Reconnecting Water Resources Research and Practice
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 147, Issue 6
Abstract
Forum papers are thought-provoking opinion pieces or essays founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation, on a civil engineering topic of general interest and relevance to the readership of the journal. The views expressed in this Forum article do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCE or the Editorial Board of the journal.
What Are We Missing?
Some people in our field are researchers. Some are practitioners. And some, like the two of us, have one foot in each camp.
For several years now we have been bothered by how water resources research fails to satisfy practical industry needs and how water resources practice fails to learn from potentially helpful research. And we are not the first or only ones to lament this unfortunate state, as the informative (but by no means comprehensive) sample of statements in Table 1 suggests.
| Topic | Statement | Source |
|---|---|---|
| General water resources research | [Sarcastically] “The sanitary engineering profession has developed many practical techniques for … stabilizing the state-of-the-art. These techniques … are commended to the serious student seeking scholarly satisfaction without incurring the risk of research accomplishment.” | Ettinger (1965) |
| “Water resources research has been allowed to slide into oblivion over the past 30 years.” | Lettenmaier (2008) | |
| “I have been involved with water research since the early 1970s … An excessive amount of what gets published seems inconsequential, primarily because it ignores real-world considerations.” | Walski (2014) | |
| “There are clear incentives for the best methods available to be used in the management of our water resources. There is also clear evidence that many methods and scientific advances published over recent decades have not been taken up by industry.” | Irvine (2017) | |
| Flood modeling | “Scientific research on physical systems and applied research on the development of design procedures should both contribute to narrowing the gap between research and practice in flood estimation.” | Pilgrim (1986) |
| System optimization | “Based on the increasingly large number of systems-oriented papers which appear in the civil engineering literature, it is not unreasonable to expect that the use of one or another optimization technique would have been undertaken in a significant number of completed projects and described in the literature; this turns out not to be the case. Moreover, U.S. federal agencies and major consultants do not appear to use these techniques in any but a handful of projects.” | Rogers and Fiering (1986) |
| “Review of the use of system-analysis techniques, and in particular optimization, to design water-distribution networks reveals that in spite of the considerable development of models in the literature they have not been accepted into practice.” | Goulter (1992) | |
| “The application of the systems approach to reservoir management and operations has been established … It has been concluded that a gap still exists between research studies and the application of a systems approach in practice.” | Simonovic (1992) | |
| “Water policy and planning applications of system optimization analysis remain less common outside of academia.” | Brown et al. (2015) | |
| “The survey and interviews of practitioners [indicate] a growing uptake of simulation models by water resource managers but a very limited uptake of optimization tools.” | Pianosi et al. (2020) | |
| Integrated water resources management | “The migration of IWRM [integrated water resources management] from theory into practice has been sluggish.” | Jeffrey and Gearey (2006) |
| “Evidence for the success of IWRM and AM [adaptive management] are mixed and they have come under criticism recently as failing to provide promised benefits.” | Medema et al. (2008) | |
| Groundwater | “Hydrogeology was founded on the need to solve real-world problems, and societal needs underpinned hydrogeologic investigations … This complementary feedback … has become decoupled in the 21st century.” | Hunt and Doherty (2011) |
| “Many well accepted and vetted research advances of the last 40 years have not found their way into everyday practice. In other words, tools in our hydrogeology toolbox, that are well-suited for today’s water issues, are not being used.” | Simmons et al. (2012) | |
| Energy management of water systems | “Energy intensities for public water supply have not been well characterized, although the research community, government agencies, and other [stakeholders] have repeatedly acknowledged the need for adequate local, empirical data.” | Sowby and Burian (2017) |
| “The concept of PATs [pumps as turbines] for energy recovery in water systems has long interested researchers, but it is not clear whether PATs are really being used in this way and whether water systems find them valuable.” | Sowby (2019) | |
| Water system design | “There are a good number of practical considerations in [water] system design that seem to be ignored in the research literature.” | Walski (2015) |
Clearly this is not a new problem. Some techniques, like system optimization, have had a long history and should have gained enough traction by now to be widely implemented in practice. Yet the conclusions of Rogers and Fiering (1986) and Pianosi et al. (2020) in Table 1 are much the same. There was already a large number of optimization papers by 1986, and there are even more now, but uptake of optimization among practitioners remains limited—despite the 34-year interlude that, as it happens, exactly covers my (Sowby’s) lifetime.
Is research missing the mark to inform practice? Or is practice missing a chance to embrace helpful research?
The answer, of course, is both. At the risk of stereotyping, but for the sake of simplicity, we argue that practitioners, in general, neither read research nor produce research. We believe this to be a root cause of the longstanding gap between research and practice that, when addressed, would help bring the two together and advance the profession. Practitioners would benefit from more practical, accessible research, and researchers would benefit from the contributions and influence of practitioners.
Having built our careers on both research and practice, we have observed a few problems and can offer recommendations on how to fix them.
Why Practitioners Don’t Read Research
Let us first explore the question of why water resources practitioners do not regularly read academic research in their field.
Lack of Exposure to Research
Guilford (2001) observed that “many undergraduate and graduate students understand neither the process of scientific writing nor the significance of peer review.” Searching scholarly literature is a skill one typically learns in graduate programs (if at all), presenting a gap that needs to be filled (Amekudzi et al. 2010). Practitioners without a graduate education likely have had little exposure to the methods of finding, evaluating, and digesting journal content. Even if they had adequate exposure, knowing where to look is a separate challenge. ASCE’s Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management alone has over 2,800 articles in its collection; five other ASCE journals also focus on water. Dozens more reputable water journals also exist, as do many less-reputable ones. Attempting to find a specific, relevant, credible item in an ever-widening ocean of research can be overwhelming, especially for those unfamiliar with journals. A practitioner is lucky if he or she can find one or two useful research papers a year. Practitioners instead rely on manuals of practice from organizations like the American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation because the manuals take pertinent research and condense it into something useful.
Little or No Access to Subscription Content
Universities and other research institutions enjoy perpetual subscriptions to thousands of journals and databases, but individual practitioners and some organizations (e.g., small consulting firms, local governments) cannot justify such an expense. As such, practitioners are often limited to viewing only the abstracts and cannot access the full content without payment. This model is fine for occasional articles (if they can be found), but for research purposes involving dozens of journals and articles it is unsustainable. In such cases the research remains largely isolated within the research community.
Poorly Written Abstracts
Without access to the full content, practitioners rely heavily on abstracts. Many abstracts, however, do not adequately convey the findings, implications, or limitations of the research as they should. The ASCE author guide advises that the abstract should be “written in plain language that includes a summary of the key conclusions of the manuscript” (ASCE 2019). Likewise, ASCE journal editors have reminded authors that “an abstract is not background or introductory material; rather, it should be a summary of the paper … The abstract needs to focus on the most important points” so the reader can “quickly understand the primary contribution of the work” (Walski and Watkins 2017).
Lack of Practical Applications
Practitioners crave clear, relevant, and actionable information to do their jobs, but research often fails to deliver. As Walski (2014) put it, the best research consists in
1.
identifying a real-world problem,
2.
reviewing pertinent literature,
3.
collecting and analyzing new data,
4.
formulating a sound model to describe the underlying processes,
5.
rigorously testing that model, and
6.
providing insights to practicing engineers dealing with the original problems.
Unfortunately, too much research omits the first and last ingredients of this recipe, leaving the work disconnected from practical applications. Novel and rigorous though it may be, practitioners will not be interested. It is primarily the responsibility of researchers to (1) determine what research the profession needs, and (2) communicate their research more effectively.
ASCE’s (2019) author guide says that “practical papers are strongly encouraged.” Further, to be acceptable for publication, technical papers must “contribute to the planning, analysis, design, construction, management, or maintenance of civil engineering works” and “include a practical applications section whenever possible.” Still, many papers struggle to meet this expectation.
Why Practitioners Don’t Produce Research
Besides generally not reading research, practitioners also rarely produce it. Why? The tempting answer might be “because they don’t want to or need to,” but let us look closer at what might hinder them.
Blindness to Opportunity
Because practitioners read little journal content in the first place, they are likely not aware of what journals do and what publishing opportunities exist. They may simply be unfamiliar with relevant scientific journals and the associated expectations and processes. Consequently, scientific journals are not an obvious choice for a practitioner wishing to share knowledge. Instead, the typical venue is a professional association conference or an industry magazine. However, the conference does not usually involve a stand-alone paper, and the magazine does not usually reach an academic audience, so the practitioner’s work has limited research impact even if it is potentially valuable.
Little or No Incentive to Publish
For a researcher, research is part of the job description. His or her career advancement and the department’s or school’s success obviously depend on scholarly publications and the associated grants. Practitioners, by contrast, focus on designing, building, and operating successful water resource systems and equipment rather than studying them. There is little incentive, in terms of economics or career development, for practitioners to produce research. It simply is not part of their job.
Unsuitable Nature of Work
Even if practitioners desire to write technical papers, the scopes, methods, or subjects from their daily work are often unsuitable for research publications. Most of the work done by these authors, while very creative, does not pass the litmus test for journals. For example, a water utility manager may wish to share how its new smart meters and customer feedback programs improved water use efficiency, but the project was not set up as a scientific investigation and was limited to the water utility in question. It would make an interesting conference presentation but may not meet the expectations of a journal. I (Sowby) have submitted papers to ASCE journals—at the urging of industry professionals who recognized the potential impact—only to have them languish under review for months and then be declined for being quotidian and trivial. Likewise, I (Walski), as a former editor and associate editor of ASCE journals, have seen reviewers dismiss good papers simply because “they aren’t research.” In spite of ASCE’s efforts, its journals remain by researchers, for researchers.
Trade Secrets
Practitioners who are developing proprietary technology, working under confidentiality agreements, or handling sensitive data might have interesting research to share, but simply cannot. Further, for many practitioners, finding a new or better way to do something can be a competitive advantage that they don’t want to just give away.
Journal Entry Barriers
For those unfamiliar with academic publishing, the barrier to entry may be insuperable. Besides the technical expectations of scientific journals, their onerous formatting criteria, lengthy review times (Powell 2016; Björk and Solomon 2013; Vosshall 2012), and steep publication fees discourage contributions by practitioners.
Underrepresentation of Practitioners among Reviewers and Editors
In the most recent annual recognition of this journal’s peer reviewers (ASCE 2020), at least 391 of 442 (88%) were affiliated with universities or research institutes. Currently, 45 of 48 (94%) of this journal’s editorial board members are affiliated with universities or research institutes. Practitioners are obviously underrepresented in these groups, though many are equally qualified and could provide much-needed service to evaluate the merit of submitted papers and guide the journal’s direction together with researchers.
Existing Technology Transfer
If research and practice are so disconnected, yet the world of water resources still turns, who is filling the gap?
Commercialization. These middlemen and their companies are finding worthwhile research and taking the risk to commercialize it for practitioners. They introduce new treatment processes, pumping controls, mixing equipment, sensors, meters, software, and data management services to the market. Research that succeeds in producing useful products and research that dies on the vine are technology’s form of natural selection.
Sometimes government agencies fill the same role in technology transfer. EPANET and HEC-RAS stand out, where US agencies realized the potential of the research and then invested in transforming the fundamental mathematics and code into off-the-shelf programs. The software is now widely used—and the underlying research widely cited—in the water resources community. Research is admittedly a progression of improvements; not all of it is user-ready. Middlemen like companies and governments are necessary in the process of technology transfer, but they should not be a substitute for direct collaboration between researchers and practitioners. “Letting the market decide” has been effective, but just imagine what we could accomplish with more collaboration between researchers and practitioners in the first place.
Recommendations to Reconnect Research and Practice
Despite the hair-splitting contrasts up to this point, we must remember that water resources researchers and practitioners are more alike than different. Our approaches may differ, but our goals are similar. We are, after all, working in the same field. We are professionals. We care about our work. We want to solve problems.
Clearly, academic papers are written for an academic audience. Still, many others could benefit from the work if it were more accessible and practical. Conversely, practitioners (including, for example, manufacturers, consultants, operators, and managers) have valuable data, experience, insights, and connections that could improve the value and impact of research.
As Cooper et al. (2019) observed, “Fundamentally focused on finding practicable solutions to real-world problems, civil and environmental engineering is highly collaborative, interdisciplinary, and close to relevant industries. Yet these synergies are largely built on old-fashioned research infrastructures.”
Here we offer a few recommendations to strengthen research–practice synergies and foster research that benefits (1) researchers by increasing the value, applicability, and uptake of their work, and (2) practitioners by supporting the solutions they need.
For Researchers
•
Look for real problems in the industry. It can be difficult to find and exploit new areas of research in water resources. To get ideas, listen to practitioners and their problems (“take a water operator to lunch”) or turn to already identified themes. One source is the American Water Works Association’s annual “State of the Water Industry” survey (AWWA 2020). Another good model for practical research is the work by the Water Research Foundation, where projects are funded by water and wastewater utilities and have considerable industry oversight.
•
Volunteer for industry manuals and similar projects. Research needs to be transformed into manuals, standards, and codes that practitioners can readily apply. A good example is AWWA Manual M22, Sizing Service Lines and Meters (AWWA 2014), which was originally published in 1975. The fourth edition will include a new method for estimating peak demand in buildings because a researcher, Steve Buchberger, did not stop at merely publishing papers about his research but carried it on into the manual.
•
Add practitioners and other so-called outsiders to your research team. They can help you make your work more meaningful to a wider audience. The insider/outsider diversity has distinct advantages for implementation (Louis and Bartunek 1992).
•
Strengthen industry–university partnerships. Research projects in particular can benefit from industry involvement, such as those described by Leicht et al. (2014). Advisory roles are also helpful. The University of Utah’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, for example, has an industrial advisory board composed of local professionals from construction, engineering, government, and nonprofits. The board advises the department chair on the professional needs and outlook of the state’s civil engineering industry. Many departments have similar boards, but they are only valuable if we listen to them.
•
Present research at local conferences. Practitioners are more likely to attend local events than national or global conferences. Accordingly, local conferences offer more potential for research uptake and industry collaboration.
•
Take a sabbatical. Working for a consulting firm or government environmental agency, even for a few months, can offer invaluable perspective on the problems the water industry faces. The insights and relationships you take away from such an experience can benefit your research program for many years.
•
Revisit well-worn research topics with the practitioner’s view. If you find the orchard of research overpicked, with only obscure, rotten fruit remaining, go back and revisit some of the past work. Does it still hold up? Have practitioners embraced it? Why or why not? Also consider looking to grey literature for ideas.
•
Improve abstracts. Give results and conclusions, not just background. Since most readers will see only the abstract, this is your best chance to make an impact. See Walski and Watkins (2017) for more guidance.
•
Include a practical applications section in your papers. This follows the expectations of ASCE (2019).
•
Suggest practitioners to serve as peer reviewers. Do not default to other researchers, but seek out a variety of viewpoints in a technical review.
•
Make research reproducible. By sharing data, code, models, and instructions, you enable others to validate your work and explore it further (Irvine 2017; Rosenberg and Watkins 2018, 2020, 2021). The same steps that make research reproducible also make it more accessible and impactful.
•
Share your research in other ways. Journal papers receive little attention from practitioners; presentations, webinars, trade magazines, news media, local conferences, local newsletters, so-called lunch-and-learn events, and even social media (Stillwell 2021) may be more effective.
•
Look beyond publishing. A published paper is not an endpoint, but rather one link in a long chain that leads to a solution. Consider how to set up your work for (eventual) implementation or commercialization.
For Practitioners
•
Partner with researchers and students. Having researchers on your team overcomes many of the barriers encountered when going solo. You can provide your practical perspective while they bring scientific rigor and familiarity with publishing.
•
Consider publication as a project outcome. If you find yourself planning a particularly interesting project, consider what research objectives it might serve. Build a team and include some budget for your effort to develop some research out of it.
•
Consider research as service. If you are not directly compensated for producing research publications, consider it part of your service to an association or to the profession.
