Trade-offs in ecosystem services under various river management strategies of the Rhine Branches

IF 6.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Sien Kok , Solen Le Clec'h , W. Ellis Penning , Anthonie Dirk Buijse , Lars Hein
{"title":"Trade-offs in ecosystem services under various river management strategies of the Rhine Branches","authors":"Sien Kok ,&nbsp;Solen Le Clec'h ,&nbsp;W. Ellis Penning ,&nbsp;Anthonie Dirk Buijse ,&nbsp;Lars Hein","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>To make river basins more climate resilient, provide a better living environment for people and other organisms, the EU encourages integrated river and floodplain management (RFM) and calls for restoration of 25,000 km of EU rivers to a free-flowing state in the EU Nature Restoration Law. To support decision making in this domain, there is a need for a holistic assessment framework. However, most policy appraisal studies in river management to date have a limited scope and focus on impacts of measures in a single domain, such as flood risk reduction or water quality. In this study we address this gap by using quantitative models to analyse the supply of 13 ecosystem services under various RFM strategies for the Rhine Branches in the Netherlands. We use a mix of biophysical and monetary indicators to quantitatively assess ecosystem services and the trade-offs involved in different RFM strategies. The results show that strongly regulated, mono-functional RFM has overall lower ES supply than more integrated, multifunctional RFM strategies with rehabilitated floodplains. The latter generally increase ES supply across all domains (provisioning, regulating, cultural), with the exception of crop and fodder production in the floodplains. Overall, our results can inform formulation and communication on RFM strategies in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Also, our approach serves as a demonstration of how the ES framework can be used to support quantitative impact assessment in this domain.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":"72 ","pages":"Article 101692"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000998","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To make river basins more climate resilient, provide a better living environment for people and other organisms, the EU encourages integrated river and floodplain management (RFM) and calls for restoration of 25,000 km of EU rivers to a free-flowing state in the EU Nature Restoration Law. To support decision making in this domain, there is a need for a holistic assessment framework. However, most policy appraisal studies in river management to date have a limited scope and focus on impacts of measures in a single domain, such as flood risk reduction or water quality. In this study we address this gap by using quantitative models to analyse the supply of 13 ecosystem services under various RFM strategies for the Rhine Branches in the Netherlands. We use a mix of biophysical and monetary indicators to quantitatively assess ecosystem services and the trade-offs involved in different RFM strategies. The results show that strongly regulated, mono-functional RFM has overall lower ES supply than more integrated, multifunctional RFM strategies with rehabilitated floodplains. The latter generally increase ES supply across all domains (provisioning, regulating, cultural), with the exception of crop and fodder production in the floodplains. Overall, our results can inform formulation and communication on RFM strategies in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Also, our approach serves as a demonstration of how the ES framework can be used to support quantitative impact assessment in this domain.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Services ECOLOGYENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES&-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
14.90
自引率
7.90%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly. Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信