Advertisement

Land-Based Sources, Water Quality and Management

  • Angheluta Vadineanu
  • Brenda Rashleigh
  • Melike Gürel
  • Alpaslan Ekdal
  • Amir Aliyev
  • Angel Pérez Ruzafa
  • Çiğdem Tavşan
  • Elena Preda
  • Eric Masson
  • Eugeniusz Andrulewicz
  • Mars Amanaliev
  • Nur Findik Hecan
  • Otuzbay Geldiyew
  • Sofia Gamito
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series book series (NAPSC)

Water is a limited resource in increasingly short supply. The ability of watersheds to provide sufficient water quantity and quality is threatened in the face increasing population growth and human activities in the watershed. In the context of these threats, many governments and organization are increasing efforts in planning and decision making for water resources. Such efforts promote sustainability and efficiency in water use and provide many benefits for society, however, a lack of shared knowledge and useful tools may impair success of such efforts. In order to successfully manage water resources, it is essential to view the landscape and hydrologic system together as an integrated unit (Winter, 2001). Several key elements are important for a successful approach to relating land based sources and water quality management.

Keywords

European Union Water Framework Directive Watershed Management Ecological Economic Trophic State Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achouri, M., and L. Tennyson, 2005. Preparing for the Next Generation of Watershed Management Programmes and Projects: Europe, Proceedings of the European Regional Workshop held in 4 September 2002, Megève, France.Google Scholar
  2. Adamowicz, W.L., D. Chapman, G. Mancini, W.R. Munns Jr., A. Stirling, and T. Tomasi, 2007. Valuation methods. Pages 59-96 in: R.G. Stahl Jr., L.A. Kapustka, W.R. Munns Jr., and R.J.F. Bruins (eds), Valuation of Ecological Resources: Integration of Ecology in Socioeconomics in Environmental Decision Making, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  3. Aldred, J. and M. Jacobs, 2000. Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens 'jury. Ecological Economics 34(2): 217-232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez-Farizo, B., and N. Hanley, 2006, Improving the process of valuing non-market ben-efits: combining Citizen’s juries with choice modeling, Land Economics, 82(3), 465-478.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, M.J., S.D. Connell, B.M. Gillanders, C.E. Diebel, W.M. Blomm, J.E. Saunders, and T.J. Landers, 2005. Relationships between taxonomic resolution and spatial scales of multivariate variation, Journal of Animal Ecology, 74, 636-646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrulewicz, E., 2007. Developing the D-P-S-I-R framework of indicators for management of human impact on marine ecosystems: Baltic Sea example. Pages 225-243 in: I.E. Gonenc, V. Koutitonsky, B. Rashleigh, R.A. Ambrose, and J.P. Wolflin (eds), Assessment of the Fate and Effects of Toxic Agents on Water Resources, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Angermeier, P., and G. Davideanu, 2004. Using fish communities to assess streams in Romania: initial development of an index of biotic integrity, Hydrobiologia, 511, 65-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barbier, E.B., M. Acreman, and D. Knowler, 1997. Economic Valuation of Wetlands, A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  9. Bateman, I.J., and G.K. Willis 1999. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  10. Bateman, I.J., T.R. Carson, B. Day, M. Hanemann, H. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Ozdemiroglu, W.D. Pearce, R. Sugden, and J. Swanson, 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Belpaire, C., R. Smolders, I. Vanden Auweele, D. Ercken, B. Breine, V. Van Thuyne, and F. Ollevier, 2000. An Index of Biotic Integrity characterizing fish populations and the eco-logical quality of Flandrian water bodies, Hydrobiologia, 434, 17-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bergstrom, J.C., J.K. Boyle, and L.G. Poe, 2001. The Economic Value of Water Quality, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Borja, A., J. Franco, and V. Pérez, 2000. A Marine Biotic Index to establish the ecological quality of soft-bottom benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40, 1100-1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borja, A., L. Muxika, and J. Franco, 2003. The application of a Marine Biotic Index to dif-ferent impact sources affecting soft-bottom benthic communities along European coasts, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 835-845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Borja, A., I. Galparsoro, O. Solaun, I. Muxika, E.M. Tello, A. Uriarte, and V. Valencia, 2006. The European Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 66, 84-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Breine, J., L. Simoens, P. Goethals, P. Quataert, and D. Ercken, 2004. A fish-based index of biotic integrity for upstream brooks in Flanders (Belgium), Hydrobiologia, 522, 133-148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brouwer, R., and S. Georgiou, 2007. Economic Valuation of Environmental and Resource Costs and Benefits of Water Uses and Services in the Water Framework Directive: Technical Guidelines for Practitioners, IVM, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  18. Buttner, G. and G. Maucha, 2006. The thematic accuracy of Corine land cover 2000. Assessment using LUCAS (land use/cover area frame statistical survey), EEA Technical Report No 7/2006, ISSN 1725-2237, http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2006_7/en/. Carlsson, R.E., 1977. A trophic state index for lakes, Limnology and Oceanography, 22, 361-369.
  19. Champ, P., J.K. Boyle, and C.T. Brown (eds), 2003. A Primer on Non-market Valuation, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Clarke, R.T., J.F. Wright, and M.T. Furse, 2003. RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers, Ecological Modelling, 160, 219-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coates, S., A. Waugh, A. Anwar, and M. Robson, 2007. Efficacy of a multi-metric fish index as an analysis tool for the transitional fish component of the Water Framework Directive, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55, 225-240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Colorado State University, 1994. Best Management Practices for Colorado Agriculture: An Overview, Bulletin #XCM-171.Google Scholar
  23. 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, and M. van den Belt, 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, 387, 253-260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crichlow, M., 2001. New Developments in Water Quality and IWRPM, The University of Miami/The Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science/The Inter-American Institute for Global Change (IAI)/Third Summer Institute on Interdisciplinary Science in the Americas/“Integrated Management of Water Resources in the Americas: Challenges and Emerging Issues. July 15-August 3, 2001, Miami, FL. (http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/IAI/Inst2001/lectures/crichlow_jul20/crichlow_t_jul20.pdf)
  25. Davies, G., L. Burgess, M. Eames, S. Mayer, S. Staley, A. Stirling, and S. Williamson, 2003. Deliberative Mapping: Appraising Options for Addressing “the Kidney Gap”, UCL, London.Google Scholar
  26. Dawei, H., and C. Jingsheng, 2001. Issues, perspectives and need for integrated watershed management in China, Environmental Conservation, 28(4), 368-377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Groot, R.S., 1992. Functions of Nature, Walters-Noordhoff, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  28. De Groot, R.S., A.M. Wilson, and R.M.J. Boumans, 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of the ecosystem functions, goods and services, Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393-408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dethier, M.N. and G.C. Schoch, 2005. The consequences of scale: Assessing the distribution of benthic populations in a complex estuarine fjord, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 62, 253-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Easter, K.W., and J.A. Dixon, 1991. Implications for integrated watershed management. Pages 205-213 in: K.W. Easter, J.A. Dixon and M.M. Hufschmidt (eds), Watershed Resources Management: An Integrated Framework with Studies from Asia and the Pacific, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.Google Scholar
  31. EEA, 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Technical Report No: 25.Google Scholar
  32. EEA, 2004. Agriculture and Environment in the EU - 15: The IRENA Indicator Report.Google Scholar
  33. Emerton, L., and E. Muramira, 1999. Uganda Biodiversity: Economic Assessment, Uganda National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, IUCN, The World Conservation Union, Uganda.Google Scholar
  34. Environment Council of China, 2005. The Report on the State of the Environment of Macao Conselho Do Ambiente Environment Council of China. (http://www.ambiente.gov.mo/tchinese/05/2005/en/)
  35. European Union (EU), 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000).Google Scholar
  36. Failing, L., R. Gregory, and M. Harstone, 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in environ-mental risk management: a decision focused approach, Ecological Economics, 64(1), 47-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fé d’Ostiani, L., 2004. Watershed Management Case Study: Mediterranean, Watershed Management: A Key Component of Rural Development in the Mediterranean Region, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. (ftp://ftp.fao. org/docrep/fao/009/j3889e/j3889e00.pdf)
  38. Fiorino, D., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk a survey of institutional mechanisms, Science Technology and Human Values, 15(2), 226-244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Freeman, A.M. III, 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  40. Gamito, S., J. Gilabert, C. Marcos, and A. Pérez-Ruzafa, 2005. Effects of changing envi-ronmental conditions on lagoon ecology. Pages 193-229 in: I. Gonenç and J. P. Wolflin, (eds), Coastal Lagoons: Ecosystem Processes and Modeling for Sustainable Use and Development, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  41. Giupponi, C., J. Mysiak, A. Fassio, and V.Cogan, 2004. MULINO-DSS: a computer tool for sustainable use of water resources at the catchment scale, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 64(1), 13-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Giupponi, C., D. Coletto, G. del Barrio, P. Fontana, and M. Ramanzin, 2006. Bioindicators and agricultural land use change in the Belluno province Italy, Environmental Science and Policy, 9, 163-173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Görg, C., 2007. Landscape governance. The “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places, Geoforum,38(5),954-966. Online publication. (http://dx.dol.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.004)
  44. Holling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social sys-tems, Ecosystems, 4, 390-405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hurlbert, S.H., 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative param-eters, Ecology, 52, 577-586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Iserente, R. and J. De sloover, 1976. Le concept de bioindicateur, Mem. Soc. Roy. Bot Belg., 7, 15-24.Google Scholar
  47. Karageorgis, A.P., M.S. Skourtos, V. Kapsimalis, A.D. Kontogianni, N.T. Skoulikidis, K. Pagou, N.P. Nikolaidis, P. Drakopoulou, B. Zanou, H. Karamanos, Z. Levkov, and C. Anagnostou, 2004. An integrated approach to watershed management within the DPSIR framework: Axios River catchment & Thermaikos Gulf, Regional Environmental Change, doi: 10.1007/s10113-004-0078-7Google Scholar
  48. Karr, J.R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities, Fisheries, 6, 21-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kenyon, W., 2007. Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: a participant - led multi-criteria approach, Ecological Economics, 64(1), 70-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kenyon, W., and C. Nevin, 2001. The use of economic and participatory approaches to assess for-est development: a case study in the Ettrick Valley, Forest Policy and Economics, 3, 69-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Klarer, J., J. McNicholas, and E. Knaus, 1999a. Sofia Initiative on Economic Instruments, Sourcebook on Economic Instruments for Environmental Policy in Central and Eastern Europe: Abridged Version, Szentendre, Hungary.Google Scholar
  52. Klarer, J., J. McNicholas, and E. Knaus, 1999b. Sofia Initiative on Economic Instruments, Improving Environment and Economy, The Potential of Economic Incentives for Environmental Improvements and Sustainable Development in Countries with Economies in Transition.Google Scholar
  53. Kneese, A.V., and B.T. Bower, 1984. Managing Water Quality: Economy, Technology and Institutions, Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  54. Kuper, R., 1996. Citizens juries: The Hertfordshire experience. Working Paper, University of Hertfordshire Business School, Hertfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
  55. Lebrun, P., 1981. L'usage des bioindicateurs dans le diagnostic sur la qualité di milieu de vie. In: Association Francaise de Ingéniurs Ecológiques (eds). Ecologie appliqué biologiques et techniques d'etudes: 174-202.Google Scholar
  56. Lee D.J., and A. Dinar, 1995. Review of integrated approaches to river basin planning, devel-opment and management, World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper WPS 1446, The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  57. Lowell, K., J. Drohan, C. Hajek, C. Beverly, and M. Lee, 2007. A science-driven market-based instrument for determining the cost of environmental services: a comparison of two catch-ments in Australia, Ecological Economics, 64(1), 61-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Macmillan, D., L. Philip, N. Hanley, and B. Alvarez-Farizo, 2003. Valuing non-market ben-efits of wild geese conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches, Ecological Economics, 43, 49-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Maltby, E., D.V. Hogan, and R.J. McInnes, 1996. Functional Analysis of European Wetlands Ecosystems. Phase 1 (FAEWE). Ecosystem Research Report No. 18, Office for Official Publications of the EC, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
  60. Margalef, R., 1968. Perspectives in Ecological Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  61. McLusky, D.S., and M. Elliott, 2007. Transitional waters: a new approach, semantics or just muddying the waters?, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 71, 359-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mendoza, G.A., and R. Prabhu, 2003. Qualitative multi-criteria approaches to assessing indica-tors of sustainable resource management, Forest Ecology and Management, 174, 329-343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moore, T.N. and P.G. Fairweather, 2006. Lack of significant change in epiphyte biomass with increasing extent of measurement within seagrass meadows, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68, 413-420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moranta, J., M. Palmer, G. Morey, A. Ruiz, and B. Morales-Nin, 2006. Multi-scale spatial variability in fish assemblages associated with Posidonia oceanica meadows in the Western Mediterranean Sea, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 68, 579-592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Moreno, D., P.A. Aguilera, and H. Castro, 2001. Assessment of the conservation status of seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) meadows: implications for monitoring strategy and the deci-sion-making process, Biological Conservation, 102, 325-332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Naidoo, R., and T.H. Ricketts, 2006. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conserva-tion, PLoS Biol, 4(11), e360, doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040360Google Scholar