•
Set a publishing goal. Perhaps one paper or collaboration per year.
•
Write discussions/responses to papers. This is a good way to enter the world of journals, especially those published by ASCE.
•
Consider the credibility that research brings. Research publications and partnerships can strengthen your own credibility or that of your organization. Papers open doors to new opportunities.
For Regulators
•
Promote research. Water regulators could encourage water utility staff and associated practitioners to participate in research projects that directly relate to or help solve industry problems. The late Ken Bousfield, former director of the Utah Division of Drinking Water, was one such advocate. Bousfield was frequently involved in student projects and also embraced energy efficiency research for water systems, leading to one of the first state-specific handbooks on the subject (UDDW 2014).
•
Offer continuing education credit for creating research. In specifying continuing education requirements for professional engineers, most states allow credit for published technical papers, articles, or books. Such rules are usually based on the Model Rules of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The same might be considered for water operator certification and continuing education.
•
Offer continuing education credit for reviewing journal papers. This has been suggested by Walski (2007) and Sowby (forthcoming). The NCEES Model Rules do not mention peer reviews as counting toward continuing education. Peer reviews seem to meet the intent of continuing education, but in the United States, only Idaho explicitly accepts them while most other states do not mention them and Ohio expressly prohibits them (Sowby, forthcoming). Encouraging practitioners to be involved in research oversight and providing some continuing education incentive to do so is in the best interest of the profession.
For Educators
•
Train undergraduates to read and use journals. Practitioners’ unfamiliarity with journals and publishing stems mostly from a lack of exposure in college. Rather than being an extra task, journal reading should be integrated with existing coursework, e.g., assigning students to regularly locate and study a specific journal paper relevant to the class. See Amekudzi et al. (2010) for ideas.
•
Explain the scientific publishing process. This should include selecting a journal, learning submission requirements, formatting the paper, writing a meaningful abstract, responding to peer reviews, and sharing with appropriate copyrights. These are basic skills that should already be part of any engineering curriculum.
•
Simulate the publishing process with an assignment. Have each student write a research paper or senior design report adhering to certain formatting standards. Assign each student to anonymously review another student’s report, provide written comments, and recommend a decision or grade. Have the author revise the report and respond appropriately to the reviewer. You, as educator, play journal editor, arbitrate disputes, and assign the final grade. Compile the final reports into a special issue and host an in-class symposium. See Guilford (2001) for ideas.
For Professional Associations
•
Identify practical problems and corresponding research needs. Good examples are AWWA’s State of the Water Industry and ASCE’s Infrastructure Report Card, both of which are broadly applicable to members and have significant research potential.
•
Plan events and activities to bring researchers and practitioners together. Organize panel discussions with a mix of researchers and practitioners. Hold a specially themed conference that will attract both groups. For research-focused conferences, invite a nonresearcher to deliver the keynote address or play some other prominent role.
•
Clarify journal expectations for practical manuscripts. Encourage technical papers, case studies, discussions, and short communications that address practical water resources problems. Clarify what is needed to meet the criteria for practical versus theoretical manuscripts.
•
Invite practitioners to serve as peer reviewers or editors. As mentioned earlier, practitioners are notably underrepresented in these roles. Some practitioners may decline, but right now they seem to get few invitations at all. They can offer fresh, practical perspectives and help evaluate the merit of technical papers and their impact on the profession.
Conclusion
Water resources research and practice, while separate activities, can inform and promote each other and, together, could accelerate and elevate much-needed industry solutions. Researchers should strive for work that aims to solve real industry problems; practitioners should strive to share their data, insights, and experience with the research community. Regulators, educators, and professional associations also have a role in reconnecting research and practice. The recommendations given here will stimulate more accessible, practical, and impactful water resources research that benefits both researchers and practitioners.
Data Availability Statement
No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study.
References
Amekudzi, A. A., L. Li, and M. Meyer. 2010. “Cultivating research and information skills in civil engineering undergraduate students.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 136 (1): 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2010)136:1(24).
ASCE. 2019. Publishing in ASCE journals: A guide for authors. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479018.
ASCE. 2020. “Reviewers.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 146 (12): 09020001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001316.
