The Wetland Book pp 1825-1828 | Cite as

Environmental Flow Requirements Setting: Desktop Methods

Reference work entry

Abstract

Desktop approaches to setting environmental flow requirements (EFRs) have the potential to be useful in situations where resources (time, expertise, and information) are limited, but they will almost always provide estimates with lower confidence, or higher uncertainty, than more comprehensive assessments. There is a continuum between desktop approaches, rapid methods based on limited data collection, and comprehensive assessments involving field collection (and interpretation) of hydraulic, geomorphological, and biotic data. Under most situations, the resources required increase, and the confidence decreases, along the continuum. However, the decrease in confidence could be lower in poorly understood and complex systems because even comprehensive studies will be subject to resource constraints. Similarly, the confidence of desktop or rapid assessments could be increased given the availability of appropriate regional information and given that such information can be used within the less resource-intensive methods.

Keywords

Desktop methods Environmental flows Rivers 

References

  1. Acreman M. Linking science and decision-making: features and experience from environmental river flow setting. Environ Model Softw. 2005;20(2):99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ. The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecol Appl. 2006;16(4):1311–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beven KJ, Alcock RE. Modelling everything everywhere: a new approach to decision-making for water management under uncertainty. Freshw Biol. 2011;57(S1):124–32.Google Scholar
  4. Hughes DA. A simple model for assessing utilizable streamflow allocations in the context of the ecological reserve. Water SA. 2006;32(3):411–7.Google Scholar
  5. Hughes DA, Hannart P. A desktop model used to provide an initial estimate of the ecological instream flow requirements of rivers in South Africa. J Hydrol. 2003;270(3-4):167–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hughes DA, Desai AY, Birkhead AL, Louw D. A new approach to rapid, desktop-level, environmental flow assessments for rivers in South Africa. Hydrol Sci J. 2014;59(3-4):673–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hughes DA, Louw D. Integrating hydrology, hydraulics and ecological response into a flexible approach to the determination of environmental water requirements for rivers. Environ Model Softw. 2010;25(8):910–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hughes DA, Mallory SJL. Including environmental flow requirements as part of real-time water resource management. River Res Appl. 2008;24(6):852–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Maddock I. The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshw Biol. 1999;41(2):373–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Poff NL, Allen JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard JL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience. 1997;47(11):769–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Acreman M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Freeman MC, Henriksen J, Jacobson RB, Kennen JG, Merritt DM, O'Keeffe JH, Olden JD, Rogers K, Tharme RE, Warner A. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol. 2010;55(1):147–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Wigington R, Braun DP. How much water does a river need? Freshw Biol. 1997;37:231–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Richter BD, Davis MM, Apse C, Konrad C. A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Res Appl. 2012;28(8):1312–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smakhtin V, Revenga C, Döll P. A pilot global assessment of environmental water requirements and scarcity. Water Int. 2004;29:307–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smakhtin VU, Shilpakar RL, Hughes DA. Hydrology-based assessment of environmental flows: an example from Nepal. Hydrol Sci J. 2006;51(2):207–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tennant DL. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries. 1976;1:6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Water ResearchRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations