Redefinition and Elaboration of River Ecosystem Health: Perspective for River Management

Abstract

This paper critically reviews developments in the conceptualization and elaboration of the River Ecosystem Health (REH) concept. Analysis of literature shows there is still no consistent meaning of the central concept Ecosystem Health, resulting in models (i.e. elaborations) that have unclear and insufficient conceptual grounds. Furthermore, a diverse terminology is associated with describing REH, resulting in confusion with other concepts. However, if the concept is to have merit and longevity in the field of river research and management, unambiguous definition of the conceptual meaning and operational domain are required. Therefore a redefinition is proposed, based on identified characteristics of health and derived from considering semantic and conceptual definitions. Based on this definition, REH has merit in a broader context of river system health that considers societal functioning next to ecological functioning. Assessment of health needs integration of measures of multiple, complementary attributes and analysis in a synthesized way. An assessment framework is proposed that assesses REH top-down as well as bottom up by combining indicators of system stress responses (i.e. condition) with indicators identifying the causative stress (i.e. stressor). The scope of REH is covered by using indicators of system activity, metabolism (vigour), resilience, structure and interactions between system components (organization). The variety of stress effects that the system may endure are covered by using biotic, chemical as well as physical stressors. Besides having a unique meaning, the REH metaphor has added value to river management by being able to mobilize scientists, practitioners and publics and seeing relationships at the level of values. It places humans at the centre of the river ecosystem, while seeking to ensure the durability of the ecosystem of which they are an integral part. Optimization of the indicator set, development of aggregation and classification methodologies, and implementation of the concept within differing international frames are considered main aims for future research.

Effect of environmental quality and mesohabitat structure on a Biotic Integrity Index based on fish assemblages of cerrado streams from Rio Cuiabá basin, Brazil

“…In this context, the aquatic biota depends on processes that operate on large scales that create and maintain heterogeneous habitats to complete their life history on smaller scales (Allan, 2004;Fausch et al, 2002). On a local scale, removing native vegetation and building artificial barriers as dams have restricted fish movement and this affects population viability (Pichon et al, 2006;Schlosser, 1995) and, consequently the biotic integrity of streams, altering the resilience and functioning of aquatic systems (Pringle, 2003;Vugteveen et al, 2006).…”

“…Ecological indicators (EI) are used to establish the degree of biotic integrity of the system and negative effects (Vugteveen et al, 2006;Karr et al, 1986). The first indicators were based on the presence of species or on simple characteristics of the community of a determined group of organisms.…”

Advancing Science for Water Resources Management

“…Consider the problem of conveying to the general public the advantages of natural variability. Ecologically, habitat turnover is important for sustaining a healthy river and we know that even extreme events can be important in resetting communities and rejuvenating the corridor (see Vugteveen et al, 2006). However, the average layperson often perceives a ''healthy system'' as one that remains constant.…”

Water and Values: Ecological Research as the Basis for Water Management and Nature Management

“…Rapport, 1992;Costanza et al, 1999;Winterhalder et al, 2004;Vugteveen et al, 2006). Essentially, a large part of these concepts appears to be new wine in old bottles: Odum revisited.…”

“…Quite a number of ecologists reject these 'health' and 'integrity' terms for their imprecision (e.g. Lackey, 2001;Davis & Slobodkin, 2004), whereas others wholeheartedly embrace them and seek to develop them further in theoretical and practical terms, at the interface of scientific ecology, societal values and public policy (Rapport, 1995;Carpenter et al, 2001;Vugteveen et al, 2006).…”