  67. Odum, H.T., and E.P. Odum, 2000. The energetic basis for valuation of ecosystem services, Ecosystems, 3, 21-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. OECD, 2004. Recommendation of the Council on the Use of Economic Instruments in Promoting the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, Endorsed by Environment Ministers on 20 April 2004, Adopted by the OECD Council on 21 April 2004. (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/62/31571288.pdf)
  69. Orfanidis, S., P. Panayotidis, and N. Stamatis, 2001. Ecological evaluation of transitional and coastal waters: a marine benthic macrophytes-based model, Mediterranean Marine Science, 2, 45-65.Google Scholar
  70. Pérez-Ruzafa, A., and C. Marcos, 2003. Contaminación marina: enfoques y herramientas para abordar los problemas ambientales del medio marino. Pages 11-33 in: A. Pérez-Ruzafa, C. Marcos, F. Salas, and S. Zamora (eds), Perspectivas y herramientas en el estudio de la contaminación marina, Universidad de Murcia, Spain.Google Scholar
  71. Pérez-Ruzafa, A., C. Marcos, I.M. Pérez-Ruzafa, E. Barcala, M.I. Hegazi, and J. Quispe, 2007. Detecting changes resulting from human pressure in a naturally quick-changing and heterogeneous environment: Spatial and temporal scales of variability in coastal lagoons, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 75, 175-188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pielou, E.C., 1969. An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  73. Pirrone, N., G. Trombino, S. Cinnirella, A. Algieri, G. Bendoricchio, and L. Palmeri, 2005. The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) approach for integrated catch-ment-coastal zone management: preliminary application to the Po catchment-Adriatic Sea coastal zone system, Regional Environmental Change, 5, 111-137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Prato, T., 2003. Multi-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River System, Ecological Economics 45, 297-309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rekolainen, S., J. Kamari, M. Hiltunen, and T.M. Saloranta, 2003. A conceptual framework for identifying the need and role of models in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, International Journal River Basin Management, 1(4), 347-352.Google Scholar
  76. Rosenberg, R., M. Blomqvist, H.C. Nilsson, H. Cederwall, and A. Dimming, 2004. Marine quality assessment by use of benthic species-abundance distributions: a proposed new protocol within the European Union Water Framework Directive, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49, 728-739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Salas, F., J. Patricio, and J.C. Marques, 2006. Ecological Indicators in Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Assessment. A User Friendly Guide for Practitioners, Coimbra University Press, Coimbra.Google Scholar
  78. SCALDIT, 2004. Transnational Analysis of the Aquatic Environment of the International Scheldt River Basin District: Pilot Project for Testing the European Guidance Documents. Scaldit Report, 208 p.Google Scholar
  79. Schlager, E., and W. Blomquist, 2000. Local Communities, Policy Prescriptions, and Watershed Management in Arizona, California, and Colorado. Presented at “Constituting the Commons: Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New Millenium”, the Eighth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bloomington, IN, May 31-June 4. (http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00000340/00/blomquistw050400.pdf)
  80. Shah, W., and T.E. Muramira, 2001. The Integration of Economic Measures into the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans of Uganda and Eastern Africa, IUCN — The World Conservation Union Regional Environmental Economics Programme Asia & Eastern Africa Regional Office.Google Scholar
  81. Shannon, C.E., and W. Weaver, 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Communication, The University of Illinois Press, Illinois.Google Scholar
  82. Simboura, N., and A. Zenetos, 2002. Benthic indicators to use in Ecological Quality classi-fication of Mediterranean soft bottom marine ecosystems, including a new Biotic Index. Mediterranean Marine Science, 3, 77-111.Google Scholar
  83. Simpson, E.H., 1949. Measurement of diversity, Nature, 163, 688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stagl, S., 2006. Multi-criteria evaluation and public participation: the case of UK energy policy, Land Use Policy, 23(1), 53-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stevenson, R.J., R.C. Bailey, M.C. Harrass, C.P. Hawkins, J. Alba-Tercedor, C. Couch, S. Dyer, F.A. Fulk, J.M. Harrington, C.T. Hunsaker, and R.K. Johnson, 2004. Designing data collection for ecological assessments. Pages 55-84 in: M.T. Barbour, S.B. Norton, H.R. Preston, and K.W. Thornton (eds), Ecological Assessment of Aquatic Resources: Linking Science to Decision Making, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL.Google Scholar
  86. Turner, K.S., R. Georgiou, R. Clark, and R. Brouwer, 2004. Economic Valuation of Water Resources in Agriculture: From the Sectoral to a Functional Perspective of Natural Resource Management, FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
