Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Water Supply, Demand, and Quality Indicators for Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Water Resource Vulnerability in the Columbia River Basin

  We investigated water resource vulnerability in the US portion of the Columbia River basin (CRB) using multiple indicators representing water supply, water demand, and water quality. Based on the US county ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Water Supply, Demand, and Quality Indicators for Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Water Resource Vulnerability in the Columbia River Basin Author: Chang, Heejun, Jung, Il-Won, Strecker, Angela L., Wise, Daniel, Lafrenz, Martin, Shandas, Vivek, Moradkhani, Hamid, Yeakley, J. Alan, Pan, Yangdong, Bean, Robert Allen, Johnson, Gunnar, Psaris, Mike Year: 2013 We investigated water resource vulnerability in the US portion of the Columbia River basin (CRB) using multiple indicators representing water supply, water demand, and water quality. Based on the US county scale, spatial analysis was conducted using various biophysical and socio-economic indicators that control water vulnerability. Water supply vulnerability and water demand vulnerability exhibited a similar spatial clustering of hotspots in areas where agricultural lands and variability of precipitation were high but dam storage capacity was low. The hotspots of water quality vulnerability were clustered around the main stem of the Columbia River where major population and agricultural centres are located. This multiple equal weight indicator approach confirmed that different drivers were associated with different vulnerability maps in the sub-basins of the CRB. Water quality variables are more important than water supply and water demand variables in the Willamette River basin, whereas water supply and demand variables are more important than water quality variables in the Upper Snake and Upper Columbia River basins. This result suggests that current water resources management and practices drive much of the vulnerability within the study area. The analysis suggests the need for increased coordination of water management across multiple levels of water governance to reduce water resource vulnerability in the CRB and a potentially different weighting scheme that explicitly takes into account the input of various water stakeholders. Title: Water Supply, Demand, and Quality Indicators for Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Water Resource Vulnerability in the Columbia River Basin Author: Chang, Heejun, Jung, Il-Won, Strecker, Angela L., Wise, Daniel, Lafrenz, Martin, Shandas, Vivek, Moradkhani, Hamid, Yeakley, J. Alan, Pan, Yangdong, Bean, Robert Allen, Johnson, Gunnar, Psaris, Mike Year: 2013 We investigated water resource vulnerability in the US portion of the Columbia River basin (CRB) using multiple indicators representing water supply, water demand, and water quality. Based on the US county scale, spatial analysis was conducted using various biophysical and socio-economic indicators that control water vulnerability. Water supply vulnerability and water demand vulnerability exhibited a similar spatial clustering of hotspots in areas where agricultural lands and variability of precipitation were high but dam storage capacity was low. The hotspots of water quality vulnerability were clustered around the main stem of the Columbia River where major population and agricultural centres are located. This multiple equal weight indicator approach confirmed that different drivers were associated with different vulnerability maps in the sub-basins of the CRB. Water quality variables are more important than water supply and water demand variables in the Willamette River basin, whereas water supply and demand variables are more important than water quality variables in the Upper Snake and Upper Columbia River basins. This result suggests that current water resources management and practices drive much of the vulnerability within the study area. The analysis suggests the need for increased coordination of water management across multiple levels of water governance to reduce water resource vulnerability in the CRB and a potentially different weighting scheme that explicitly takes into account the input of various water stakeholders. Close

• 2. [Article] Exploring, Exploiting and Evolving Diversity of Aquatic Ecosystem Models: a Community Perspective

  Here, we present a community perspective on how to explore, exploit and evolve the diversity in aquatic ecosystem models. These models play an important role in understanding the functioning of aquatic ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Exploring, Exploiting and Evolving Diversity of Aquatic Ecosystem Models: a Community Perspective Author: Janssen, Annette B.G., Arhonditsis, George B., Beusen, Arthur, Bolding, Karsten, Bruce, Louise, Bruggeman, Jorn, Couture, Raoul-Marie, Downing, Andrea S., Elliott, J. Alex, Frassl, Marieke A., Gal, Gideon, Gerla, Daan J., Hipsey, Matthew R., Hu, Fenjuan, Ives, Stephen C., Janse, Jan H., Jeppesen, Erik, Jöhnk, Klaus D., Kneis, David, Kong, Xiangzhen, Kuiper, Jan J., Lehmann, Moritz K., Lemmen, Carsten, Özkundakci, Deniz, Petzoldt, Thomas, Rinke, Karsten, Robson, Barbara J., Sachse, René, Schep, Sebastiaan A., Schmid, Martin, Scholten, Huub, Teurlincx, Sven, Trolle, Dennis, Troost, Tineke A., Van Dam, Anne A., Van Gerven, Luuk P.A., Weijerman, Mariska, Wells, Scott A., Mooij, Wolf M. Year: 2015 Here, we present a community perspective on how to explore, exploit and evolve the diversity in aquatic ecosystem models. These models play an important role in understanding the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, filling in observation gaps and developing effective strategies for water quality management. In this spirit, numerous models have been developed since the 1970s. We set off to explore model diversity by making an inventory among 42 aquatic ecosystem modellers, by categorizing the resulting set of models and by analysing them for diversity. We then focus on how to exploit model diversity by comparing and combining different aspects of existing models. Finally, we discuss how model diversity came about in the past and could evolve in the future. Throughout our study, we use analogies from biodiversity research to analyse and interpret model diversity. We recommend to make models publicly available through open-source policies, to standardize documentation and technical implementation of models, and to compare models through ensemble modelling and interdisciplinary approaches. We end with our perspective on how the field of aquatic ecosystem modelling might develop in the next 5–10 years. To strive for clarity and to improve readability for non-modellers, we include a glossary. Title: Exploring, Exploiting and Evolving Diversity of Aquatic Ecosystem Models: a Community Perspective Author: Janssen, Annette B.G., Arhonditsis, George B., Beusen, Arthur, Bolding, Karsten, Bruce, Louise, Bruggeman, Jorn, Couture, Raoul-Marie, Downing, Andrea S., Elliott, J. Alex, Frassl, Marieke A., Gal, Gideon, Gerla, Daan J., Hipsey, Matthew R., Hu, Fenjuan, Ives, Stephen C., Janse, Jan H., Jeppesen, Erik, Jöhnk, Klaus D., Kneis, David, Kong, Xiangzhen, Kuiper, Jan J., Lehmann, Moritz K., Lemmen, Carsten, Özkundakci, Deniz, