water

Review
Urban Hydroinformatics: Past, Present and Future
C. Makropoulos 1,2,3 and D. A. Savić 1,4, *
1 KWR, Water Research Institute, Groningenhaven 7, 3433 PE Nieuwegein, The Netherlands;
[email protected]
2 Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering,
National Technical University of Athens, Iroon Politechniou 5, 157 80 Zografou, Athens, Greece
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
7491 Trondheim, Norway
4 Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter, Exeter EX44QF, UK
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 20 May 2019; Accepted: 10 September 2019; Published: 20 September 2019


Abstract: Hydroinformatics, as an interdisciplinary domain that blurs boundaries between water

science, data science and computer science, is constantly evolving and reinventing itself. At the heart
of this evolution, lies a continuous process of critical (self) appraisal of the discipline’s past, present
and potential for further evolution, that creates a positive feedback loop between legacy, reality and
aspirations. The power of this process is attested by the successful story of hydroinformatics thus far,
which has arguably been able to mobilize wide ranging research and development and get the water
sector more in tune with the digital revolution of the past 30 years. In this context, this paper attempts
to trace the evolution of the discipline, from its computational hydraulics origins to its present focus
on the complete socio-technical system, by providing at the same time, a functional framework
to improve the understanding and highlight the links between different strands of the state-of-art
hydroinformatic research and innovation. Building on this state-of-art landscape, the paper then
attempts to provide an overview of key developments that are coming up, on the discipline’s horizon,
focusing on developments relevant to urban water management, while at the same time, highlighting
important legal, ethical and technical challenges that need to be addressed to ensure that the brightest
aspects of this potential future are realized. Despite obvious limitations imposed by a single paper’s
ability to report on such a diverse and dynamic field, it is hoped that this work contributes to a
better understanding of both the current state of hydroinformatics and to a shared vision on the most
exciting prospects for the future evolution of the discipline and the water sector it serves.

Keywords: hydroinformatics; smart cities; smart utilities; resilience; distributed systems; data;
analytics; decision support; sociotechnical system; ethics; digital water

1. Introduction

1.1. Hydroinformatics—An Evolving Story

The water cycle is a system characterized by inherent complexity, variation, and uncertainty due
to interlinked social, natural and engineered subsystems. Hydroinformatics, as a scientific study of
this complex system takes a deliberately interdisciplinary, sociotechnical approach [1], blurring the
boundaries between water science, data science and computer science. Despite having its origins in
computational hydraulics [2], it, however, does not only concern itself with modelling and decision
support, as is often incorrectly assumed. The modern field of hydroinformatics also embraces
the social dimension of water cycle management, e.g., social needs, concerns and consequences
(including equity, data privacy, ethics, legal issues, etc.). Therefore, hydroinformatics should be

Water 2019, 11, 1959; doi:10.3390/w11101959 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2019, 11, 1959 2 of 17

viewed as having a horizontal role in integrating water sciences (i.e., hydrological, hydraulic and
environmental), data sciences (statistics, stochastics, data driven analytics), computer science and
information and communication technologies (ICT) and society [3]. This also positions hydroinformatics
as a cross-cutting field of study that underpins the transition of water authorities and utilities from
reactive to proactive by leveraging technological advances to achieve to the so-called Water 4.0 state
(also named Digital Water or Water Informatics) delivering sustainable and resilient water management.
As a dynamic field of research, hydroinformatics has evolved from the days of hydraulic/hydrologic
modelling to an academic discipline with a thriving community of scientists, engineers and
practitioners (organized around two professional organizations—the International Association for
Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research, IAHR, and the International Water Association, IWA),
with its own Journal [4], specialist groups and biannual international conferences. However, the
discipline’s network is not restricted to these institutions. It has grown around the world building
strong communities and high-profile scientific journals, such as the International Environmental
Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) and their Journal [5] as well as the Consortium of Universities
for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI) in the US and their Hydroinformatics
Conferences. The discipline and its community run and contribute to educating new generations
of hydroinformaticians through a number of professional and university degree courses offered all
around the world.
Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into the depths of hydroinformatics
philosophy and approaches, the discipline can be thought of as a continuous process of developing
and using water data, models and tools, to understand the environment, to engage all stakeholders,
and help make decisions that improve society. This is a highly iterative process (Figure 1), because,
as also stated in Vojinović and Abbott [6], “hydroinformatics integrates knowledges from the social and
technical domains to create so-called conjunctive knowledges, that are concerned with an understanding of how
technical interventions have social consequences and how the resulting social changes in turn generate new
technical developments”. This evolving nature of hydroinformatics can also be viewed through the lens
of changing communities attending the biannual Hydroinformatics conferences and consequently the
transformation in the research focus over a period of 25 years. While the early years attracted mostly
practitioners from the mature fields of computational hydraulics and hydrology and those involved
in early applications of artificial intelligence methods, the later years’ conferences can be viewed
as a meeting place of a community of communities, encompassing various multi-disciplinary areas.
This widening of disciplinary communities resulted in changes to the scope of the work presented
at conferences, for example, from purely technical approaches to managing demand for water to
socio-technical approaches where customer engagement is sought through, not only technical means,
but also by combining behavioral and data science. Further examples of the changes include the
proliferation of real-time modelling and decision methods due to increasing computing power and
the availability of data through citizen science and ubiquities sensing. Together, with the drive to
open science outputs to a wider audience (via open-source tools and data), to hybridize modelling
systems (via integration of physical and data-driven models), and to better visualize data, processes
and decisions (via serious gaming, virtual/augmented reality), the community is well-positioned to
help humanity address a range of high-impact future real-world water challenges.

1.2. Aim of This Paper

Hydroinformatics has considerable advances to show across the entire water cycle, however it
would be beyond the scope of this paper to include a review of all contributions in the field, thus the
focus is limited to urban water issues and perspectives. This is because as urbanization continues to
accelerate concentrating ever increasing demands for water services in cities and megacities around the
world [7], and as urban water infrastructure is ageing and related investments are lagging behind [8],
it is argued that the urban environment urgently needs smarter solutions based on hydroinformatics
more than any other domain.
 of changing communities attending the biannual Hydroinformatics conferences and consequently
the transformation in the research focus over a period of 25 years. While the early years attracted
mostly practitioners from the mature fields of computational hydraulics and hydrology and those
involved in early applications of artificial intelligence methods, the later years’ conferences can be
viewed as a meeting place of a community of communities, encompassing various multi‐disciplinary
Water 2019, 11, 1959 3 of 17
areas. This widening of disciplinary communities resulted in changes to the scope of the work
presented at conferences, for example, from purely technical approaches to managing demand for
water to socio‐technical approaches where customer engagement is sought through, not only
The current state of the art in (urban) hydroinformatics is mapped, proposing a narrative that
technical means, but also by combining behavioral and data science. Further examples of the changes
connects several elements and strands of work together into a coherent whole. This narrative necessarily
include the proliferation of real‐time modelling and decision methods due to increasing computing
leaves aspects of hydroinformatics out, and where applicable, references to additional review work is
power and the availability of data through citizen science and ubiquities sensing. Together, with the
added to assist the reader. Specifically, the paper highlights three main pieces of the hydroinformatics
drive to open science outputs to a wider audience (via open‐source tools and data), to hybridize
puzzle: Data,
modelling analytics
systems (viaand decision
integration support and
of physical (thedata‐driven
last one inmodels),
both itsandformal planning/design
to better visualize data,and
societal/communication/engagement
processes and decisions (via serious sense) in anvirtual/augmented
gaming, effort to suggest areality),
way of thinking about the
the community domain
is well‐
and to point towards a promising future.
positioned to help humanity address a range of high‐impact future real‐world water challenges.

Figure 1. The circular nature of hydroinformatics.

Figure 1. The circular nature of hydroinformatics.

2. From Theory to Practice

Water systems and services are highly complex [9] as they are tasked to balance water resources
with demands through complex interconnected infrastructure. As such, decision making about
these systems and services (at strategic, tactical and operational scales) need to be taken within a
continuously changing landscape where water quality and quantity are uncertain [10]. These systems
are also influenced by climatic changes and human practices water demand patterns are shifting
as urbanization continues [11], influencing demands [12] as standards of living rise [13]. Lastly„
environmental legislation and customer expectations are also shifting and with them [14,15], the
thresholds against which the water sector’s performance is measured also change. This dynamic
decision landscape is further complicated by aging infrastructure [16] and the advent of new (disruptive)
technologies and concepts.
Figure 2 presents an overview of some of the main technologies and concepts that have emerged
in the past few years and are influencing both research and practice in the urban water management
field and hydroinformatics specifically. In this necessarily brief and elliptical sketch, new real-time
information coming from smart sensors, including smart meters, also in the context of IoT developments,
stored and managed through (often cloud-based) information platforms [17,18], allow for the remote
monitoring and control of new more distributed interventions in the urban water cycle integrated
into (and extending the useful life of) existing centralised systems and networks. This is possible due
to, also, new analytics that are developed to exploit and extract value from this new information in
view of design, tactical and operational decisions (from locating new technologies, to rehabilitating
piped networks to understanding and managing water demands [19]). Part of the value in this
improved understanding of subsystem functions is in being able to develop and calibrate whole cycle
(socio-technical) system models. They are now increasingly being applied to improve the understanding
of the interplays between centralised and decentralised systems as well as the interaction between
infrastructure and the end users. These new, more inclusive modelling approaches underpin a more
engaging approach to decision support in the form of serious games (SG), and augmented/virtual
reality (AR/VR) environments, challenging and disrupting the very way decisions are made in the
water sector [20]. The latest developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have
already shown that AI/ML enabled software systems can beat human players in complex games, such
as chess or Go [21]. Through reinforcement learning, these systems can learn by playing games, which
can be a guiding light to developing decision-support systems capable of assisting human water system
operators in performing complex operational, tactical or strategic tasks. Similarly, robotic technologies
Water 2019, 11, 1959 4 of 17

and AI, which have been making great strides in the manufacturing and consumer industries, are
starting to find their way to water management, e.g., underground asset inspection [22]. Lastly, the
authors argue that with these data, tools and models at hand, the sector is now developing more
sophisticated
Water 2018, 10,ways
x FOR of stress-testing
PEER REVIEW new and existing infrastructure, developing new methodological
4 of 17
approaches around resilience [23]. In the remaining part of this section, a brief overview of some key
infrastructure,
literature developing
on the subjects new methodological
highlighted approaches
above is provided around
and resilience
an outline [23]. current
of their In the remaining
state of art
part of this section, a brief overview of some key literature on the subjects highlighted above is
is discussed.
provided and an outline of their current state of art is discussed.

New forms of
interactive Enable more New concepts
decision making sophisticated looking into the
and learning Underpin stress‐testing future of water
using infrastructure as
cyber‐physical
New whole cycle systems
Provide socio‐technical (resilience)
confidence for system models
deploying
Require more
integrated
Help calibrate
models to be Assist in future‐
designed proofing of
New analytics to
validate, fuse, New centralised
assimilate & decentralised
infrastructure infrastructure
data options closing
the water ‐
energy ‐
materials cycle
Can be exploited by
New real time
Allow the
information
remote
managed
monitoring and
through novel
control of
(often cloud‐
based)
information
platforms

Figure 2. 2.AAshifting
Figure shiftinglandscape
landscape for
for hydroinformatics researchand
hydroinformatics research andpractice.
practice.

2.1. New Real Time Information

2.1. New Real Time Information
The rapid developments in ICT, leveraged through advances in hydroinformatics, have created
The rapid developments in ICT, leveraged through advances in hydroinformatics, have created
thethe
basis forfor
basis a phenomenal
a phenomenalincrease
increasein inthe
the types
types and
and amounts
amounts of ofwater‐related
water-relateddata data collected
collected and and
analyzed,
analyzed,following
following the
thetrend
trend(and
(andtotosome
someextent
extent hype) of the
hype) of theso‐called
so-calledBig BigData
Datacurrently
currently evident
evident
in numerous
in numerous other fields and sectors [24]. Although the volume of water data currently collected by by
other fields and sectors [24]. Although the volume of water data currently collected
thethe
sector is is
sector certainly
certainlyunprecedented, attributedtotoananincreasing
unprecedented, attributed increasing deployment
deployment of dedicated
of dedicated sensors
sensors of
of various types,the
various types, thedata
dataininthe
the water
water sector
sector cannot
cannot really
really be considered
be considered big, atbig,
leastatnot
least
yet.not yet.data
Water Water
data are
are often
often structured
structured datadata
and and dousually
do not not usually
includeinclude thetypes
the main mainoftypes of unstructured
unstructured data (such data (such
audio,
images,
audio, video,
images, and and
video, unstructured text) text)
unstructured that account for 95%
that account forof95%bigofdata
big at theatglobal
data scale scale
the global [24]. A[24].
notable (and
A notable (and promising)
promising)exception
exceptionisiswhen
when crowdsourcing
crowdsourcing is also taken
is also into into
taken account as a means
account of
as a means
supplementing data
of supplementing data obtained
obtainedfromfrommoremoretraditional
traditionalsources
sources [25]. The
[25]. Thearrival
arrivalof of
bigbig
data is also
data is also
coinciding with a strong movement by individuals, learned societies and governments
coinciding with a strong movement by individuals, learned societies and governments to open data for to open data
thefor the benefit
benefit of individuals
of individuals and society
and society in general.
in general. The availability
The availability and useandofuse of data—that
open open data—that
anyone
anyone can access, use or share—can also increase opportunities for
can access, use or share—can also increase opportunities for the collaboration and engagement the collaboration and of
engagement of stakeholders, particularly in cities. The rise of the ‘Smart City’ concept, where ICT
stakeholders, particularly in cities. The rise of the ‘Smart City’ concept, where ICT (and IoT) are used
(and IoT) are used to enhance a city’s livability, workability and sustainability, is another factor that
impacts on the use of big data in urban water management [26]. The developments in this (growing)
nexus between water and ICT (often termed digital water, Water 4.0 or water informatics), allow
water companies to now be able to monitor in (near) real time their entire supply and value chain,
Water 2019, 11, 1959 5 of 17

to enhance a city’s livability, workability and sustainability, is another factor that impacts on the use
of big data in urban water management [26]. The developments in this (growing) nexus between
water and ICT (often termed digital water, Water 4.0 or water informatics), allow water companies to
now be able to monitor in (near) real time their entire supply and value chain, from the sources to
the consumers’ tap and then ‘downstream’ to the wastewater plant. Smart sensors and smart meters
(e.g., [27]) are becoming ubiquitous allowing for a substantial increase in coverage (e.g., [28]), resolution
(e.g., [29]) and diversity (e.g., [30]) of water-related information, including water quality [30–32], which
has long been the most difficult water characteristic to reliably monitor remotely. Interestingly, new
water related information is not only collected by smart sensors and devices. It is also increasingly
collected by the citizens/water users themselves. For example, the paper-based water quality sensor
and smartphone that was used in Sicard et al. [33], or work by Farnham et al. [34] on using citizen-based
water quality monitoring for combined sewer overflows.

2.2. New Distributed Infrastructure Deployment

The increasing availability of information (and remote-control capability) allows the sector to
seriously consider and gain confidence in re-engineering its water management practices [35]. This
can be achieved also by deploying in large scales more promising, distributed alternatives to water
service provision (from treatment to separation and from reuse to drainage, see for example Larsen
et al. [36]) that have hitherto been reserved for research/pilot environments. Although a review
of these technological developments falls outside the scope of this paper, it is argued that their
advent is both enabled by new advances in hydroinformatics (in both the hardware and software
sense) and enables interesting hydroinformatic developments in the analytics, modelling and decision
contexts. An example of this interplay is evident, for example, in the case of distributed water reuse
technologies termed sewer mining [37]. Here, novel treatment solutions emerged, that required
advanced monitoring and control systems to become deployable in remote locations [38]. This in
turn, led to a need for modelling and optimisation tools, able to support the optimal location of sewer
mining units in large sewerage networks [39]. The availability of the sewer mining technology as an
intervention option, then meant that integrated models had to include them as options for decision
makers [37]. This positive feedback is typical of the way hydroinformatics evolves in a dialectic
relationship between the discipline and the water sector.

