| Literature DB >> 35565007 |
Fei Xu1, Yonggang Wang1, Xu Wang1, Dayong Wu2, Yuanyuan Wang1.
Abstract
The study on ecosystem health evaluation for restored urban rivers is of specific significance to improving river health and realizing the adaptive management for urban river ecosystems. Based on the health definition of restored urban rivers in North China, this study attempted to set up a system of alternative indicators on ecosystem health assessment, including water quality, water regime, aquatic organism, riparian environment, and physical morphology. Additionally, a set of health assessment system was proposed, including selection of assessment indexes and determination of assessment criteria and health classes. Taking seventeen typical restored urban rivers in Beijing as the assessment target, the said system was applied in assessing urban river health in 2016 and 2019. As the assessment results indicated, in 2016, the health statuses of 29 percent of urban rivers were ordinary, while 71 percent of urban rivers were somewhat inferior. In 2019, the health state of only one urban river reached "good" level. The health statuses of 88 percent of urban rivers were ordinary, and 6 percent were somewhat inferior in terms of comprehensive health index. In 2019, the health states of rivers improved significantly compared with that of 2016, which indicated that most urban rivers saw marked improvement in ecosystem health after ecological restoration. The health assessment system proposed in the paper not only could be applied to regular evaluation of restored urban rivers in the north but also was suitable for a contrastive health-state analysis between different years prior to or after the restoration. In order to carry out adaptive management of water ecology in urban rivers, the measures of ecological restoration could be adjusted based on the regular health assessment and health weakness analysis.Entities:
Keywords: ecological restoration; ecosystem health assessment; indicator system; river ecosystem
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35565007 PMCID: PMC9105896 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095619
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Health classification of restored urban rivers in the north.
| Health | Excellent | Good | Ordinary | Somewhat Inferior | Inferior |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive health index ( | 60 ≤ | 40 ≤ | 20 ≤ |
Figure 1Monitoring points of the typical restored urban rivers in the Beiyun River Basin.
Corresponding assessment indexes of each principal component.
| Principal Components | Assessment Indexes |
|---|---|
| 1st principal component | Satisfaction degree of residents with the landscape close to the river, riparian vegetation coverage rate, degree and influence of river reconstruction, proportion of near-natural embankment |
| 2nd principal component | Ratio of dry-season runoff volume to the total annual runoff, water quality standard rate of water functional area, eutrophication index |
| 3rd principal component | River winding rate, sediment pollution index, comprehensive index of phytoplankton diversity |
| 4th principal component | Longitudinal connectivity index, composite index of benthic macro-invertebrates diversity |
| 5th principal component | Percentage of construction land, condition of river width change |
| 6th principal component | Composite index of fish diversity |
| 7th principal component | Water depth and flow velocity |
Health assessment indicators of restored urban rivers in Beijing.
| Destination Layer | Element Layer | Indicator Layer | Indicator Interpretation and Calculation Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health assessment indicators of restored urban rivers in Beijing | Water quality | Water quality standard rate of water functional area | Water quality standard rate of water functional area (%), referred to the percentage of the months in which water quality reached the standard of water functional zone in the evaluation months, represented the water environment of urban rivers. |
| Eutrophication index | The eutrophication index was calculated in reference to the Regulations of Evaluation Methods and Classification on Lake (Reservoir) Eutrophication ((2001) No. 090). It was used to represent the eutrophication status of urban rivers. | ||
