Hydrology education at Chinese universities: a comparative case study between Hohai University and the University of Arizona

The paper frames hydrology as an interdisciplinary Earth science vital to managing water resources amid China’s rapid industrialization, urbanization, and climate change. China faces water scarcity, environmental degradation, floods/droughts, and soil erosion, which require hydrologists with broad, cross-disciplinary expertise (natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, and economics). The authors argue that Chinese hydrology education has traditionally emphasized hydrological engineering, limiting integrated scientific and professional training and hindering preparation of future hydrologists. The study aims to chart the current state of hydrology education in China, identify challenges and structural constraints, and compare Hohai University (China) with the University of Arizona (USA) to derive insights for building an interdisciplinary hydrology education system suited to contemporary water challenges.

The review traces hydrology’s evolution from an engineering appendage (early- to mid-20th century) toward a broader scientific field engaging complex water systems and management challenges. It highlights the need for interdisciplinary training spanning meteorology, climatology, geology, soil science, ecology, economics, and social/political sciences, while preserving depth in core disciplines. Traditional engineering-focused curricula produced strong quantitative problem-solvers but with limited exposure to biology, geography, and ecology. Effective education requires balancing classroom instruction with substantial field and laboratory experience; however, field learning is often constrained by logistics (sites, time, staffing) and can devolve into passive observation. Best practices include iterative loops linking field data acquisition, inquiry-driven laboratory modeling, and classroom synthesis; cultivation of professional and personal competencies (communication, leadership, innovation); and inclusion of socio-economic and policy elements. The review notes global initiatives supporting interdisciplinary hydrology education and resource gaps: interdepartmental graduate groups (Canada), U.S. programs (WaterSense, CCWAS, IGERT), regional networks (WaterNet), and open/online resources (MOCHA, Research4Life, WHIP) to mitigate disparities in teaching materials and data access. Overall, the literature underscores that the main constraint on advancing hydrology as a science is the lack of an integrated, interdisciplinary educational system, and that active, field- and lab-rich pedagogy is essential.

Qualitative study combining a comparative case approach with literature-based document analysis, integrating exploratory and descriptive research. Case selection: Hohai University (China), historically foundational for Chinese hydrology education and emblematic of engineering-centric approaches, and the University of Arizona (USA), the first U.S. department (1961) with strong interdisciplinary hydrology programs. Data sources: secondary data from authoritative websites (ministries, university sites, statistical bureaus, rankings) and published reports/yearbooks (China Statistical Yearbook; U.S. Digest of Education Statistics; textbook bibliographies). Data collection and analysis: document analysis (finding, selecting, evaluating, and interpreting texts) with coding around (1) economics and finance (R&D expenditure) and (2) teaching resources (human and non-human). Excel was used to visualize time trends (2005–2021 for research outputs; 2005–2020 for R&D expenditure and student-teacher ratios). Comparative analysis examined university rankings, research outputs, disciplinary structures, textbook practices, R&D funding, student-to-teacher ratios, and faculty title distributions to infer constraints and derive recommendations.

- Rankings: In the 2021 ARWU water resources ranking, 9 Chinese and 18 U.S. universities appear in the top 50, despite China having >3500 universities, indicating comparatively fewer Chinese institutions with high-level water research. - Research output (2005–2021): Both countries’ outputs increased until a slight dip around 2020 (COVID-19). U.S. institutions consistently produced more water-resources publications, though the gap narrowed; China’s marked growth began around 2013, evidencing a late start and lower historical research capacity. - Disciplinary structures: Hohai University centralizes water disciplines within three water-focused colleges with clustered development, largely oriented to hydrological engineering. The University of Arizona distributes water-related programs across multiple colleges (Agriculture & Life Sciences, Engineering, Science), blending water with non-water disciplines; most programs are at graduate level in both universities (master’s/doctoral shares ~78% and 69%, respectively), and Arizona exhibits greater interdisciplinary integration. - Textbooks and teaching materials: China uses a unified national textbook bibliography; hydrology texts skew to engineering focus, many compiled years ago and less frequently updated. U.S. instructors have autonomy to select up-to-date readings, reports (e.g., USACE, USGS, FEMA), and research literature; syllabi are frequently updated, reflecting current advances. - R&D expenditures (2005–2020): U.S. research universities’ R&D spending exceeds China’s throughout; 15-year increase: U.S. +$35.6B vs China +$22.7B. Annual spending differences ranged from $42.1B (2005) to $55.0B (2020), implying greater U.S. capacity for research and educational resource upgrades. - Student-to-teacher ratios (2005–2020): China declined from 18.37 to 16.85; U.S. remained ~13.7 to 13.6. U.S. ratios are consistently ~3 lower, suggesting more favorable instructional conditions. - Faculty composition (2005–2020 average): U.S. institutions have 27.95% professors; China has 11.51% professors, with assistant professors predominant at 37.89%. This implies comparatively fewer senior faculty in China, which may affect research and teaching quality. - Overall: The principal constraint in China is insufficient financial support, cascading into high student-teacher ratios, fewer senior/doctoral-trained instructors, and outdated/limited field and lab resources and materials, reinforcing an engineering-centric, lecture-heavy pedagogy.

The comparative evidence indicates that China’s hydrology education, historically centered on hydrological engineering, lags in interdisciplinary scientific training, partly due to constrained finances and resources. Higher U.S. R&D spending and more favorable student-to-teacher ratios align with stronger research output, richer field/lab infrastructures, and flexible, frequently updated curricula that integrate policy, economics, and environmental sciences. The concentration of water disciplines within engineering-focused colleges in China reinforces siloed structures and limits cross-disciplinary exchange; in contrast, Arizona’s dispersed-yet-networked model supports integration across agriculture, engineering, and science. The observed textbook centralization and slower updates in China hinder rapid incorporation of new theories and methods, while U.S. instructor autonomy fosters agility. These findings address the research question by linking systemic resource constraints to educational structure and outcomes, explaining why Chinese programs struggle to prepare broadly trained hydrologists with strong scientific, practical, and socio-political competencies. The paper argues for shifting toward interdisciplinary frameworks, enhancing field/lab experiences, updating materials, and leveraging collaborations and online platforms to mitigate resource gaps.

Chinese hydrology education requires a paradigm shift from a narrow, engineering-centric model to an integrated, science-informed and practice-rich framework. Universities should: strengthen fundamental hydrological science alongside engineering; expand interdisciplinary breadth (linking natural sciences, engineering, socio-economics, and policy); increase field and laboratory training; and cultivate transferable competencies (critical thinking, collaboration, communication, leadership). Short-term, collaborative educational programs and online resource-sharing can help alleviate resource shortages and accelerate curriculum updates. Longer-term, institutions should restructure disciplinary settings to promote cross-departmental/college dual-degree programs and interweaving with application-oriented fields, tailored to regional water challenges. The overarching goal is to cultivate well-rounded hydrologists with deep disciplinary knowledge and cross-cutting skills capable of addressing evolving water security challenges.

The study is qualitative and relies on secondary data and document analysis, which may introduce selection and reporting biases. The comparative case approach centers on two universities (Hohai University and the University of Arizona), limiting generalizability across all Chinese and U.S. institutions. Some indicators (e.g., research outputs, R&D spending, student-to-teacher ratios, faculty titles) are aggregated at national or institutional levels and may not isolate hydrology-specific dynamics. Textbook and curriculum characterizations are based on policy documents and institutional information that can change over time; real-time course practices may vary across departments and instructors.