2.3. New Analytics

To make sense of this increasing amount of information, research and practice have made significant
progress towards better analytics, including but not limited to those: (i) Capable of extracting valuable
information from the data (from smart alerts to customized advice for water users); (ii) performing
better stochastic simulations to improve the ability to produce longer timeseries (based on observations)
for long-term scenario development and stress-testing; (iii) performing advanced optimisation to
identify better solutions in this information richer environment; and (iv) providing novel ways of
visualizing and understanding the decision tradeoffs within complex decision spaces. Examples of
these new analytics, include AI/ML analytics for proactive management of water distribution systems
(including burst detection) demonstrated in UK case studies [40,41], asset deterioration assessment [42],
as well as the use of deep learning techniques for defining novel control strategies that are more robust
against cyber-attacks of water distribution systems [43]. Examples also include recent work on using
smart meter readings to parametrise residential water demand models [44] as well as the methods
and tools developed to investigate the properties of these timeseries at fine timescales [29]. Based on
this growing body of work, we are now in a position to assess for the first time if smart meters are
effective in water demand management (see for example the review by Sønderlund et al. [27] based on
21 relevant reports and publications) or at least pinpoint the additional information needed to make
this transition, including the information content, granularity, frequency and method of delivery etc.
Water 2019, 11, 1959 6 of 17

However, getting better historical data is only part of the story. Additional work in stochastics
is enabling hydroinformatics to develop simulated timeseries that explicitly represent each process
of interest with any distribution model and hence conserve all of the characteristics of historical
datasets (e.g., [45]). These longer timeseries can be used to drive hydroinformatic models of complex
hydro-systems to better account for relevant uncertainties. However, this substantially increases
the (time) burden for optimisation. Recent attention to ‘optimisation on a budget’ [46] shows how
surrogate strategies can be employed to allow for less evaluations of expensive objective functions in
evolutionary optimisation. Other authors have also focused on the challenging problem of optimal
design under uncertainty and developed optimisation algorithms that exploit the concept of ‘real
options’ [47], thus introducing flexibility into the long-term design for water systems [48]. Although an
overview of the developments in optimisation is outside the scope of this paper, this is one of the most
prolific fields in hydroinformatics to date. The interested reader is pointed towards an overview of this
dynamic field, with a focus on water distribution networks, included in Mala-Jetmarova et al. [49] and
in Maier et al. [50] for a more general overview of optimisation in water resources in general. Lastly, it
is worth pointing out that developing new algorithms does not necessarily lead to better understanding
or decision making. Recent attention to analytics for advanced visualisation of decision spaces suggest
that developing visual analytics to explore the decision space in multi-objective (e.g., [51]) or in
multi-stakeholder problems [52] is both important and necessary.

2.4. New Whole Water Cycle Socio-Technical System Models

The industry’s interest in exploring new options for infrastructure provision (incl. new more
distributed options discussed above) is driven in part by the process of aging infrastructure and the
resulting investment gap [16]. The interest has also prompted the development and application of
whole (socio-technical) system models [53] that attempt a more direct investigation of the interplay
between centralized and distributed infrastructure solutions. Furthermore, the focus is also shifting
towards the (often ignored) interplay between infrastructure and users (as also argued persuasively in
the context of socio-hydrology by Sivapalan [54]). This integration is currently being delivered (mostly)
around three axes:

 Integration between centralised and decentralised solutions and (often also) between water
infrastructure and urban fabric growth in a common (whole system) modelling environment.
Indicative work in this context includes the Aquacycle model [55], the Urban Water Optioneering
Tool (UWOT, see Rozos and Makropoulos [56]), UVQ [57] as well as the Dance4Water model [58],
to name but a few. For an overview of key models as well as a discussion on the degree of
integration, the reader is referred to Bach et al. [59]. These more integrated models, sometimes
termed metabolism models (e.g., [60]) are increasingly being used to evaluate alternative pathways
for the evolution of water systems under uncertainty, opening up the possibility of looking at a
much wider palette of options than was possible with more traditional hydraulic-only models.
 Integration between natural and engineered infrastructure systems and user interactions. This is a
growing area of work, which also typically includes the explicit modelling of additional flows (e.g.,
the nexus between water, energy and material flows within an urban environment). Although
approaches to this integration vary widely, these are based primarily on: (i) System dynamics
(SD) and/or Bayesian belief networks (BBN); and (ii) agent-based models. Recent examples of
the former types include Sahin et al. [61], Baki et al. [62] and Chhipi-Shrestha et al. [63]. In this
context, Zomorodian et al. [64] provide an overview of SD applications for water management,
while Sušnik et al. [65] provide a comparison between SD and BBN models for water management.
Recent examples of the latter type include work by Kanta and Zechman [66], Berglund [67] and
Koutiva and Makropoulos [68]. The power of these modelling approaches is that they enable
the explicit integration of the socio-economic system into the modelling framework, which is
especially important when looking into policy and end-user driven interventions, such as water
demand management, water markets, innovation uptake etc.
Water 2019, 11, 1959 7 of 17

 Integration between the physical and cyber layer of water systems. This attempt on modelling
integration represents a recent development, consistent with the move towards conceptualising
water systems as a cyber-physical infrastructure. This conceptualisation, advocated already
10 years ago by Edward A. Lee [69] for a range of infrastructures, is currently being operationalised
in the form of integrated simulation environments for the cyber and physical layers of a water
system and their interactions [70–72]. Although this work is still not rolled out in an operational
sense within water companies, it is argued that it will become more important in the next few
years, as part of a risk management approach for both cyber and physical risks.
It is important to note here that in support to these more integrative explorations, the
hydroinformatics community has been developing and demonstrating: (a) Integrated modelling
frameworks [73,74]; (b) models as services, often based on open source solutions [75]; and (c) cloud-based
modelling systems [76,77], sometimes coupling both local model components and remote web
services [78] in an effort to reduce the overhead required to create an integrated model in the first place
and make their explorative power more accessible to the water research and practitioner communities.

2.5. New forms of Interactive and Immersive Decision Making

The multi-faceted, multi-discipline and increasingly more inclusive multi-stakeholder nature of
water management considerations (and environmental management in general [79]) have given rise to
new ways of setting the questions, visualizing potential results and experiencing system performance
under different stresses. These ways include Serious Games [80], augmented/virtual (or mixed) reality
(AR, VR, MR) and their combinations that enable a different level of immersive, playful experience of
problems, options and decisions that can be used in various contexts, including operational, strategic
and stakeholder collaborative decision-making. The basic idea of these (relatively new) approaches
is that practical water and environmental challenges (and options to address them) can be better
understood through a more direct experiential approach. These game-based learning approaches
improve critical thinking, creative problem solving and teamwork [79]. They also allow stakeholders
to experiment with decisions and outcomes in a safe and fun environment.
Work by several authors is currently finding its way into practical applications, engaging water
stakeholders in collaborative decision making for such diverse fields as urban flood management [52],
water resources management [81,82] and integrated asset management [83]. At the same time,
augmented reality applications (including applications in handheld devices and smartphones) have
begun to be actively used in infrastructure inspection and rehabilitations (see for example the Vidente
application reported in Schall et al. [84]). The significant potential for this technology is especially
evident in cases where infrastructure is underground as in the case of water distribution and sewerage
networks. These applications typically superimpose data from GIS systems (such asset databases) or
even data from simulations on real world views. This linking of spatial/georeferenced information
directly on the real-world entities that they characterize, greatly facilitates the use of relevant data during
field work (e.g., asset rehabilitation, water quality monitoring). As such, it ensures increased efficiency
in maintenance activities, as well as increased understanding and learning in educational field trips and
field-oriented stakeholder engagement processes (e.g., stakeholder visits in innovation demonstration
case studies). An example of the latter is students participating in the EcoMOBILE project [85],
who used an augmented reality application, as part of a field trip to an ecologically important lake.
The virtual information was overlaid on the physical lake including hotspots—guiding students
in collecting water quality measurements—but also increasing their understanding of underlying
processes. It could be argued that such an increased (and more importantly shared) understanding
between stakeholders, makes for a good basis for more inclusive, consensus-driven decision making.

