Limited comparability of global and local estimates of environmental flow requirements to sustain river ecosystems
Environmental flows (e-flows) are a central element of sustainable water resource management to mitigate the detrimental impacts of hydrological alteration on freshwater ecosystems and their benefits to people. Many nations strive to protect e-flows through policy, and thousands of local-scale e-flo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental research letters 2024-02, Vol.19 (2), p.24012 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 24012 |
container_title | Environmental research letters |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Messager, Mathis L Dickens, Chris W S Eriyagama, Nishadi Tharme, Rebecca E |
description | Environmental flows (e-flows) are a central element of sustainable water resource management to mitigate the detrimental impacts of hydrological alteration on freshwater ecosystems and their benefits to people. Many nations strive to protect e-flows through policy, and thousands of local-scale e-flows assessments have been conducted globally, leveraging data and knowledge to quantify how much water must be provided to river ecosystems, and when, to keep them healthy. However, e-flows assessments and implementation are geographically uneven and cover a small fraction of rivers worldwide. This hinders globally consistent target-setting, monitoring and evaluation for international agreements to curb water scarcity and biodiversity loss. Therefore, dozens of models have been developed over the past two decades to estimate the e-flows requirements of rivers seamlessly across basins and administrative boundaries at a global scale. There has been little effort, however, to benchmark these models against locally derived e-flows estimates, which may limit confidence in the relevance of global estimates. The aim of this study was to assess whether current global methods reflect e-flows estimates used on the ground, by comparing global and local estimates for 1194 sites across 25 countries. We found that while global approaches broadly approximate the bulk volume of water that should be precautionarily provided to sustain aquatic ecosystems at the scale of large basins or countries, they explain a remarkably negligible 0%–1% of the global variability in locally derived estimates of the percentage of river flow that must be protected at a given site. Even when comparing assessments for individual countries, thus controlling for differences in local assessment methods among jurisdictions, global e-flows estimates only marginally compared (
R
2
⩽ 0.31) to local estimates. Such a disconnect between global and local assessments of e-flows requirements limits the credibility of global estimates and associated targets for water use. To accelerate the global implementation of e-flows requires further concerted effort to compile and draw from the thousands of existing local e-flows assessments worldwide for developing a new generation of global models and bridging the gap from local to global scales. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1088/1748-9326/ad1cb5 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1088_1748_9326_ad1cb5</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_0d094f9470ef45fba2603a4f8cad2f2e</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2916702474</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-eb09d60364f7c591f2ee01f4ebc3d03d6d790818574b975588677918d64fe8813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFrHCEUxofSQNM09xyFHkqh26ijox5DSJvAQi_NWRx9pi4z40TdLfvfx-mEtIX25ON73_s99WuaC4I_EyzlJRFMblRLu0vjiO35q-b0RXr9R_2meZvzDmPOuJCnTdqGMRRwyMZxNsn0YQjliKJHD0PszYDM5NAQba0glzCaAnnpwnQIKU4jTKW2_BB_ogSP-5BgkTIqEeV9LiZMKIUDJAQ25mMuMOZ3zYk3Q4bz5_Osuf9y8_36drP99vXu-mq7sUzSsoEeK9fhtmNeWK6IpwCYeAa9bR1uXeeEwpJILlivBOdSdkIoIl0dAClJe9bcrVwXzU7PqV4-HXU0Qf8SYnrQJpVgB9DYYcW8YgKDZ9z3htbFhnlpjaN1cWV9XFk_zPAX6vZqqxcNM65oy8lh2ft-9c4pPu7rr-ld3KepPlVTRTqBKROsuvDqsinmnMC_YAnWS6J6iUwvkek10TryYR0Jcf7NhDRoojTVlYsJ1bPz1fnpH87_gp8AC-ywNw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2916702474</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Limited comparability of global and local estimates of environmental flow requirements to sustain river ecosystems</title><source>IOP Publishing Free Content</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>IOPscience extra</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Messager, Mathis L ; Dickens, Chris W S ; Eriyagama, Nishadi ; Tharme, Rebecca E</creator><creatorcontrib>Messager, Mathis L ; Dickens, Chris W S ; Eriyagama, Nishadi ; Tharme, Rebecca E</creatorcontrib><description>Environmental flows (e-flows) are a central element of sustainable water resource management to mitigate the detrimental impacts of hydrological alteration on freshwater ecosystems and their benefits to people. Many nations strive to protect e-flows through policy, and thousands of local-scale e-flows assessments have been conducted globally, leveraging data and knowledge to quantify how much water must be provided to river ecosystems, and when, to keep them healthy. However, e-flows assessments and implementation are geographically uneven and cover a small fraction of rivers worldwide. This hinders globally consistent target-setting, monitoring and evaluation for international agreements to curb water scarcity and biodiversity loss. Therefore, dozens of models have been developed over the past two decades to estimate the e-flows requirements of rivers seamlessly across basins and administrative boundaries at a global scale. There has been little effort, however, to benchmark these models against locally derived e-flows estimates, which may limit confidence in the relevance of global estimates. The aim of this study was to assess whether current global methods reflect e-flows estimates used on the ground, by comparing global and local estimates for 1194 sites across 25 countries. We found that while global approaches broadly approximate the bulk volume of water that should be precautionarily provided to sustain aquatic ecosystems at the scale of large basins or countries, they explain a remarkably negligible 0%–1% of the global variability in locally derived estimates of the percentage of river flow that must be protected at a given site. Even when comparing assessments for individual countries, thus controlling for differences in local assessment methods among jurisdictions, global e-flows estimates only marginally compared (
R
2
⩽ 0.31) to local estimates. Such a disconnect between global and local assessments of e-flows requirements limits the credibility of global estimates and associated targets for water use. To accelerate the global implementation of e-flows requires further concerted effort to compile and draw from the thousands of existing local e-flows assessments worldwide for developing a new generation of global models and bridging the gap from local to global scales.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1748-9326</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1748-9326</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad1cb5</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ERLNAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bristol: IOP Publishing</publisher><subject>Aquatic ecosystems ; Assessments ; Basins ; Biodiversity ; Biodiversity loss ; e-flows ; Ecosystems ; Environmental Sciences ; Estimates ; freshwater biodiversity ; Freshwater ecosystems ; global hydrological modelling ; International agreements ; Jurisdiction ; Resource management ; river conservation ; River ecology ; River flow ; Rivers ; Strategic management ; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ; water resource management ; Water resources management ; Water scarcity ; Water use</subject><ispartof>Environmental research letters, 2024-02, Vol.19 (2), p.24012</ispartof><rights>2024 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd</rights><rights>2024 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Attribution</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-eb09d60364f7c591f2ee01f4ebc3d03d6d790818574b975588677918d64fe8813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-eb09d60364f7c591f2ee01f4ebc3d03d6d790818574b975588677918d64fe8813</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4251-7767 ; 0000-0002-4493-5284 ; 0000-0002-3051-8068 ; 0000-0001-5789-1316</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad1cb5/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Giop$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,864,885,2102,27924,27925,38868,38890,53840,53867</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04592351$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Messager, Mathis L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dickens, Chris W S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eriyagama, Nishadi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tharme, Rebecca E</creatorcontrib><title>Limited comparability of global and local estimates of environmental flow requirements to sustain river ecosystems</title><title>Environmental research letters</title><addtitle>ERL</addtitle><addtitle>Environ. Res. Lett</addtitle><description>Environmental flows (e-flows) are a central element of sustainable water resource management to mitigate the detrimental impacts of hydrological alteration on freshwater ecosystems and their benefits to people. Many nations strive to protect e-flows through policy, and thousands of local-scale e-flows assessments have been conducted globally, leveraging data and knowledge to quantify how much water must be provided to river ecosystems, and when, to keep them healthy. However, e-flows assessments and implementation are geographically uneven and cover a small fraction of rivers worldwide. This hinders globally consistent target-setting, monitoring and evaluation for international agreements to curb water scarcity and biodiversity loss. Therefore, dozens of models have been developed over the past two decades to estimate the e-flows requirements of rivers seamlessly across basins and administrative boundaries at a global scale. There has been little effort, however, to benchmark these models against locally derived e-flows estimates, which may limit confidence in the relevance of global estimates. The aim of this study was to assess whether current global methods reflect e-flows estimates used on the ground, by comparing global and local estimates for 1194 sites across 25 countries. We found that while global approaches broadly approximate the bulk volume of water that should be precautionarily provided to sustain aquatic ecosystems at the scale of large basins or countries, they explain a remarkably negligible 0%–1% of the global variability in locally derived estimates of the percentage of river flow that must be protected at a given site. Even when comparing assessments for individual countries, thus controlling for differences in local assessment methods among jurisdictions, global e-flows estimates only marginally compared (
R
2
⩽ 0.31) to local estimates. Such a disconnect between global and local assessments of e-flows requirements limits the credibility of global estimates and associated targets for water use. To accelerate the global implementation of e-flows requires further concerted effort to compile and draw from the thousands of existing local e-flows assessments worldwide for developing a new generation of global models and bridging the gap from local to global scales.</description><subject>Aquatic ecosystems</subject><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>Basins</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity loss</subject><subject>e-flows</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>freshwater biodiversity</subject><subject>Freshwater ecosystems</subject><subject>global hydrological modelling</subject><subject>International agreements</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Resource management</subject><subject>river conservation</subject><subject>River ecology</subject><subject>River flow</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Strategic management</subject><subject>Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)</subject><subject>water resource management</subject><subject>Water resources management</subject><subject>Water scarcity</subject><subject>Water use</subject><issn>1748-9326</issn><issn>1748-9326</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>O3W</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcFrHCEUxofSQNM09xyFHkqh26ijox5DSJvAQi_NWRx9pi4z40TdLfvfx-mEtIX25ON73_s99WuaC4I_EyzlJRFMblRLu0vjiO35q-b0RXr9R_2meZvzDmPOuJCnTdqGMRRwyMZxNsn0YQjliKJHD0PszYDM5NAQba0glzCaAnnpwnQIKU4jTKW2_BB_ogSP-5BgkTIqEeV9LiZMKIUDJAQ25mMuMOZ3zYk3Q4bz5_Osuf9y8_36drP99vXu-mq7sUzSsoEeK9fhtmNeWK6IpwCYeAa9bR1uXeeEwpJILlivBOdSdkIoIl0dAClJe9bcrVwXzU7PqV4-HXU0Qf8SYnrQJpVgB9DYYcW8YgKDZ9z3htbFhnlpjaN1cWV9XFk_zPAX6vZqqxcNM65oy8lh2ft-9c4pPu7rr-ld3KepPlVTRTqBKROsuvDqsinmnMC_YAnWS6J6iUwvkek10TryYR0Jcf7NhDRoojTVlYsJ1bPz1fnpH87_gp8AC-ywNw</recordid><startdate>20240201</startdate><enddate>20240201</enddate><creator>Messager, Mathis L</creator><creator>Dickens, Chris W S</creator><creator>Eriyagama, Nishadi</creator><creator>Tharme, Rebecca E</creator><general>IOP Publishing</general><scope>O3W</scope><scope>TSCCA</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4251-7767</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4493-5284</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3051-8068</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5789-1316</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240201</creationdate><title>Limited comparability of global and local estimates of environmental flow requirements to sustain river ecosystems</title><author>Messager, Mathis L ; Dickens, Chris W S ; Eriyagama, Nishadi ; Tharme, Rebecca E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-eb09d60364f7c591f2ee01f4ebc3d03d6d790818574b975588677918d64fe8813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Aquatic ecosystems</topic><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>Basins</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity loss</topic><topic>e-flows</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>freshwater biodiversity</topic><topic>Freshwater ecosystems</topic><topic>global hydrological modelling</topic><topic>International agreements</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Resource management</topic><topic>river conservation</topic><topic>River ecology</topic><topic>River flow</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Strategic management</topic><topic>Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)</topic><topic>water resource management</topic><topic>Water resources management</topic><topic>Water scarcity</topic><topic>Water use</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Messager, Mathis L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dickens, Chris W S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eriyagama, Nishadi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tharme, Rebecca E</creatorcontrib><collection>IOP Publishing Free Content</collection><collection>IOPscience (Open Access)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Environmental research letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Messager, Mathis L</au><au>Dickens, Chris W S</au><au>Eriyagama, Nishadi</au><au>Tharme, Rebecca E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Limited comparability of global and local estimates of environmental flow requirements to sustain river ecosystems</atitle><jtitle>Environmental research letters</jtitle><stitle>ERL</stitle><addtitle>Environ. Res. Lett</addtitle><date>2024-02-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>24012</spage><pages>24012-</pages><issn>1748-9326</issn><eissn>1748-9326</eissn><coden>ERLNAL</coden><abstract>Environmental flows (e-flows) are a central element of sustainable water resource management to mitigate the detrimental impacts of hydrological alteration on freshwater ecosystems and their benefits to people. Many nations strive to protect e-flows through policy, and thousands of local-scale e-flows assessments have been conducted globally, leveraging data and knowledge to quantify how much water must be provided to river ecosystems, and when, to keep them healthy. However, e-flows assessments and implementation are geographically uneven and cover a small fraction of rivers worldwide. This hinders globally consistent target-setting, monitoring and evaluation for international agreements to curb water scarcity and biodiversity loss. Therefore, dozens of models have been developed over the past two decades to estimate the e-flows requirements of rivers seamlessly across basins and administrative boundaries at a global scale. There has been little effort, however, to benchmark these models against locally derived e-flows estimates, which may limit confidence in the relevance of global estimates. The aim of this study was to assess whether current global methods reflect e-flows estimates used on the ground, by comparing global and local estimates for 1194 sites across 25 countries. We found that while global approaches broadly approximate the bulk volume of water that should be precautionarily provided to sustain aquatic ecosystems at the scale of large basins or countries, they explain a remarkably negligible 0%–1% of the global variability in locally derived estimates of the percentage of river flow that must be protected at a given site. Even when comparing assessments for individual countries, thus controlling for differences in local assessment methods among jurisdictions, global e-flows estimates only marginally compared (
R
2
⩽ 0.31) to local estimates. Such a disconnect between global and local assessments of e-flows requirements limits the credibility of global estimates and associated targets for water use. To accelerate the global implementation of e-flows requires further concerted effort to compile and draw from the thousands of existing local e-flows assessments worldwide for developing a new generation of global models and bridging the gap from local to global scales.</abstract><cop>Bristol</cop><pub>IOP Publishing</pub><doi>10.1088/1748-9326/ad1cb5</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4251-7767</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4493-5284</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3051-8068</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5789-1316</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1748-9326 |
ispartof | Environmental research letters, 2024-02, Vol.19 (2), p.24012 |
issn | 1748-9326 1748-9326 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1088_1748_9326_ad1cb5 |
source | IOP Publishing Free Content; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; IOPscience extra; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Aquatic ecosystems Assessments Basins Biodiversity Biodiversity loss e-flows Ecosystems Environmental Sciences Estimates freshwater biodiversity Freshwater ecosystems global hydrological modelling International agreements Jurisdiction Resource management river conservation River ecology River flow Rivers Strategic management Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) water resource management Water resources management Water scarcity Water use |
title | Limited comparability of global and local estimates of environmental flow requirements to sustain river ecosystems |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T01%3A56%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Limited%20comparability%20of%20global%20and%20local%20estimates%20of%20environmental%20flow%20requirements%20to%20sustain%20river%20ecosystems&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20research%20letters&rft.au=Messager,%20Mathis%20L&rft.date=2024-02-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=24012&rft.pages=24012-&rft.issn=1748-9326&rft.eissn=1748-9326&rft.coden=ERLNAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088/1748-9326/ad1cb5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2916702474%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2916702474&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_0d094f9470ef45fba2603a4f8cad2f2e&rfr_iscdi=true |