AWWA (American Water Works Association). 2014. “Sizing of service lines and meters.” In Manual of water supply practices, M22. 3rd ed. Denver: AWWA.
AWWA (American Water Works Association). 2020. State of the water industry: 2020 executive summary. Denver: AWWA.
Björk, B.-C., and D. Solomon. 2013. “The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.” J. Informetrics 7 (4): 914–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001.
Brown, C. M., J. R. Lund, X. Cai, P. M. Reed, E. A. Zagona, A. Ostfeld, J. Hall, G. W. Characklis, W. Yu, and L. Brekke. 2015. “The future of water resources systems analysis: Toward a scientific framework for sustainable water management.” Water Resour. Res. 51 (8): 6110–6124. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017114.
Cooper, D., et al. 2019. Supporting the changing research practices of civil and environmental engineering scholars. New York: Ithaka S+R. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.310885.
Ettinger, M. B. 1965. “How to plan an inconsequential research project.” J. Sanit. Eng. Div. 91 (4): 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSEDAI.0000565.
Goulter, I. C. 1992. “Systems analysis in water-distribution network design: From theory to practice.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 118 (3): 238–248. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1992)118:3(238).
Guilford, W. H. 2001. “Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing.” Adv. Physiol. Educ. 25 (3): 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167.
Hunt, R. J., and J. Doherty. 2011. “Interesting or important? Resetting the balance of theory and application.” Ground Water 49 (3): 301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00807.x.
Irvine, E. J. 2017. “Bridging the gap between research and practice.” Ground Water 56 (1): 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12616.
Jeffrey, P., and M. Geary. 2006. “Integrated water resources management: lost on the road from ambition to realisation?” Water Sci. Technol. 53 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.001.
Leicht, R. M., B. Franz, and K. R. Molenaar. 2014. “Successful university research programs with extensive industry involvement.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 19 (1): 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000205.
Lettenmaier, D. P. 2008. “Have we dropped the ball on water resources research?” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 134 (6): 491–492. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)134:6(491).
Louis, M. R., and J. M. Bartunek. 1992. “Insider/outsider research teams: Collaboration across diverse perspectives.” J. Manage. Inq. 1 (2): 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269212002.
Medema, W., B. S. McIntosh, and P. J. Jeffrey. 2008. “From premise to practice: A critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector.” Ecol. Soc. 13 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02611-130229.
Pianosi, F., B. Dobson, and T. Wagener. 2020. “Use of reservoir operation optimization methods in practice: Insights from a survey of water resource managers.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 146 (12): 02520005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001301.
Pilgrim, D. H. 1986. “Bridging the gap between flood research and design practice.” Water Resour. Res. 22 (9S): 165S–176S. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR022i09Sp0165S.
Powell, K. 2016. “Does it take too long to publish research?” Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.nature.com/news/does-it-take-too-long-to-publish-research-1.19320.
Rogers, P. P., and M. B. Fiering. 1986. “Use of systems analysis in water management.” Water Resour. Res. 22 (9S): 146S–158S. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR022i09Sp0146S.
Rosenberg, D. E., Y. Filion, R. Teasley, S. Sandoval-Solis, J. S. Hecht, J. E. van Zyl, G. F. McMahon, J. S. Horsburgh, J. R. Kasprzyk, and D. G. Tarboton. 2020. “The next frontier: Making research more reproducible.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 146 (6): 01820002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001215.
Rosenberg, D. E., A. S. Jones, Y. Filion, R. Teasley, S. Sandoval-Solis, J. H. Stagge, A. Abdallah, A. Castronova, A. Ostfeld, and D. Watkins Jr. 2021. “Reproducible results policy.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 147 (2): 01620001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001368.
Rosenberg, D. E., and D. W. Watkins. 2018. “New policy to specify availability of data, models, and code.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 144 (9): 01618001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000998.
Simmons, C. T., R. J. Hunt, and P. G. Cook. 2012. “Using every tool in the toolbox.” Ground Water 50 (3): 323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00920.x.
Simonovic, S. P. 1992. “Reservoir systems analysis: Closing gap between theory and practice.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 118 (3): 262–280. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1992)118:3(262).