2.6. New Design Concepts and Strategies

The availability of new ubiquitous data, advanced analytics and more integrated modeling
frameworks is allowing the sector to perform more realistic stress-tests of water infrastructure (in its
Water 2019, 11, 1959 8 of 17

physical and cyber-physical sense) to help improve its performance under uncertainty. This activity is
currently pushing the discipline’s methodological boundaries into developing and applying novel
design concepts driven to a large extent by cities worldwide demanding realistic risk management
under uncertainty within a context of limited new investments (see for example the 100 Resilient Cities
network supported by the Rockefeller Foundation [86]). These efforts are, recently, centered mostly
around the challenging concept of resilience and the development of methods, metrics and tools to
assess the resilience of urban water systems. Notable examples include models and tools developed by
Irwin et al. [87], Butler et al. [88], Klise et al. [89], Makropoulos et al. [8], Kong et al. [90] as well as
Sweetapple et al. [91]). Although a discussion on resilience per se is outside the scope of this paper, we
note that this growing body of work, focusing on the highly interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder
context of resilience [92] is an important manifestation of the sociotechnical nature of hydroinformatics.
The need to understand resilience emphasizes the role of hydroinformatics as an interface between
science and policy, between water systems and urban processes as well as between technology, society
and the environment.

3. Sky Is (Not) the Limit

This overview of some of the most exciting developments in hydroinformatics today, may give
the impression that most of the important tasks are behind us. This, however, could not be further
from the truth. As the discipline is, by definition, linked to and influenced by developments in the
dynamically evolving IT sector, with every new development come new challenges and also new
opportunities. Although the details of what can happen next are by virtue of this dynamic evolution,
hard to predict, some of the most important trends are already visible. In an effort to summarise these
future trends, four activity lines towards a hydroinformatics roadmap have been proposed below:

3.1. Tapping into the New Data Landscape

The proliferation of smart systems (including developments in the smart city and more generally
the IoT arena) mean that data become more ubiquitous—although work on novel water quality sensors
is still needed (see ideas on using graphene for heavy metal detection [93]). However, as more data
from different sources become available the issue of standardization becomes vital. This is because
standardization allows the pulling together and combined exploitation of data coming from different
sources and different data providers, both within a utility but also potentially across multiple utilities,
reaching the critical mass of data required to categorize water data as big data and, in turn, unlock the
true potential of big data analytics. As such, data standardization, in terms, for example, of metadata,
standardized markup languages (like the Open Geospatial Consortium’s (OGC) WaterML [94],
controlled vocabularies and ontologies [95–97] inevitably play a key role in bringing information and
analytics together. Due to their importance in an IoT and related telecommunications contexts, the
most successful of these standardization efforts will probably not be initiated within the water domain
per se, but rather within smart city, smart home and smart industry contexts, growing towards water,
energy and other utility sectors. A case in point is the work by the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI) and its Smart Appliance REFerence (SAREF) ontology [98], which is currently
being expanded [99] towards energy and water, with obvious implications for smart water meters,
smart(er) water consuming devices and domestic water demand forecasting and management. Another
important development in this field, worth highlighting is FIWARE [100], a curated framework of open
source platform components that aims to accelerate the development of smart solutions, including
transport, energy, as well as more integrative smart city solutions. FIWARE has already been used to
develop interesting examples of interoperability for smart agricultural water management [101] and is
now expanding [102] also towards urban water management at different scales. Data quality control
and validation (potentially in a distributed way, closer to the data collection itself, see for example
developments in edge analytics [103]) and improvement of data access (including data sharing and
open data [104]) is also expected to be at the heart of the next steps in hydroinformatics.
Water 2019, 11, 1959 9 of 17

With this critical milestone completed, the industry may be able to exploit new developments that
allow the industry to get new insights out of large, heterogeneous databases and leverage progress on
AI, such as deep learning [105], from the ICT sector, to extract information, develop more accurate
forecasts and offer customized services to end users. New opportunities afforded by leveraging the
power of AI on larger (and more real time) water datasets, include discovering new causal relationships
from data already collected to improve predictive ability, e.g., in infrastructure maintenance, water
demand management or emergency response. It may also allow for progress into data assimilation
techniques that couple models to field data in real time. Field data from different sources and with
different uncertainties is expected to be used in combination with models, thus greatly increasing
current abilities for pro-active management of water systems. This new data may also increasingly
come from the customer/citizen side, where data crowd-sourcing tools will play an increasing role in
collecting real time information [25] as well as in gauging public opinion towards water relevant issues
(e.g., water reuse attitudes mined from micro-blogs [106]). These (significantly increased) data streams
may range from data collected by smartphone embedded sensors, to information posted on social
media, to data collected by, soon to be available, autonomous vehicles—cross referenced and linked to
open environmental data, utility sensors and remote sensed information from new satellite networks
(like NASA’s Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission scheduled to start by 2021 [107].

3.2. Getting More Out of Existing Models

This activity line, is expected to provide the sector with more advanced optimization (including
smart model calibration under uncertainty and noise), new ways of model integration (with databases
and other models) as well as with real time data (including IoT sensors) to form digital twins of utilities.
The concept of digital twins, where the data from the IoT sensors are seamlessly linked with asset
management information and both support and are supported by models of the system’s operations,
recalibrated and updated in real time, across the complete value chain from water resources to customers,
is expected to become possible in the near future. This ambition, of a complete integrated digital
picture of a water utility may appear far-fetched at this time, but is a future in the making, judging from
the interest and investment already underway in forward looking cities, such as Amsterdam [108] and
its water utility (Waternet). Necessarily, this process shifts online much of the computing infrastructure
for water utilities, with cloud computing for water services and software-as-service becoming the
norm. This trend, however, is not without its challenges as is discussed in the following sections.

3.3. Planning for More Resilient (Cyber-Physical) Systems and Services

Armed with new data and models, the sector may also work more on model integration and
higher abstraction level modelling/model coupling, where whole system strategic models—potentially
linked to digital twins—can be used as real-time control, forecasting and scenario planning tools in a
collaborative and inclusive way.
This direct coupling between the physical system and related infrastructure and the controlling
cyber layer (from sensors to models to actuators) is expected to afford new opportunities for increased
efficiency of water infrastructures throughout their lifetime, from design to building to operating. It
would allow, for example, their real time control, with data from multiple sensors being continuously
integrated within living models of the physical environment and the infrastructure. Furthermore,
it would enable moving significant parts of these calculations to the edge [103], enabling precise
and pro-active actuation of pumps, valves, sluice gates, for applications, such as flood forecasting
and control [109,110], managing combined sewer overflows [111] and urban water management in
general [112].
In this context of ever increasing integration between the physical and the cyber sides of water
infrastructure, a growing focus on cyber-physical systems risk assessment and threat modelling
(e.g., [71,72]), is expected to become more central in water company preoccupations. Cyber-physical
modelling can help the sector manage emerging cyber-physical risks, especially in the context of
Water 2019, 11, 1959 10 of 17

digital twins. In the same vein, it is suggested that work on modelling cascading effects between
water systems and other infrastructures may also move from the research environment [113] to the
operational environment of the sector. The move may also involve other water and crisis management
stakeholders at national and international levels.

