Advertisement

Redefinition and elaboration of river ecosystem health: perspective for river management

  • P. Vugteveen
  • R. S. E. W. Leuven
  • M. A. J. Huijbregts
  • H. J. R. Lenders
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 187)

Abstract

This paper critically reviews developments in the conceptualization and elaboration of the River Ecosystem Health (REH) concept. Analysis of literature shows there is still no consistent meaning of the central concept Ecosystem Health, resulting in models (i.e. elaborations) that have unclear and insufficient conceptual grounds. Furthermore, a diverse terminology is associated with describing REH, resulting in confusion with other concepts. However, if the concept is to have merit and longevity in the field of river research and management, unambiguous definition of the conceptual meaning and operational domain are required. Therefore a redefinition is proposed, based on identified characteristics of health and derived from considering semantic and conceptual definitions. Based on this definition, REH has merit in a broader context of river system health that considers societal functioning next to ecological functioning. Assessment of health needs integration of measures of multiple, complementary attributes and analysis in a synthesized way. An assessment framework is proposed that assesses REH top-down as well as bottom up by combining indicators of system stress responses (i.e. condition) with indicators identifying the causative stress (i.e. stressor). The scope of REH is covered by using indicators of system activity, metabolism (vigour), resilience, structure and interactions between system components (organization). The variety of stress effects that the system may endure are covered by using biotic, chemical as well as physical stressors. Besides having a unique meaning, the REH metaphor has added value to river management by being able to mobilize scientists, practitioners and publics and seeing relationships at the level of values. It places humans at the centre of the river ecosystem, while seeking to ensure the durability of the ecosystem of which they are an integral part. Optimization of the indicator set, development of aggregation and classification methodologies, and implementation of the concept within differing international frames are considered main aims for future research.

Key words

condition indicators ecological integrity ecosystem functioning ecosystem organization stressor indicators sustainability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allesina, S. & R. E. Ulanowicz, 2004. Cycling in ecological networks: Finn’s index revisited. Computational Biology and Chemistry 28: 227–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An, K.-G., S. S. Park & J.-Y. Shin, 2002. An evaluation of a river health using the index of biological integrity along with relations to chemical and habitat conditions. Environment International 28: 411–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, 1992. Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters, National Water Quality Management Strategy. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Canberra.Google Scholar
  4. Bayne, B. L., 1987. The Effects of Stress and Pollution on Marine Animals. Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Belaousoff, S. & P. G. Kevan, 2003. Are there ecological foundations for ecosystem health? The Environmentalist 23: 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, J., 2002. Investing in river health. Water Science and Technology 45: 85–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bij de Vaate, A., K. Jazdzewski, H. A. M. Ketelaars, S. Gollasch & G. van der Velde, 2002. Geographical patterns in range extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in Europe. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 1159–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. BKH, 1994. Chemische waterkwaliteitsindices: internationale inventarisatie van technieken en methodieken voor aggregatie en presentatie van chemische waterkwaliteitsgegevens. RO190101/5818L/R5. BKH Adviesbureau, Delft (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  9. Boon, P. J., 1998. River restoration in five dimensions. Aquatic conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boon, P. J., 2000. The development of integrated methods for assessing river condition value. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 413–428.Google Scholar
  11. Boulton, A. J., 1999. An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and diagnosis. Freshwater Biology 41: 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brouwer, R., S. Georgiou & R. K. Turner, 2003. Integrated assessment and sustainable water and wetland management. A review of concepts and methods. Integrated Assessment 4: 172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, R. M., N. I. McClelland, R. A. Deininger & R. G. Tozer, 1970. A water quality index-do we dare? Water and Sewage Works 117: 339–343.Google Scholar
  14. Bunn, S. E., P. M. Davies & T. D. Mosch, 1999. Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian and catchment degradation. Freshwater Biology 41: 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Callicot, J. B., J. B. Crowder & K. Mumford, 1999. Current normative concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology 13: 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Calow, P., 1995. Ecosystem health-a critical analysis of concepts. In Rapport, D. J., C. Gaudet & P. Calow (eds), Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-scale Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 33–41.Google Scholar
  17. Costanza, R. & B. C. Patten, 1995. Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological Economics 15: 193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Costanza, R. & M. Mageau, 1999. What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquatic Ecology 33: 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Costanza, R., B. Norton & B. J. Haskell, (eds), 1992. Ecosystem Health-New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  20. Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O′Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton & M. van den Belt, 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Couillard, D. & Y. Lefebvre, 1985. Analysis of water quality indices. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 21: 161–179.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, M. A. & L. B. Slobodkin, 2004. The science and values of restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 12: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC, Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. European Commission PE-CONS 3639/1/100 Rev 1, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  24. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S Environmental Protection Agency EPA/630/R-95/002F, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  25. Fairweather, P. G., 1999. State of environment indicators of ‘river health’: exploring the metaphor. Freshwater Biology 41: 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forget, G. & J. Lebel, 2001. An ecosystem approach to human health. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 7(Supplement): 3–36.Google Scholar
  27. Hart, B. T., B. Maher & I. Lawrence, 1999. New generation water quality guidelines for ecosystem protection. Freshwater Biology 41: 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harvey, J., 2001. The natural economy. Nature 413: 463.Google Scholar
  29. Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill, M. O., 1973. Diversity and eveness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54: 427–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hohls, D. R., 1996. National Biomonitoring Programme for Riverine Ecosystems: Framework Document for the Programme. NBP Report Series No. 1, Institute for Water Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  32. Holling, C. S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holling, C. S., 1987. Simplifying the complex: the paradigms of ecological function and structure. European Journal of Operational Restoration 30: 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holling, C. S., 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4: 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Innis, S. A., R. J. Naiman & S. R. Elliot, 2000. Indicators and assessment methods for measuring the ecological integrity of semi-aquatic terrestrial environments. Hydrobiologia 422/ 423: 111–131.Google Scholar
  36. Jørgensen, S. E., 1995. Exergy and ecological buffer capacities as measures of ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health 1: 150–160.Google Scholar
  37. Junk, W. J., P. B. Bailey & R. E. Sparks, 1989. The flood pulse concept in river floodplain systems. In Dodge, D. P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Internationals Large River Symposium (LARS). Canadian Special Publications of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106: 110–127.Google Scholar
  38. Karr, J. R., 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1: 66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karr, J. R., 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klepper, O., J. Bakker, T. P. Traas & D. Van de Meent, 1998. Mapping the Potentially Affected Fraction (PAF) of species as a basis for comparison of ecotoxicological risks between substances and regions. Journal of Hazardous Materials 61: 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuiper, J., 1998. Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity. Landscape planning at different planning-levels in the River area of the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 43: 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lackey, R. T., 2001. Values, policy, and ecosystem health. BioScience 51: 437–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lenders, H. J. R., 2003. Environmental rehabilitation of the river landscape in the Netherlands. A blend of five dimensions. Ph.D.-thesis, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  44. Lenders, H. J. R. & L. Knippenberg, 2005. The temporal and social dimensions of river rehabilitation: towards a multidimensional research perspective. Archiv für Hydrobiologie (Large Rivers Supplement) 155/15: 119–131.Google Scholar
  45. Leuven, R. S. E. W. & I. Poudevigne, 2002. Riverine landscape dynamics and ecological risk assessment. Freshwater Biology 47: 845–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leuven, R. S. E. W., J. L. M. Haans, A. J. Hendriks, R. A. C. Lock & S. E. Wendelaar Bonga, 1998. Assessing cumulative impacts of multiple stressors on river systems. In Nienhuis, P. H., R. S. E. W. Leuven & A. M. J. Ragas (eds), New Concepts for Sustainable Management of River Basins. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 241–259.Google Scholar
  47. Leuven, R. S. E. W., A. J. M. Smits & P. H. Nienhuis, 2000. From integrated approaches to sustainable river basin management. In Smits, A. J. M., P. H. Nienhuis & R. S. E. W. Leuven (eds), New Approaches to River Management. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 329–347.Google Scholar