| Sediment pollution index | Nemerow composite index (P), reflecting the pollution of heavy metal and organic index about pollution of nutritive salt (OI), was selected to integrate the index of sediment pollution. | ||
| Water regime | Ratio of dry-season runoff volume to the total annual runoff | Field investigation could be launched for situation judgement over the riverway water volume in normal period. | |
| Water depth and flow velocity | The water depth and flow velocity were selected to reflect the water volume of manually controlled urban rivers. | ||
| Aquatic organisms | Comprehensive index of phytoplankton diversity | Three indicators were selected for comprehensive evaluation, including the number of algae taxa, the Shannon–Wiener diversity index of algae, and the Berger–Parker dominance index of algae. The indicators were standardized first, and then, the arithmetic mean sum of the three indicators was calculated. | |
| Composite index of benthic macro-invertebrates diversity | Two indicators were selected including the number of benthic macro-invertebrates taxa and the Berger–Parker dominance index of benthic macro-invertebrates. The index integration method was the same as that of phytoplankton. | ||
| Composite index of fish diversity | Three indicators were selected, including the number of fish taxa, the Shannon–Wiener diversity index of fish, and the Berger–Parker dominance index of fish (D). The index integration method was the same as that of phytoplankton. | ||
| Riparian environment | Riparian vegetation coverage rate | Taking the river water level in the normal period as the starting boundary and extending 100 m on both sides as the riparian zone, the percentage of the areas of natural and artificial vegetation to the total area of riparian zone was the riparian vegetation coverage rate. | |
| Proportion of near-natural embankment | The percentage of the length of natural banks and ecologically restored artificial banks in urban rivers to the length of river banks. | ||
| Satisfaction degree of residents with the landscape close to the river | The questionnaire was adopted to obtain data about residents’ degree of satisfaction with riparian leisure and recreational functions. | ||
| Physical morphology | Longitudinal connectivity index | The index could be represented by the number of dams per 100 km of river length. The larger the number, the worse the longitudinal connectivity of the river. | |
| River winding rate | The index referred to the ratio of river length to the linear length of rivers, reflecting the winding state of the river. | ||
| Degree and influence of river reconstruction | Used to reflect the ecological function loss of physical structures caused by urban construction activities. Through the questionnaire, the opinions of residents about river reconstruction were obtained. |
Grading criteria of health assessment indexes of restored urban rivers in Beijing.
| Index | Grading Criteria and Value Assignment | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Good | Ordinary | Somewhat Inferior | Inferior | |||
| 80 ≤ N < 100 | 60 ≤ N < 80 | 40 ≤ N < 60 | 20 ≤ N < 40 | 0 ≤ N < 20 | |||
| Water quality | Water quality standard rate of water functional area (%) | 80 ≤ N < 100 | 60 ≤ N < 80 | 40 ≤ N < 60 | 20 ≤ N < 40 | 0 ≤ N < 20 | |
| Eutrophication index | 0 ≤ N < 30 | 30 ≤ N < 50 | 50 ≤ N < 60 | 60 ≤ N < 70 | 70 ≤ N < 100 | ||
| Sediment pollution index | Nemerow composite index | 0 ≤ N < 1 | 1 ≤ N < 2.5 | 2.5 ≤ N < 4.5 | 4.5 ≤ N < 7 | 7 ≤ N < 10; N ≥ 10, value assigned = 0 | |
| Organic index | 0 ≤ N < 0.05 | 0.05 ≤ N < 0.15 | 0.15 ≤ N < 0.2 | 0.2 ≤ N < 0.5 | 0.5 ≤ N < 2; N ≥ 2, value assigned = 0 | ||
| Water regime | Ratio of dry-season runoff volume to the total annual runoff ① | 1.3 ≤ N < 2 | 1.1 ≤ N < 1.3 | 0.9 ≤ N < 1.1 | 0.7 ≤ N < 0.9 | 0.4 ≤ N < 0.7; N ≥ 2 or N < 0.4, value assigned = 0 | |
| Completely submerged | Submerged greater than 75% | Submerged 50–75% | Submerged 25–50% | Some waterway dried | |||
| 1.2 ≤ N < 4 | 1 ≤ N < 1.2 | 0.8 ≤ N < 1 | 0.6 ≤ N < 0.8 | 0 ≤ N < 0.6 | |||
| Flow velocity | 0.5 ≤ N < 1 | 0.3 ≤ N < 0.5 | 0.1 ≤ N < 0.3 | 0.05 ≤ N < 0.1 | 0 ≤ N < 0.05 | ||