3.4. Training, Engaging and Communicating

Lastly, significant advances in rethinking the way decisions are made (from the strategic to the
operational) are expected. These changes in decision-making will be catalyzed through technologies
that allow for more immersive and playful experiences of the decision landscape, such as Serious Games
coupled with AR and VR (or mixed reality) applications and environments. The disruptive potential
of such a technology shift cannot be overstated, potentially influencing everything, from immersive
scenarios planning, including crisis management training, to pipe rehabilitation, innovation uptake and
water education. This last point brings us, however, face to face with an important challenge: What is
the form of education and indeed the skillsets required by new hydroinformaticians to be able to benefit
from, engage with and ultimately help evolve this dynamic field? Popescu et al. [114] have already
correctly identified this challenge some time ago, when they suggested that hydroinformaticians need
to master a subject matter that is “increasing far more rapidly than the ability of engineering curricula to
cover it”. Indeed, as if water science was not demanding enough, the domain experts also need to be
fluent in data science (from statistics to machine learning) and computer science (from information
theory to hands-on software development and user interfaces design). They also need to engage with
topics ranging from decision theory to social science to ethics and philosophy of science. Popescu et
al. [114] argued that flexibility is key here, delivered through modular design and blended forms of
learning with face to face courses supplemented with online courses allowing participants to invest in
deepening their knowledge in diverse areas in a more customized pace. Clearly these requirements
point towards hydroinformatics as a postgraduate rather than an undergraduate course. Actually,
Abbott et al., [115] used the term participant rather than student explicitly to highlight a prerequisite of
solid undergraduate education in relevant fields and indeed hands-on experience before embarking in
such a multi-disciplinary course. They also persuasively argued that the educational challenge posed
even after this prerequisite is met, suggests another important subject for future hydroinformatics
research, that is, research into the educational and training aspects of the domain. In that context,
hydroinformatics may benefit from the emergence of the more immersive and playful approaches
and technologies discussed above, not the least due to the active (experiential) engagement (in view,
for example, of rapid developments of natural user interfaces [116]) and hazard-free, learning by
doing aspects that these approaches afford. This promise, however, implies an important, additional
and often neglected prerequisite: As Richert et al. [117] would argue tomorrow’s hydroinformatics
academics need themselves the technological competencies to allow them to both design and create
these immersive environments and the training in digital coaching and joint problem solving in virtual
worlds to be able to use them in meaningful and educationally productive ways. It is suggested
that this prerequisite can only be delivered through new multidisciplinary forms of collaboration
around education per se, both within universities and between universities and research centres and
technology providers for an interesting example of emerging forms of multi disciplinarity in education
see for example: [118].

4. Some Words of Caution

Although these developments can have enormous societal and technological benefits, they also
raise security, privacy, legal, and ethical concerns [25].
The increased dependency of water utilities on ICT to carry out their mission and functions, as
well as the tendency to provide interoperability and connect these traditionally closed systems to the
Internet, opens them up to, as yet unheard of, cyber threats. A case in point is Maroochy Water Services
in Australia, probably the most well-known cyber-attack in the water sector, where over a three-month
Water 2019, 11, 1959 11 of 17

period in 2000 a disgruntled former contractor took control of over 150 sewage pumping stations and
released one million litres of untreated sewage into the environment [119]. Furthermore, the prospect
of a large number of smart water meters being installed at customer homes, thus connecting them to
the utility ICT systems, raises also a possibility of the wider water infrastructure becoming vulnerable
to scalable network-borne attacks.
By the very nature of smart systems, customers adopting them share detailed information about
their water usage with the utility, which is then used to better assess the demand and manage the
entire system. This information sharing potentially exposes customers to privacy invasions with
the main concern being the limited control over personal data by an individual, which can result
in a range of negative or unintended consequences. Legal considerations relating to privacy and
data protection with respect to services or applications created using customer water usage data
(particularly valuable when combined with personal data), has been given insufficient attention in
the literature [120]. It is, therefore, positive that the new EU General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) [121] provides a framework for data protection and privacy for citizens. The regulation deals
with the risks of accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorized disclosure of, or
access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed. The regulation’s application will
inevitably open up new questions and challenges which will need to be addressed, but it is important
that this conversation is progressing.
Last, but certainly not least, smart systems as surveillance-enabled technologies as well as AI-based
decision making, raise issues of privacy, fundamental rights, ethics and responsibility in technological
innovation [122]. The need for rethinking, spelling out and agreeing upon the ethical principles on
which these technologies is expected to be based [123] has never been more pressing. This is a challenge,
not only for technology (and the safeguards it needs to put in place) but perhaps more importantly
for ethics and the humanities that need to pick up the challenge and update their theories, methods,
vocabulary and technology to make sense of and proactively manage the potential implications to
society from a pace of technological development never seen before.

5. Conclusions: A Bright Future with Some Caveats

This study has presented a summary of the dynamic evolution of hydroinformatics, as a discipline
at the interface between water science, data science, computer science and technology on the one
hand and society on the other. In so doing, the authors have highlighted exciting advances in new
real-time information; new analytics developed to extract value from this new information; novel
whole cycle (socio-technical) system models that are calibrated on these new datasets; new more
immersive approaches to decision support; more sophisticated ways of stress-testing new and existing
cyber-physical infrastructure to improve its resilience. Four activity lines of research have also been
proposed, coming up on the horizon (tapping into the new data landscape; getting more out of existing
models; planning for more resilient systems and services; training, engaging and communicating).
The authors suggest that these activity lines support a virtuous cycle towards more resilient water
systems and services. It is further argued that their confluence can drastically change both the form
and function of water services and the infrastructure that provide these services in the not too distant
future—for the better—provided that important challenges around privacy, fundamental rights, ethics
and responsibility in technological innovation are seriously and urgently addressed.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.M. and D.A.S.; methodology, C.M.; investigation, C.M. and
D.A.S.; resources, C.M. and D.A.S.; data curation, C.M. and D.A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M.;
writing—review and editing, C.M. and D.A.S.; supervision, D.A.S.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Water 2019, 11, 1959 12 of 17

References
1. Vojinovic, Z.; Abbott, M.B. Flood Risk and Social Justice: From Quantitative to Qualitative Flood Risk Assessment
and Mitigation; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 9781843393870.
2. Abbott, M. Hydroinformatics: Information Technology and the Aquatic Environment; Avebury Technical: Aldershot,
UK, 1991; ISBN 1856288323.
3. Holz, K.P.; Cunge, J.; Lehfeldt, R.; Savic, D. Hydroinformatics Vision 2011. In Advances in Hydroinformatics;
Springer: Singapore, 2014; pp. 545–560.
4. Journal of Hydroinformatics. Available online: https://iwaponline.com/jh (accessed on 16 September 2019).
5. Environmental Modelling & Software. Available online: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-
modelling-and-software (accessed on 16 September 2019).
6. Vojinovic, Z.; Abbott, M. Twenty-Five Years of Hydroinformatics. Water 2017, 9, 59. [CrossRef]
7. Li, E.; Endter-Wada, J.; Li, S. Characterizing and Contextualizing the Water Challenges of Megacities. JAWRA
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2015, 51, 589–613. [CrossRef]
8. Makropoulos, C.; Nikolopoulos, D.; Palmen, L.; Kools, S.; Segrave, A.; Vries, D.; Koop, S.; van Alphen, H.J.;
Vonk, E.; van Thienen, P.; et al. A resilience assessment method for urban water systems. Urban Water J. 2018,
15, 316–328. [CrossRef]
9. Pahl-Wostl, C. Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water
Resour. Manag. 2006, 21, 49–62. [CrossRef]
10. Hounslow, A. Water Quality Data: Analysis and Interpretation; eBook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018;
ISBN 9781351404907.
11. UN The 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects. Available online: https://population.un.org/wup/
(accessed on 28 February 2019).
12. Bouziotas, D.; Rozos, E.; Makropoulos, C. Water and the city: Exploring links between urban growth and
water demand management. J. Hydroinform. 2015, 17, 176–192. [CrossRef]
13. Makropoulos, C.K.; Memon, F.A.; Shirley-Smith, C.; Butler, D. Futures: An exploration of scenarios for
sustainable urban water management. Water Policy 2008, 10, 345–373. [CrossRef]
14. Brown, R.R.; Keath, N.; Wong, T.H.F. Urban water management in cities: Historical, current and future
regimes. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 847–855. [CrossRef]
15. Rygaard, M.; Binning, P.J.; Albrechtsen, H.J. Increasing urban water self-sufficiency: New era, new challenges.
J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 185–194. [CrossRef]
16. Selvakumar, A.; Tafuri, A.N. Rehabilitation of Aging Water Infrastructure Systems: Key Challenges and
Issues. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2012, 18, 202–209. [CrossRef]
17. Wan, Z.; Hong, Y.; Khan, S.; Gourley, J.; Flamig, Z.; Kirschbaum, D.; Tang, G. A cloud-based global flood
disaster community cyber-infrastructure: Development and demonstration. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 58,
86–94. [CrossRef]
18. Mounce, S.R.; Pedraza, C.; Jackson, T.; Linford, P.; Boxall, J.B. Cloud Based Machine Learning Approaches for
Leakage Assessment and Management in Smart Water Networks. Procedia Eng. 2015, 119, 43–52. [CrossRef]
19. Eggimann, S.; Mutzner, L.; Wani, O.; Schneider, M.Y.; Spuhler, D.; Moy de Vitry, M.; Beutler, P.; Maurer, M.
The Potential of Knowing More: A Review of Data-Driven Urban Water Management. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2017, 51, 2538–2553. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Aubert, A.H.; Bauer, R.; Lienert, J. A review of water-related serious games to specify use in environmental
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 105, 64–78. [CrossRef]
21. Gibney, E. Google AI algorithm masters ancient game of Go. Nature 2016, 529, 445–446. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. van Thienen, P.; Beuken, R.; Vertommen, I.; Slaats, N. Perspective and Preconditions for
the Development and Use of Autonomous Inspection Robots in Water Mains. Available
online: https://www.kwrwater.nl/en/projecten/perspective-and-preconditions-for-the-development-and-
use-of-autonomous-inspection-robots-in-water-mains/ (accessed on 16 September 2019).
23. Rodina, L. Defining “water resilience”: Debates, concepts, approaches, and gaps. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.
Water 2019, 6, e1334. [CrossRef]
24. Gandomi, A.; Haider, M. Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
2015, 35, 137–144. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 1959 13 of 17

