An integrated assessment framework for the analysis of multiple pressures in aquatic ecosystems and the appraisal of management options.

TLDR: An integrated assessment framework aimed at evaluating the relationships between multiple pressures and water body status for the purposes of river basin management is illustrated and a simplified multicriteria approach based on semi-quantitative assessment is proposed.

About: This article is published in Science of The Total Environment.The article was published on 2017-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 35 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Water Framework Directive.

Figures

Figure 2 – Organization of knowledge to classify water bodies’ status: example with river ecological status under the WFD, entailing 2 biophysical modelling for selected processes and variables; expert judgment for interpretation; assumption of pressure scenarios; 3 construction of criteria indicators and their combination (*scenarios themselves may be a result of modeling, particularly for future 4 climate forcing). The scheme corresponds to the classification criteria of the WFD (Annex V). 5

Figure 3 – Example river basin considered for the optimization. The example is merely illustrative and does not correspond to an 2 assessment of any specific policy. 3

Table 1 – weights adopted for the Po river basin optimization example. 2

Figure 4 – annual average availability and demand for the example catchment 3

Figure 1 – structure of the proposed assessment framework and knowledge mobilized at the different tiers. 3

Table 2 – summary of the possible types of regulatory and technical measures 1

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What percentage of the investment cost was achieved in the stated preference survey?

In the stated preference survey, the 17 maximum implementation scenario concerned 100% achievement of the WFD objectives, while the medium 18 and low implementation scenario, implied less than 100% achievement of the WFD objectives. 

Q2. How much of the investment cost regarded improvement in the chemical 16 status of the water?

60- 70% of the total investment cost regarded improvement in the chemical 16 status of the water, whereas the rest concerned restoration projects. 

Q3. What is the efficient solution for equal priorities?

For instance, if the authors spend an effort corresponding to point A, the most efficient solution for equal priorities is 10 achieved with most of the reduction to domestic and industrial abstractions in region n. 212 followed by 11 reduction to energy abstractions in region n. 215 (Figure 5 middle left). 

Q4. How many regions are considered to be the important?

Let us assume that three 11 of these regions (labelled in Figure 3 with their identifier numbers), representing the most important 12 pressures, agree to set targets to reduce abstractions so to minimize the WEI over the whole basin. 

Q5. How much of the investment cost was based on the stated preference technique?

The results of studies based on revealed and stated 2 preference techniques (primary studies) can be utilized by value transfer techniques (e.g. Koundouri et al., 3 2016, estimating the impact of changes in the provision of ecosystem services in the Anglian river basins in 4 the UK, drawing on results from studies in other regions). 

Q6. What are the first two steps of the assessment?

10Understanding water bodies’ status and pressures 11Classifying a water body’s status and identifying the most relevant controlling pressures are the first two 12 steps of the assessment.