  87. Underwood, A.J., and M.G. Chapman, 1996. Scales of spatial pattern of distribution of intertidal invertebrates, Oecologia, 107, 212-224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. UN, 2002. Slovenia Country Profile, Johannesburg Summit 2002, United Nations. ( http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/wssd/slovenia.pdf)
  89. UNEP, 1997. Global Environment Outlook-1, United Nations Environment Programme, Global State of the Environment Report, Chapter 3: Policy Responses and Directions. (http://www.unep.org/Geo/geo1/ch/ch3_13.htm)
  90. UNEP, 2006. Manual on Compliance with and Enforcement of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Online Manual, Guidance No: 41(g), UNEP, Division of Environmental Law and Conventions. (http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Enforcement/InstitutionalFrameworks/EconomicInstruments/tabid/88/Default.aspx)
  91. U.S. EPA, 1995. A Framework for Measuring the Economic Benefits of Ground Waters, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  92. U.S. EPA, 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240R-00-003, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  93. U.S. EPA, 2006. Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico environmental program indicators report 2005, U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC, EPA-160-R-06-001.Google Scholar
  94. Vadineanu, A., 2001. Sustainable Development: Theory and Practice Regarding the Transition of Socio-Economic Systems Towards Sustainability. Studies on Science and Culture, UNESCO (CEPES), Bucharest.Google Scholar
  95. Vadineanu, A., 2007. The ecosystem approach applied to the management of coastal sociological systems. Pages 199-221 in: I.E. Gonenc, V. Koutitonsky, B. Rashleigh, R.A. Ambrose, and J.P. Wolflin (eds), Assessment of the Fate and Effects of Toxic Agents on Water Resources, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  96. Vadineanu, A., M. Adamescu, R. Vadineanu, S. Cristofor, and C. Negrei, 2003. Past and future management of Lower Danube Wetlands System: a bioeconomic appraisal, Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 14, 415-447.Google Scholar
  97. Van den Hove, S., 2000. Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: the European Commission climate policy process as a case study, Ecological Economics, 33, 457-472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vollenweider, R.A., F. Giovanardi, G. Montanari, and A. Rinaldi, 1998. Characterization of the trophic conditions of marine coastal waters with special reference to the NW Adriatic Sea: proposal for a trophic scale, turbidity and generalized water quality index, Environmetrics, 9, 329-357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wallace, K.J., 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions, Biological Conservation, 137, 235-246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Ward, F.A., and D. Beal, 2000. Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models: A Manual, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  101. White, T.A., 1992. Landholder Cooperation for Sustainable Upland Watershed Management: A Theoretical Review of the Problems and Prospects. Working Paper of the Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Training Projects 1, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  102. Winter, T.C., 2001. The concept of hydrologic landscapes, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37, 335-349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Word, J., 1978. The Infaunal Trophic Index, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, pp. 19-39.Google Scholar
  104. World Bank, 1997. Clear Water, Blue Skies: China’s Environment in the New Century. Unpublished Report, The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  105. Wright, J.F., D.W. Sutcliffe, and M.T. Furse (eds), 2000. Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters, RIVPACS and Other Techniques, Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, UK, 373 pp.Google Scholar
  106. Young, R., 2005. Determining the Economic Value of Water: Concepts and Methods, Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angheluta Vadineanu
    • 1
  • Brenda Rashleigh
    • 2
  • Melike Gürel
    • 3
  • Alpaslan Ekdal
    • 3
  • Amir Aliyev
    • 9
  • Angel Pérez Ruzafa
    • 4
  • Çiğdem Tavşan
    • 3
  • Elena Preda
    • 1
  • Eric Masson
    • 5
  • Eugeniusz Andrulewicz
    • 6
  • Mars Amanaliev
  • Nur Findik Hecan
    • 7
  • Otuzbay Geldiyew
    • 10
  • Sofia Gamito
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Systems Ecology and SustainabilityUniversity of BucharestRomania
  2. 2.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAthensUSA
  3. 3.Environmental Engineering DepartmentIstanbul Technical UniversityTurkey
  4. 4.Fac. BiologiaUniversidad de MurciaSpain
  5. 5.University of Sciences and Technologies of LilleFrance
  6. 6.Sea Fisheries InstituteGdyniaPoland
  7. 7.Marmara Research CenterTubitakGebzeTurkey
  8. 8.IMARUniversity of AlgarvePortugal
  9. 9.Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Azerbaijan RepublicAzerbaijan Republic
  10. 10.Institute of Chemistry of State concern “Turkmenhimiya”Turkmenistan

Personalised recommendations