| Aquatic organisms | Comprehensive index of phytoplankton diversity | 0.8 ≤ N < 1 | 0.6 ≤ N < 0.8 | 0.4 ≤ N < 0.6 | 0.2 ≤ N < 0.4 | 0 ≤ N < 0.2 | |
| Composite index of benthic macro-invertebrates diversity | 0.8 ≤ N < 1 | 0.6 ≤ N < 0.8 | 0.4 ≤ N < 0.6 | 0.2 ≤ N < 0.4 | 0 ≤ N < 0.2 | ||
| Composite index of fish diversity | 0.8 ≤ N < 1 | 0.6 ≤ N < 0.8 | 0.4 ≤ N < 0.6 | 0.2 ≤ N < 0.4 | 0 ≤ N < 0.2 | ||
| Riparian Environment | Riparian vegetation coverage rate | 80 ≤ N < 100 | 60 ≤ N < 80 | 40 ≤ N < 60 | 20 ≤ N < 40 | 0 ≤ N < 20 | |
| Proportion of near-natural embankment | 80 ≤ N < 100 | 60 ≤ N < 80 | 40 ≤ N < 60 | 20 ≤ N < 40 | 0 ≤ N < 20 | ||
| Satisfaction degree of residents with the landscape close to the river ② | Adequate water-friendly area; fully meets the demands | Quite large percentage of water-friendly area, basically meeting the demands | Some percentage of water-friendly area, with design weakness, but sufficient to meet the demands | Lack of water-friendly environment and failure to meet the demand | No water-friendly environment in general | ||
| Physical morphology | Longitudinal connectivity index (Number of dams/100 km) | 0 ≤ N < 1 | 1 ≤ N < 3 | 3 ≤ N < 5 | 5 ≤ N < 10 | 10 ≤ N < 20; N ≥ 20 | |
| River winding rate | 3.4 ≤ N < 4 | 2.8 ≤ N < 3.4 | 2.2 ≤ N < 2.8 | 1.6 ≤ N < 2.2 | 1 ≤ N < 1.6 | ||
| Degree and influence of river reconstruction ③ | No influence | A slight influence | General influence | Great influence | Serious influence | ||
① This index grading criteria was measured by the proportion of the low banks covered by water. ② This index grading criteria was measured by the proportion of the water-friendly area and whether it had rational design and met the demands of surrounding residents. ③ No influence: The river way maintained a natural pattern by means of flexible revetments composed of wooden stakes, ripraps, and aquatic plants. There was a large quantity of bottom sediment suitable for biological survival; A slight influence: At a small amount of channelization, the revetment was composed of concrete blocks with pores inside, stone cages, and plant materials. There was a certain amount of bottom sediment suitable for biological survival; General influence: There was a certain degree of channelization, and part of the revetment was composed of gabions, porous concrete blocks, and plants. There was a small amount of bottom sediment suitable for biological survival; Great influence: Entirely composed of dry masonry for the revetment, and sediment was often disturbed or removed; Serious influence: The vertical revetment was made of concrete panels. Most of the river section was dredged, with almost no bottom sediment suitable for living things.
Health assessment results of typical restored urban rivers in Beijing.
| Type | Rivers under Assessment | Comprehensive Health Index in 2016 | Health Level in 2016 | Comprehensive Health Index in 2019 | Health Level in 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Restored urban rivers | Kunyu River | 43.6 | Ordinary | 49.6 | Ordinary |
| Qing River | 37.4 | Somewhat inferior | 45.7 | Ordinary | |
| Xiaoyue River | 33.1 | Somewhat inferior | 45.5 | Ordinary | |
| Wenyu River | 47.5 | Ordinary | 51.6 | Ordinary | |
| Ba River | 31.4 | Somewhat inferior | 46.8 | Ordinary | |
| Northern Hucheng River | 49.2 | Ordinary | 55.3 | Ordinary | |
| South Hucheng River | 44.3 | Ordinary | 58.3 | Ordinary | |
| Beiyun River | 37.3 | Somewhat inferior | 54.1 | Ordinary | |
| Xiaozhong River | 32.9 | Somewhat inferior | 39.3 | Somewhat inferior | |
| Diversion Canal of Yongding River | 24.7 | Somewhat inferior | 42.3 | Ordinary | |
| Xiaolong River | 22.7 | Somewhat inferior | 47.1 | Ordinary | |
| Tonghui River | 41.1 | Ordinary | 58.8 | Ordinary | |
| Northern Main Canal of Tonghui River | 37.0 | Somewhat inferior | 58.9 | Ordinary | |
| Xiaotaihou River | 24.0 | Somewhat inferior | 45.1 | Ordinary | |
| Lianhua River | 39.6 | Somewhat inferior | 62.4 | Good | |
| Macao River | 27.6 | Somewhat inferior | 47.8 | Ordinary | |
| Liangshui River | 35.8 | Somewhat inferior | 52.2 | Ordinary |
Figure 2Health comparison of typical restored urban rivers in 2016 and 2019.
Figure 3Score distribution of different indexes of the Lianhua River in 2016 and 2019.