25. Zheng, F.; Tao, R.; Maier, H.R.; See, L.; Savic, D.; Zhang, T.; Chen, Q.; Assumpção, T.H.; Yang, P.; Heidari, B.;
et al. Crowdsourcing Methods for Data Collection in Geophysics: State of the Art, Issues, and Future
Directions. Rev. Geophys. 2018, 56, 698–740. [CrossRef]
26. Savic, D. A Smart City without Smart Water is Only a Pipe Dream! In Proceedings of the the Keynote
Presentation Delivered at the 37th IAHR World Congress, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13–18 August 2017.
27. Sønderlund, A.L.; Smith, J.R.; Hutton, C.J.; Kapelan, Z.; Savic, D. Effectiveness of Smart Meter-Based
Consumption Feedback in Curbing Household Water Use: Knowns and Unknowns. J. Water Resour. Plan.
Manag. 2016, 142, 04016060. [CrossRef]
28. Di Mauro, A.; Di Nardo, A.; Bernini, R.; Sanfilippo, L.; Paleari, O.; Savic, D.; Santonastaso, G.F.; Cocco, M.;
Cousin, P.; Wouters, H.; et al. Smart Water Network Monitoring using innovative On-line Sensors. Geophys.
Res. Abstr. 2018, 20, 16024.
29. Kossieris, P.; Makropoulos, C. Exploring the Statistical and Distributional Properties of Residential Water
Demand at Fine Time Scales. Water 2018, 10, 1481. [CrossRef]
30. Doulamis, N.; Voulodimos, A.; Doulamis, A.; Bimpas, M.; Angeli, A.; Bakalos, N.; Giusti, A.; Philimis, P.;
Varriale, A.; Ausili, A.; et al. Waterspy: A high sensitivity, portable photonic device for pervasive water
quality analysis. Sensors 2019, 19. [CrossRef]
31. Gholizadeh, M.; Melesse, A.; Reddi, L. A comprehensive review on water quality parameters estimation
using remote sensing techniques. Sensors 2016, 16, 1298. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Ponce Romero, J.; Hallett, S.; Jude, S. Leveraging Big Data Tools and Technologies: Addressing the Challenges
of the Water Quality Sector. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2160. [CrossRef]
33. Sicard, C.; Glen, C.; Aubie, B.; Wallace, D.; Jahanshahi-Anbuhi, S.; Pennings, K.; Daigger, G.T.; Pelton, R.;
Brennan, J.D.; Filipe, C.D.M. Tools for water quality monitoring and mapping using paper-based sensors
and cell phones. Water Res. 2015, 70, 360–369. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Farnham, D.; Gibson, R.; Hsueh, D.; McGillis, W.; Culligan, P.; Zain, N.; Buchanan, R. Citizen science-based
water quality monitoring: Constructing a large database to characterize the impacts of combined sewer
overflow in New York City. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 580, 168–177. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Nguyen, K.A.; Stewart, R.A.; Zhang, H.; Sahin, O.; Siriwardene, N. Re-engineering traditional urban water
management practices with smart metering and informatics. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 101, 256–267.
[CrossRef]
36. Larsen, T.A.; Hoffmann, S.; Luthi, C.; Truffer, B.; Maurer, M. Emerging solutions to the water challenges of an
urbanizing world. Science 2016, 352, 928–933. [CrossRef]
37. Makropoulos, C.; Rozos, E.; Tsoukalas, I.; Plevri, A.; Karakatsanis, G.; Karagiannidis, L.; Makri, E.; Lioumis, C.;
Noutsopoulos, C.; Mamais, D.; et al. Sewer-mining: A water reuse option supporting circular economy,
public service provision and entrepreneurship. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 216, 285–298. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Karagiannidis, L.; Vrettopoulos, M.; Amditis, A.; Makri, E.; Gkonos, N. A CPS-enabled architecture for sewer
mining systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems for Smart
Water Networks (CySWater), Vienna, Austria, 11 April 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1–6.
39. Psarrou, E.; Tsoukalas, I.; Makropoulos, C. A Monte-Carlo-Based Method for the Optimal Placement and
Operation Scheduling of Sewer Mining Units in Urban Wastewater Networks. Water 2018, 10, 200. [CrossRef]
40. Machell, J.; Mounce, S.R.; Farley, B.; Boxall, J.B. Online data processing for proactive UK water distribution
network operation. Drink. Water Eng. Sci. 2014, 7, 23–33. [CrossRef]
41. Romano, M.; Kapelan, Z.; Savić, D.A. Automated Detection of Pipe Bursts and Other Events in Water
Distribution Systems. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2014, 140, 457–467. [CrossRef]
42. Berardi, L.; Giustolisi, O.; Kapelan, Z.; Savic, D.A. Development of pipe deterioration models for water
distribution systems using EPR. J. Hydroinform. 2008, 10, 113–126. [CrossRef]
43. Taormina, R.; Galelli, S. Deep-Learning Approach to the Detection and Localization of Cyber-Physical
Attacks on Water Distribution Systems. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018065. [CrossRef]
44. Creaco, E.; Kossieris, P.; Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia, L.; Makropoulos, C.; Kapelan, Z.; Savic, D. Parameterizing
residential water demand pulse models through smart meter readings. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 80,
33–40. [CrossRef]
45. Tsoukalas, I.; Efstratiadis, A.; Makropoulos, C. Stochastic Periodic Autoregressive to Anything (SPARTA):
Modeling and Simulation of Cyclostationary Processes with Arbitrary Marginal Distributions. Water Resour.
Res. 2018, 54, 161–185. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 1959 14 of 17

