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 , Solen Le Clec'h , W. Ellis Penning , Anthonie Dirk Buijse , 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.
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.