Literature DB >> 20557924

The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future.

Daniel Hering1, Angel Borja, Jacob Carstensen, Laurence Carvalho, Mike Elliott, Christian K Feld, Anna-Stiina Heiskanen, Richard K Johnson, Jannicke Moe, Didier Pont, Anne Lyche Solheim, Wouter van de Bund.   

Abstract

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD), which was adopted in 2000, changed water management in all member states of the European Union fundamentally, putting aquatic ecology at the base of management decisions. Here we review the successes and problems encountered with implementation of the WFD over the past 10years and provide recommendations to further improve the implementation process. We particularly address three fields: (i) the development of assessment methods (including reference conditions, typologies and intercalibration); (ii) the implementation of assessment systems in monitoring programmes; and (iii) the consequences for river basin management plans (such as the design, monitoring and success of restoration measures). The development of assessment methods has been a transparent process and has resulted in improved and more standardised tools for assessing water bodies across Europe. The process has been more time consuming, and methods are more complex, than originally expected. Future challenges still remain, including the estimation of uncertainty of assessment results and a revision of rules in combining the results obtained with different Biological Quality Elements. A huge amount of monitoring data is now being generated for WFD purposes. Monitoring data are not centrally stored and thus poorly accessible for purposes beyond the WFD. Future challenges include enhanced data accessibility and the establishment of a Europe-wide central monitoring network of reference sites. The WFD river basin management plans base management decisions on the response of aquatic organisms to environmental stress. In contrast to the effects of degradation, the biotic response to restoration is less well-known and poorly predictable. The timescale of the WFD (obtaining good ecological status in all surface waters by 2027) is over-ambitious. Future challenges include long-term monitoring of restoration measures to understand the requirements for ecosystems to recover and prioritisation of measures according to re-colonisation potential. Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20557924     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  57 in total

1.  Application of taxonomic distinctness indices of littoral macroinvertebrate communities for assessing long-term variation in ecological quality status of intertidal ecosystems, northern China.

Authors:  Guangjian Xu; Chongbo He; Henglong Xu; Yong Huang; Hushan Sun
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Exploring the Capacity of Water Framework Directive Indices to Assess Ecosystem Services in Fluvial and Riparian Systems: Towards a Second Implementation Phase.

Authors:  M R Vidal-Abarca; F Santos-Martín; B Martín-López; M M Sánchez-Montoya; M L Suárez Alonso
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  The variability of surface water quality indicators in relation to watercourse typology, Czech Republic.

Authors:  Jakub Langhammer; Filip Hartvich; Daniel Mattas; Sylva Rödlová; Aleš Zbořil
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 2.513

Review 4.  Governance of complex socio-environmental risks: the case of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea.

Authors:  Mikael Karlsson; Michael Gilek; Oksana Udovyk
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 5.129

5.  A new framework to evaluate ecosystem health: a case study in the Wei River basin, China.

Authors:  Wei Wu; Zongxue Xu; Chesheng Zhan; Xuwang Yin; Songyan Yu
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 2.513

Review 6.  A survey of smart water quality monitoring system.

Authors:  Jianhua Dong; Guoyin Wang; Huyong Yan; Ji Xu; Xuerui Zhang
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 4.223

7.  Managing River Fish Biodiversity Generates Substantial Economic Benefits in Four European Countries.

Authors:  Carsten Riepe; Jürgen Meyerhoff; Marie Fujitani; Øystein Aas; Johannes Radinger; Sophia Kochalski; Robert Arlinghaus
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.266

8.  Probabilistic Evaluation of Ecological and Economic Objectives of River Basin Management Reveals a Potential Flaw in the Goal Setting of the EU Water Framework Directive.

Authors:  Turo Hjerppe; Antti Taskinen; Niina Kotamäki; Olli Malve; Juhani Kettunen
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.266

9.  Bayesian Monte Carlo and maximum likelihood approach for uncertainty estimation and risk management: Application to lake oxygen recovery model.

Authors:  Abhishek Chaudhary; Mohamed M Hantush
Journal:  Water Res       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 11.236

10.  Mapping the spatio-temporal distribution of key vegetation cover properties in lowland river reaches, using digital photography.

Authors:  Veerle Verschoren; Jonas Schoelynck; Kerst Buis; Fleur Visser; Patrick Meire; Stijn Temmerman
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2017-05-26       Impact factor: 2.513

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.