end of abundance: Economic solutions to waterscarcity, Aguanomics, Amsterdam.

Zojer, H. (1996). “Trends in hydrological education.” Proc., Prague Work-shop, UNESCO-IHP, Paris.

© ASCE A4014001-8 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

NA

NY

AN

G T

EC

HN

OL

OG

ICA

L U

NIV

on

06/0

3/14

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.