  48. Maddock, I., 1999. The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mageau, M. T., R. Costanza & R. E. Ulanowicz, 1998. Quantifying the trends expected in developing ecosystems. Ecological Modelling 112: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maher, W., G. E. Batley & I. Lawrence, 1999. Assessing the health of sediment ecosystems: use of chemical measurements. Freshwater Biology 41: 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. May, R. M., 1977. Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states. Nature 269: 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mekong River Commission, 2003. Annual Report. Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh (available online http://www.mrcmekong.org).
  53. Meyer, J. L., 1997. Stream health: incorporating the human dimension to advance stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miltner, R. J. & E. T. Rankin, 1998. Primary nutrients and the biotic integrity of rivers and streams. Freshwater Biology 40: 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moog, O. & A. Chovanec, 2000. Assessing the ecological integrity of rivers: walking the line among ecological, political and administrative interests. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 99–109.Google Scholar
  56. Naveh, Z., 2001. Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nienhuis, P. H. & R. S. E. W. Leuven, 1998. Ecological concepts for the sustainable management of lowland river basins: a review. In Nienhuis, P. H., R. S. E. W. Leuven & A. M. J. Ragas (eds), New Concepts for Sustainable Management of River Basins. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 7–33.Google Scholar
  58. Norris, R. H. & M. C. Thoms, 1999. What is river health? Freshwater Biology 41: 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Norris, R. H. & C. P. Hawkins, 2000. Monitoring river health. Hydrobiologia 435: 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Oberdorff, T., D. Pont, B. Hugueny & J. P. Porcher, 2002. Development and validation of a fish-based index for the assessment of ―river health’ in France. Freshwater Biology 47: 1720–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Odum, E. P., 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164: 262–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Odum, E. P., 1985. Trends expected in stressed ecosystems. Bioscience 35: 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pickett, J. P. (ed.) 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (4th edn). Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.Google Scholar
  64. Pickett, S. T. A. & L. Cadenasso, 2002. The ecosystem as a multidimensional concept: meaning, model, and metaphor. Ecosystems 5: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pickett, S. T. A, W. R. Burch Jr, T. W. Foresman, J. M. Grove & R. Rowntree, 1997. A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems 1: 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pimm, S. L., 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307: 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Poff, N. L. & J. D. Allan, 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology 76: 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pollard, P. & M. Huxham, 1998. The European Water Framework Directive: a new era in the management of aquatic ecosystem health? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Poudevigne, I., D. Alard, R. S. E. W. Leuven & P. H. Nienhuis, 2002. A system approach to river restoration: a case study in the lower Seine valley, France. River Research and Applications 18: 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rankin, E. T., 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods, and application. Division of Water Quality Planning & Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus.Google Scholar
  71. Rapport, D. J., H. A. Regier & T. C. Hutchinson, 1985. Ecosystem behavior under stress. American Naturalist 125: 617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rapport, D. J., R. Costanza & A. J. McMichael, 1998a. Assessing ecosystem health: challenges at the interface of social, natural and health sciences. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rapport, D. J., C. Gaudet, J. R. Karr, J. S. Baron, C. Bohlen, W. Jackson, B. Jones, R. J. Naiman, B. Norton & M. M. Pollock, 1998b. Evaluating landscape health: interacting societal goals and biophysical process. Journal of Environmental Management 53: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rapport, D. J., G. Böhm, D. Buckingham, J. Cairns Jr., R. Costanza, J. R. Karr, H. A. M. de Kruijf, R. Levins, A. J. McMichael, N. O. Nielsen & W. G. Whitford, 1999. Ecosystem health: the concept, the ISEH, and the important tasks ahead. Ecosystem Health 5: 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell & D. P. Braun, 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1163–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington & D. P. Braun, 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ripl, W., J. Pokorný, M. Eiseltová & S. Ridgill, 1994. A holistic approach to the structure and function of wetlands and their degradation. International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau Publication 32: 16–35.Google Scholar
  78. Rogers, K. & H. Biggs, 1999. Integrating indicators, endpoints and value systems in strategic management of the rivers of the Kruger National Park. Freshwater Biology 41: 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Simberloff, D., 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passéin the landscape era? Biological Conservation 93: 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Simpson, E. H., 1949. Measurements of diversity. Nature 163: 688.Google Scholar
  81. Society for Ecological Restoration Science & Policy Working Group (SER), 2004. The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration (available online http://www.ser.org).
  82. Tansley, A. G., 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16: 284–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tennant, D. L., 1976. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries 1: 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tockner, K., F. Malard & J. V. Ward, 2000. An extension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrological Processes 14: 2861–2883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Townsend, C. R. & R. H. Riley, 1999. Assessment of river health: accounting for perturbation pathways in physical and ecological space. Freshwater Biology 41: 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Traas, T. P., D. Van de Meent, L. Posthuma, T. H. M. Hamers, B. J. Kater, D. De Zwart & T. Aldenberg, 2002. Potentially affected fraction as measure of toxic pressure on ecosystems. In Posthuma, L., G. W. Suter II, & T. P. Trass (eds), Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 315–344.Google Scholar
  87. Turner, M. G., R. Costanza & F. H. Sklar, 1989. Methods to compare spatial patterns for landscape modelling and analysis. Ecological Modelling 48: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ulanowicz, R. E., 1986. Growth and development: ecosystems phenomenology. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  89. Van der Velde, G., R. S. E. W. Leuven & I. Nagelkerken, 2004. Types of river ecosystems. 2.7.2.4. In Dooge, J. C. I. (ed.), Fresh Surface Water, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). EOLSS Publishers, Oxford (available online http://www.eolss.net).Google Scholar
  90. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushin, 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ward, J. V. & J. A. Stanford, 1995. The serial discontinuity concept: extending the model to floodplain rivers-regulated rivers. Research and Management 10: 159–168.Google Scholar
  92. Ward, J. V., C. T. Robinson & K. Tockner, 2002. Applicability of ecological theory to riverine ecosystems. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 26: 443–450.Google Scholar
  93. Wells, P. G., 2003. Assessing health of the Bay of Fundy-concepts and framework. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 1059–1077.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wichert, G. A. & D. J. Rapport, 1998. Fish community structure as a measure of degradation and rehabilitation of riparian systems in an agricultural drainage basin. Environmental Management 22: 425–443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  96. Xu, F.-L., S. E. Jørgensen & S. Tao, 1999. Ecological indicators for assessing freshwater ecosystem health. Ecological Modelling 116: 77–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Xu, F.-L., S. Tao, R. W. Dawson, P.-G. Li & J. Cao, 2001. Lake ecosystem health assessment. Water Research 35: 3157–3167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Young, R. G., C. R. Townsend & C. D. Matthaei, 2004. Functional indicators of river ecosystem health-an interim guide for use in New Zealand. Report 870, Cawthron Institute, Nelson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer2006 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Vugteveen
    • 1
  • R. S. E. W. Leuven
    • 1
  • M. A. J. Huijbregts
    • 1
  • H. J. R. Lenders
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Studies, Institute for Wetland and Water ResearchFaculty of Science, Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations