1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

30/04/2021

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

CoDriVE-VI is a participatory approach that integrates local knowledge with scientific data through 3D visual modelling to assess groundwater vulnerability and support sustainable, community-based groundwater management. It overlays surface and subsurface features, enabling villagers to visualize aquifer systems and develop informed water use plans.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

CoDriVE-VI (Community-driven Vulnerability Evaluation – Visual Integrator) is a participatory approach developed by the Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR) to support sustainable groundwater management. It aims to demystify the invisible subsurface and make aquifer systems understandable to rural communities by combining scientific tools with local knowledge in a hands-on, visual format. While the process is facilitated by WOTR, communities are placed at the center of the process, contributing traditional insights, assisting with data collection, and actively participating in constructing and interpreting the 3D model. Thus, the approach is best described as participatory, with strong elements of community ownership and engagement.
The “Visual Integrator” refers to the integration of both surface and subsurface data—such as topography, drainage, geology, well inventory details, and geophysical survey results—into a tangible, scaled three-dimensional model. This participatory 3D modelling (P3DM) process helps communities visualize how aquifers relate to the landscape, showing key features such as recharge zones, discharge points, and areas of intensive groundwater extraction.
“Vulnerability evaluation” is carried out through the community’s participatory analysis of the model. Using the integrated visual platform, villagers can identify zones that are more vulnerable to depletion—such as those with low recharge, high borewell density, or historically declining water tables. While a formal vulnerability matrix is not used, the 3D model serves as a practical vulnerability map. It guides discussions and decisions around water budgeting, aquifer recharge, crop-water planning, and the development of informal rules for responsible groundwater use.
The methodology combines participatory rural appraisal with hydrogeological and geospatial techniques. After an initial orientation and trust-building phase, communities help map surface features. Subsurface data is then collected through geological mapping, well inventory surveys, and geophysical methods like Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES). The data are analyzed using GIS tools and inverse slope modelling. The 3D model is then constructed using layered cardboard sheets, with communities contributing throughout the process—cutting, assembling, painting, and validating the layers.
The CoDriVE-VI process unfolds in several stages: community mobilization and planning; surface and subsurface data collection; model building in participatory workshops; and result interpretation and management planning. Key stakeholders include community members, WOTR facilitators, technical experts (geologists and GIS specialists), and local governance representatives.
Participants found the visual models highly effective in helping them grasp aquifer dynamics, leading to a shift in perception—from seeing groundwater as an individual entitlement to recognizing it as a shared resource. This in turn fostered collective decision-making. The approach has also contributed to improved groundwater literacy, informed water budgeting, and motivated some villages to initiate local groundwater governance practices.
While climate change is a key driver of groundwater stress, the approach also acknowledges other socio-economic and environmental pressures—such as population growth, land-use change, deforestation, and the uncontrolled proliferation of borewells—as critical factors influencing groundwater vulnerability. By visualizing these interconnections, CoDriVE-VI supports more holistic and sustainable groundwater management at the community level.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

1. To build the capacity of rural communities to understand groundwater systems, including aquifer behavior and climate and non-climate stressors affecting groundwater availability.

2. To make subsurface aquifer characteristics visible and comprehensible through participatory 3D modelling that integrates scientific and local knowledge.

3. To foster collective ownership and sustainable management of groundwater as a shared, finite resource.

4. To support community-led evaluation of groundwater vulnerability and guide responsive actions such as water budgeting and recharge planning.

5. To document, preserve, and apply indigenous spatial knowledge related to land use, topography, and local water systems.

6. To enable informed decision-making by facilitating the transfer of community-generated insights to local governance bodies and development agencies.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	interactive	Local villagers in the project areas (e.g., Ahilyanagar and Jalna districts) were engaged early through orientation sessions. While the initiative was introduced by WOTR, community members showed interest and contributed knowledge from the beginning, especially around their water challenges and local hydrogeology.
planning	interactive	Villagers participated in identifying key features for surface mapping, shared traditional knowledge of aquifers and land use, and were involved in selecting locations for surveys. Their inputs shaped both the design and scale of the models.
implementation	interactive	Community members took part in well inventory surveys, guided geological observations, and actively built the 3D physical models. They also helped colour-code aquifer zones under facilitators’ guidance, and validated the data presented.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	During workshops and feedback sessions, villagers evaluated the accuracy of models, reflected on the implications of subsurface characteristics, and discussed how to use the insights for water budgeting and community planning
research		Community knowledge directly contributed to the research process by enriching scientific interpretations with local hydrogeological understanding. Their experiences and reflections were documented and used to improve the approach.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

The selection and design of the CoDriVE tool was done through participatory processes involving local communities, WOTR facilitators, and technical experts. Villagers contributed local knowledge and needs, while experts provided scientific input, ensuring collective decision-making.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

• Decisions were based on field experiences from over 25 villages, scientific methods (e.g., VES surveys, GIS analysis), and documented evidence on aquifer-based planning. Local knowledge and experiential insights also guided model design and validation.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Training involved both male and female community members, including farmers, youth, and local leaders from diverse socio-economic backgrounds in the villages. Inclusive participation was encouraged throughout

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

•Basic concepts of hydrogeology and aquifers
•Groundwater vulnerability and common pool resource concepts
•Surface and subsurface mapping
•Use of Participatory 3D Modelling (P3DM)
•Groundwater budgeting
•Climate change impacts on water resources
•Community-led planning and rule-setting for water use

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

WOTR provided technical assistance through facilitators and hydrogeology experts. These acted as advisors, guiding communities in surveys, model interpretation, and decision-making.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Village Water User Groups (VWUGs) and local governance committees were strengthened to coordinate groundwater management activities. Their roles included planning water use, monitoring aquifer health, implementing community water rules, and facilitating knowledge sharing. Members typically included local farmers, community leaders, and field facilitators

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

The strengthening focused on enhancing institutional capacity to support community-driven water resource management. Training sessions improved leadership and technical skills, enabling institutions to take ownership of groundwater sustainability. Equipment such as GPS units and simple monitoring devices were provided to aid local data collection and verification.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Monitoring was integrated through periodic community workshops, feedback sessions, and participatory verification of groundwater models. Evaluation focused on assessing the accuracy of aquifer mapping, effectiveness of capacity building, and impact on local water management practices.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Yes

Comments:

This documentation serves as a reference for tracking the implementation process, assessing community engagement, and evaluating outcomes. It can be used to guide adaptive management and inform replication in other regions.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• ecology
• technology

• Hydrogeology and participatory modelling

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was integral to developing and refining the CoDriVE methodology. Hydrogeologists and social scientists collaborated with local communities to understand groundwater systems and social dynamics influencing water use. Technology research focused on participatory 3D modeling tools and groundwater budgeting techniques. WOTR staff, partnered with academic institutions and experts in hydrogeology, led the research activities. Community feedback was also systematically documented to improve approaches.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Funding mainly came from government development programs and international donor agencies supporting WOTR’s groundwater management initiatives. Major donors included state water departments and NGOs focused on sustainable water use.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Material support included provision of tools and equipment such as GPS devices and monitoring kits, provided free or at subsidized cost by project partners. Some minor financial incentives were given as stipends during training sessions. Support was conditional on active participation in capacity-building and water management activities. Providers included WOTR and partner NGOs.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

Most of the labour contributed by land users and local communities during planning, mapping, and 3D model building was voluntary. In some cases, key technical or facilitative roles were partly supported by the implementing agency. No direct subsidies were provided for equipment, tools, or construction inputs under this approach

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Supportive policies included local water governance regulations encouraging sustainable groundwater use and community rule enforcement. NGO advocacy helped secure government backing for participatory water management.

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

While the approach may be effective, its long-term viability or replication across other areas could be "uncertain" because:
It relies on external scientific expertise (e.g., geophysical surveys, 3D model building).
There are financial implications (e.g., cost of equipment, facilitation, training).
Communities might not be able to independently replicate or sustain it without ongoing support.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Enhanced groundwater understanding: The 3D model helped farmers visualize aquifer connectivity, which improved their awareness of water scarcity and led to better planning
Collective decision-making: The approach promoted social cohesion and encouraged joint management of groundwater as a common resource.
Practical application: Enabled decisions on water budgeting, cropping patterns, and site selection for recharge structures
Inclusiveness: Encouraged participation of all sections of the village including women and marginal landholders
Created a visual tool that villagers could present in Gram Sabha meetings and discussions with local authorities

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Bridges science and local knowledge: CoDriVE-VI effectively demystifies hydrogeology by integrating local understanding with technical surveys
Low-cost and replicable: Uses locally available materials (e.g., cardboard) and community manpower.
Supports policy alignment: The approach aligns with national programs like NAQUIM and Atal Bhujal Yojana, enabling scale-up
Encourages behaviour change through experiential learning—participants shift from individual to community-centered groundwater thinking

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Time-consuming model preparation: Building the physical 3D model takes effort and coordination.	Train local youth/facilitators to manage the model-building steps and streamline the process
Initial difficulty in understanding hydrogeological concepts: Terms like "resistivity" or "aquifer" were hard to grasp	Use simplified language, analogies, and step-by-step facilitation.
Models can be physically damaged over time	Store models in safe, community-designated spaces or digitize versions where feasible.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Limited scalability without facilitation support: While the model is low-cost, initiating the process requires trained facilitators	Create a cadre of local groundwater ambassadors trained in CoDriVE-VI.
Not linked directly to economic incentives: Without immediate financial benefits, long-term engagement may decline.	Integrate with livelihood programs (e.g., water-efficient cropping, irrigation advisories).
Not institutionalized within local governance systems	Advocate for formal integration into Gram Panchayat and watershed planning protocols.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Chemburkar S., Kale E., 2021. Making the Invisible, Visible: Manual for preparing Co-DriVE - Visual Integrator to o

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Manual for preparing CoDriVE

URL:

https://wotr-website-publications.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/156_Making_the_Invisible_Visible_A_Manual_for_Preparing_the_CoDriVE_Visual_Integrator.pdf

Title/ description:

Report

URL:

Chemburkar S., Kale E., 2021. Making the Invisible, Visible: Manual for preparing Co-DriVE - Visual Integrator to overlay surface and sub-surface characteristics for sustainable groundwater management, WOTR