46. Tsoukalas, I.; Makropoulos, C. Multiobjective optimisation on a budget: Exploring surrogate modelling for
robust multi-reservoir rules generation under hydrological uncertainty. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 69,
396–413. [CrossRef]
47. Marques, J.; Cunha, M.; Savić, D.A. Using real options for an eco-friendly design of water distribution
systems. J. Hydroinform. 2015, 17, 20–35. [CrossRef]
48. Pellegrino, R.; Costantino, N.; Giustolisi, O. Flexible investment planning for water distribution networks.
J. Hydroinform. 2018, 20, 18–33. [CrossRef]
49. Mala-Jetmarova, H.; Sultanova, N.; Savic, D. Lost in Optimisation of Water Distribution Systems? A Literature
Review of System Design. Water 2018, 10, 307. [CrossRef]
50. Maier, H.R.; Kapelan, Z.; Kasprzyk, J.; Kollat, J.; Matott, L.S.; Cunha, M.C.; Dandy, G.C.; Gibbs, M.S.;
Keedwell, E.; Marchi, A.; et al. Evolutionary algorithms and other metaheuristics in water resources: Current
status, research challenges and future directions. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 62, 271–299. [CrossRef]
51. Fu, G.; Kapelan, Z.; Kasprzyk, J.; Reed, P. Optimal Design of Water Distribution Systems Using Many-Objective
Visual Analytics. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2012, 139, 624–633. [CrossRef]
52. Khoury, M.; Gibson, M.J.; Savic, D.; Chen, A.S.; Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia, L.; Langford, H.; Wigley, S.
A Serious Game Designed to Explore and Understand the Complexities of Flood Mitigation Options in
Urban–Rural Catchments. Water 2018, 10, 1885. [CrossRef]
53. Abbott, M. On definitions. J. Hydroinform. 2002, 4, 1–27. [CrossRef]
54. Sivapalan, M. Debates-Perspectives on socio-hydrology: Changing water systems and the “tyranny of small
problems”-Socio-hydrology. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 4795–4805. [CrossRef]
55. Mitchell, V.G.; Mein, R.G.; McMahon, T.A. Modelling the urban water cycle. Environ. Model. Softw. 2001, 16,
615–629. [CrossRef]
56. Rozos, E.; Makropoulos, C. Source to tap urban water cycle modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 41,
139–150. [CrossRef]
57. Mitchell, V.; Diaper, C.; Gray, S.; Rahilly, M. UVQ: Modelling the Movement of Water and Contaminants
through the Total Urban Water Cycle. In Proceedings of the 28th International Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium: About Water; Symposium Proceedings, Novotel Northbeach, Wollongong, NSW,
Australia, 10–13 November 2003; Available online: https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=
410125625788126;res=IELENG (accessed on 16 September 2019).
58. Rauch, W.; Urich, C.; Bach, P.M.; Rogers, B.C.; de Haan, F.J.; Brown, R.R.; Mair, M.; McCarthy, D.T.;
Kleidorfer, M.; Sitzenfrei, R.; et al. Modelling transitions in urban water systems. Water Res. 2017, 126,
501–514. [CrossRef]
59. Bach, P.M.; Rauch, W.; Mikkelsen, P.S.; McCarthy, D.T.; Deletic, A. A critical review of integrated urban water
modelling—Urban drainage and beyond. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 54, 88–107. [CrossRef]
60. Behzadian, K.; Kapelan, Z. Advantages of integrated and sustainability based assessment for metabolism
based strategic planning of urban water systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 527–528, 220–231. [CrossRef]
61. Sahin, O.; Siems, R.S.; Stewart, R.A.; Porter, M.G. Paradigm shift to enhanced water supply planning through
augmented grids, scarcity pricing and adaptive factory water: A system dynamics approach. Environ. Model.
Softw. 2016, 75, 348–361. [CrossRef]
62. Baki, S.; Rozos, E.; Makropoulos, C. Designing water demand management schemes using a socio-technical
modelling approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622, 1590–1602. [CrossRef]
63. Chhipi-Shrestha, G.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Water–energy–carbon nexus modeling for urban water systems:
System dynamics approach. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017016. [CrossRef]
64. Zomorodian, M.; Lai, S.H.; Homayounfar, M.; Ibrahim, S.; Fatemi, S.E.; El-Shafie, A. The state-of-the-art
system dynamics application in integrated water resources modeling. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 227, 294–304.
[CrossRef]
65. Sušnik, J.; Molina, J.-L.; Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia, L.S.; Savić, D.A.; Kapelan, Z. Comparative Analysis of
System Dynamics and Object-Oriented Bayesian Networks Modelling for Water Systems Management.
Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 819–841. [CrossRef]
66. Kanta, L.; Zechman, E. Complex Adaptive Systems Framework to Assess Supply-Side and Demand-Side
Management for Urban Water Resources. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2014, 140, 75–85. [CrossRef]
67. Berglund, E.Z. Using Agent-Based Modeling for Water Resources Planning and Management. J. Water Resour.
Plan. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015025. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 1959 15 of 17

68. Koutiva, I.; Makropoulos, C. Modelling domestic water demand: An agent based approach. Environ. Model.
Softw. 2016, 79, 35–54. [CrossRef]
69. Lee, E.A. Cyber Physical Systems: Design Challenges. In Proceedings of the 2008 11th IEEE International
Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC); IEEE: New York, NY,
USA, 2008; pp. 363–369.
70. Lin, J.; Sedigh, S.; Miller, A. Towards Integrated Simulation of Cyber-Physical Systems: A Case Study on
Intelligent Water Distribution. In Proceedings of the 2009 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Dependable,
Autonomic and Secure Computing; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 690–695.
71. Taormina, R.; Galelli, S.; Tippenhauer, N.O.; Salomons, E.; Ostfeld, A. Characterizing Cyber-Physical Attacks
on Water Distribution Systems. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017009. [CrossRef]
72. Nikolopoulos, D.; Makropoulos, C.; Kalogeras, D.; Monokrousou, K.; Tsoukalas, I. Developing a Stress-Testing
Platform for Cyber-Physical Water Infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Workshop on
Cyber-physical Systems for Smart Water Networks (CySWater); IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 9–11.
73. David, O.; Ascough, J.C.; Lloyd, W.; Green, T.R.; Rojas, K.W.; Leavesley, G.H.; Ahuja, L.R. A software
engineering perspective on environmental modeling framework design: The Object Modeling System.
Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 39, 201–213. [CrossRef]
74. Wang, Y.; Chen, A.S.; Fu, G.; Djordjević, S.; Zhang, C.; Savić, D.A. An integrated framework for high-resolution
urban flood modelling considering multiple information sources and urban features. Environ. Model. Softw.
2018, 107, 85–95. [CrossRef]
75. Swain, N.R.; Latu, K.; Christensen, S.D.; Jones, N.L.; Nelson, E.J.; Ames, D.P.; Williams, G.P. A review of
open source software solutions for developing water resources web applications. Environ. Model. Softw.
2015, 67, 108–117. [CrossRef]
76. Vitolo, C.; Elkhatib, Y.; Reusser, D.; Macleod, C.J.A.; Buytaert, W. Web technologies for environmental Big
Data. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 63, 185–198. [CrossRef]
77. Qiao, X.; Li, Z.; Ames, D.P.; Nelson, E.J.; Swain, N.R. Simplifying the deployment of OGC web processing
services (WPS) for environmental modelling—Introducing Tethys WPS Server. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019,
115, 38–50. [CrossRef]
78. Gao, F.; Yue, P.; Zhang, C.; Wang, M. Coupling components and services for integrated environmental
modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019, 118, 14–22. [CrossRef]
79. Madani, K.; Pierce, T.W.; Mirchi, A. Serious games on environmental management. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017,
29, 1–11. [CrossRef]
80. Savic, D.A.; Morley, M.S.; Khoury, M. Serious gaming for water systems planning and management. Water
2016, 8, 456. [CrossRef]
81. Medema, W.; Furber, A.; Adamowski, J.; Zhou, Q.; Mayer, I. Exploring the Potential Impact of Serious Games
on Social Learning and Stakeholder Collaborations for Transboundary Watershed Management of the St.
Lawrence River Basin. Water 2016, 8, 175. [CrossRef]
82. Sušnik, J.; Chew, C.; Domingo, X.; Mereu, S.; Trabucco, A.; Evans, B.; Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia, L.;
Savić, D.; Laspidou, C.; Brouwer, F. Multi-Stakeholder Development of a Serious Game to Explore the
Water-Energy-Food-Land-Climate Nexus: The SIM4NEXUS Approach. Water 2018, 10, 139. [CrossRef]
83. Van der Wal, M.M.; de Kraker, J.; Kroeze, C.; Kirschner, P.A.; Valkering, P. Can computer models be used for
social learning? A serious game in water management. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 75, 119–132. [CrossRef]
84. Schall, G.; Zollmann, S.; Reitmayr, G. Smart Vidente: Advances in mobile augmented reality for interactive
visualization of underground infrastructure. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2013, 17, 1533–1549. [CrossRef]
85. Kamarainen, A.M.; Metcalf, S.; Grotzer, T.; Browne, A.; Mazzuca, D.; Tutwiler, M.S.; Dede, C. EcoMOBILE:
Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Comput. Educ. 2013,
68, 545–556. [CrossRef]
86. Rockefeller Foundation 100 Resilient Cities. Available online: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our-
work/initiatives/100-resilient-cities (accessed on 28 February 2019).
87. Irwin, S.; Schardong, A.; Simonovic, S.; Nirupama, N. ResilSIM—A Decision Support Tool for Estimating
Resilience of Urban Systems. Water 2016, 8, 377. [CrossRef]
88. Butler, D.; Ward, S.; Sweetapple, C.; Astaraie-Imani, M.; Diao, K.; Farmani, R.; Fu, G. Reliable, resilient and
sustainable water management: The Safe & SuRe approach. Glob. Chall. 2017, 1, 63–77.
Water 2019, 11, 1959 16 of 17

89. Klise, K.A.; Bynum, M.; Moriarty, D.; Murray, R. A software framework for assessing the resilience of
drinking water systems to disasters with an example earthquake case study. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 95,
420–431. [CrossRef]
90. Kong, J.; Simonovic, S.P.; Zhang, C. Sequential Hazards Resilience of Interdependent Infrastructure System:
A Case Study of Greater Toronto Area Energy Infrastructure System. Risk Anal. 2018. [CrossRef]
91. Sweetapple, C.; Diao, K.; Farmani, R. A Tool for Global Resilience Analysis of Water Distribution Systems.
In Proceedings of the WDSA/CCWI Joint Conference, Kingston, Canada, 23–25 July 2018.
92. Dunn, G.; Brown, R.R.; Bos, J.J.; Bakker, K. The role of science-policy interface in sustainable urban water
transitions: Lessons from Rotterdam. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 73, 71–79. [CrossRef]
93. Chang, J.; Zhou, G.; Christensen, E.R.; Heideman, R.; Chen, J. Graphene-based sensors for detection of heavy
metals in water: A review. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2014, 406, 3957–3975. [CrossRef]
94. OGC OGC®WaterML. Available online: https://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/waterml (accessed on
16 September 2019).
95. Horsburgh, J.S.; Tarboton, D.G.; Piasecki, M.; Maidment, D.R.; Zaslavsky, I.; Valentine, D.; Whitenack, T. An
integrated system for publishing environmental observations data. Environ. Model. Softw. 2009, 24, 879–888.
[CrossRef]
96. Daniele, L.; den Hartog, F.; Roes, J. Created in Close Interaction with the Industry: The Smart Appliances
REFerence (SAREF) Ontology. In International Workshop Formal Ontologies Meet Industries, August 2015;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 100–112.
97. Howell, S.; Rezgui, Y.; Beach, T. Integrating building and urban semantics to empower smart water solutions.
Autom. Constr. 2017, 81, 434–448. [CrossRef]
98. ETSI Smart Appliances. Available online: https://www.etsi.org/technologies/smart-appliances?jjj=
1568651031056 (accessed on 16 September 2019).
99. Digital Single Market ETSI Releases Three New SAREF Ontology Specifications for Smart Cities,
Industry 4.0 and Smart Agriculture. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/
news/etsi-releases-three-new-saref-ontology-specifications-smart-cities-industry-40-and-smart (accessed
on 16 September 2019).
100. FIWARE: THE OPEN SOURCE PLATFORM FOR OUR SMART DIGITAL FUTURE. Available online:
https://www.fiware.org/ (accessed on 16 September 2019).
101. López-Riquelme, J.A.; Pavón-Pulido, N.; Navarro-Hellín, H.; Soto-Valles, F.; Torres-Sánchez, R. A software
architecture based on FIWARE cloud for Precision Agriculture. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 183, 123–135.
[CrossRef]
102. FIWARE for the Next Generation Internet Services for the WATER Sector. Available
online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/223257/factsheet/en?WT.mc_id=RSS-Feed&WT.rss_f=project&
WT.rss_a=223257&WT.rss_ev=a (accessed on 16 September 2019).
103. Kartakis, S.; Yu, W.; Akhavan, R.; McCann, J.A. Adaptive Edge Analytics for Distributed Networked Control
of Water Systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE First International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and
Implementation (IoTDI); IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 72–82.
104. Conner, L.G.; Ames, D.P.; Gill, R.A. HydroServer Lite as an open source solution for archiving and sharing
environmental data for independent university labs. Ecol. Inform. 2013, 18, 171–177. [CrossRef]
105. LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 2015, 521, 436–444. [CrossRef]
106. Fu, H.; Li, Z.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Z. Research on big data digging of hot topics about recycled water use on
micro-blog based on particle swarm optimization. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2488. [CrossRef]
107. SURFACE WATER AND OCEAN TOPOGRAPHY. Available online: https://swot.jpl.nasa.gov/ (accessed on
16 September 2019).
108. DI020: Fundament Digital City <<Digitaal Wegennet Amsterdam & Voorzieningen als Gedragsregels
en Openbaar Register>>>. Available online: https://amsterdamsmartcity.com/projects/digitaal-wegennet-
amsterdam (accessed on 16 September 2019).
109. Bachmann, D.; Eilander, D.; de Leeuw, A.; de Bruijn, K.; Diermanse, F.; Weerts, A.; Beckers, J. Prototypes of
risk-based flood forecasting systems in the Netherlands and Italy. E3S Web Conf. 2016, 7, 18018. [CrossRef]
110. Lund, N.S.V.; Falk, A.K.V.; Borup, M.; Madsen, H.; Steen Mikkelsen, P. Model predictive control of urban
drainage systems: A review and perspective towards smart real-time water management. Crit. Rev. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2018, 48, 279–339. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 1959 17 of 17

111. Garofalo, G.; Giordano, A.; Piro, P.; Spezzano, G.; Vinci, A. A distributed real-time approach for mitigating
CSO and flooding in urban drainage systems. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 78, 30–42. [CrossRef]
112. Sun, C.; Cembrano, G.; Puig, V.; Meseguer, J. Cyber-Physical Systems for Real-Time Management in the
Urban Water Cycle. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Workshop on Cyber-physical Systems for Smart Water
Networks (CySWater); IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 5–8.
113. Hasan, S.; Foliente, G. Modeling infrastructure system interdependencies and socioeconomic impacts of
failure in extreme events: Emerging R & D challenges. Nat. Hazards 2015, 78, 2143–2168.
114. Popescu, I.; Jonoski, A.; Bhattacharya, B. Experiences from online and classroom education in
hydroinformatics. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 3935–3944. [CrossRef]
115. Abbott, M.B.; Solomatine, D.; Minns, A.W.; Verwey, A.; Van Nievelt, W. Education and training in
hydroinformatics. J. Hydraul. Res. 1994, 32, 203–214. [CrossRef]
116. Wigdor, D.; Wixon, D. Brave NUI World: Designing Natural User Interfaces for Touch and Gesture, 1st ed.; Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011; ISBN1 0123822319. ISBN2 9780123822314.
117. Richert, A.; Plumanns, L.; Gross, K.; Schuster, K.; Jeschke, S. Learning 4.0: Virtual Immersive Engineering
Education. Digit. Univ. Int. Best Pract. Appl. 2015, 2, 51–66.
118. NTNU Art & Technology Task Force NTNU ARTEC. Available online: https://www.ntnu.edu/artec (accessed
on 16 September 2019).
119. Slay, J.; Miller, M. Lessons Learned from the Maroochy Water Breach. In Critical Infrastructure Protection;
Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2007; pp. 73–82.
120. Stewart, R.A.; Nguyen, K.; Beal, C.; Zhang, H.; Sahin, O.; Bertone, E.; Vieira, A.S.; Castelletti, A.; Cominola, A.;
Giuliani, M.; et al. Integrated intelligent water-energy metering systems and informatics: Visioning a digital
multi-utility service provider. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 105, 94–117. [CrossRef]
121. EU General Data Protection Regulation. Available online: https://eugdpr.org/ (accessed on 16 September 2019).
122. Galdon-Clavell, G. (Not so) smart cities?: The drivers, impact and risks of surveillanceenabled smart
environments. Sci. Public Policy 2013, 40, 717–723. [CrossRef]
123. Kitchin, R. The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2016,
374, 20160115. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).