Sowby, R. B. Forthcoming. “Accepting peer reviews as continuing education for professional engineers.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000614.
Sowby, R. B. 2019. “Discussion of ‘Leakage control and energy recovery using variable speed pumps as turbines’ by Gustavo Meirelles Lima, Edevar Luvizotto Jr., Bruno Melo Brentan, and Helena M. Ramos.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 145 (6): 07019001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001078.
Sowby, R. B., and S. J. Burian. 2017. “Survey of energy requirements for public water supply in the United States.” J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 109 (7): E320–E330. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2017.109.0080.
Stillwell, A. 2021. “What the science and engineering world needs now is Twitter.” J. Sustainable Water Built Environ. 7 (1): 01820001. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000927.
UDDW (Utah Division of Drinking Water). 2014. “Drinking water energy (cost) savings handbook.” Accessed March 13, 2021. https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/programs/drinking-water/energy-cost-savings-handbook/docs/costsavingshandbook.pdf.
Vosshall, L. B. 2012. “The glacial pace of scientific publishing: Why it hurts everyone and what we can do to fix it.” FASEB J. 26 (9): 3589–3593. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.12-0901ufm.
Walski, T. 2007. “Journal reviews should count toward continuing education.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 133 (6): 473. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2007)133:6(473).
Walski, T. 2014. “Consequential research.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 140 (5): 559–561. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000430.
Walski, T. 2015. “Real-world considerations in water distribution system design.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 141 (9): 02515002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000574.
Walski, T., and D. Watkins. 2017. “How (not) to write an abstract.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 143 (8): 01617001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000790.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 147 • Issue 6 • June 2021
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 2, 2020
Accepted: Dec 29, 2020
Published online: Apr 9, 2021
Published in print: Jun 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Sep 9, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Alyson H. Rapp, Annelise M. Capener, Robert B. Sowby, Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Drinking Water Operations: A Survey of Progress in the United States, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-5870, 149, 7, (2023).
- Robert B. Sowby, Daniel R. Jones, Kayson M. Shurtz, Practical Experience with the Modified Philip–Dunne Infiltrometer Test, Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 10.1061/JSWBAY.SWENG-512, 9, 4, (2023).
- Robert B. Sowby, Andrew J. South, Discussion of “Integrated Modeling of Tap Water Perception and Consumption of Bottled Water: An Exploratory Analysis”, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 10.1061/JITSE4.ISENG-2180, 29, 2, (2023).
- Robert B. Sowby, Making waves: Research to support water and wastewater utilities in the transition to a clean-energy future, Water Research, 10.1016/j.watres.2023.119739, 233, (119739), (2023).
- Athanasios V. Serafeim, George Kokosalakis, Roberto Deidda, Nikolaos Th. Fourniotis, Andreas Langousis, Combining Statistical Clustering with Hydraulic Modeling for Resilient Reduction of Water Losses in Water Distribution Networks: Large Scale Application Study in the City of Patras in Western Greece, Water, 10.3390/w14213493, 14, 21, (3493), (2022).
- Robert B. Sowby, Like a Storm in the Desert: John Denver and the American West’s Changing Hydrology, Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 10.1061/JSWBAY.0000972, 8, 3, (2022).
- Robert B. Sowby, Rollin H. Hotchkiss, Minimizing Unintended Consequences of Water Resources Decisions, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001623, 148, 11, (2022).
- Kyla Semmendinger, Deborah Lee, Lauren Fry, Scott Steinschneider, Establishing Opportunities and Limitations of Forecast Use in the Operational Management of Highly Constrained Multiobjective Water Systems, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001585, 148, 8, (2022).
- Robert B. Sowby, Discussion of “Improving Water Age in Distribution Systems by Optimal Valve Operation” by Bruno Brentan, Laura Monteiro, Joana Carneiro, and Dídia Covas, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001569, 148, 7, (2022).
- Robert B. Sowby, Neil S. Grigg, More Papers, More Authors, More References: What Does It Mean for Water Resources Planning and Management?, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001525, 148, 3, (2022).
- See more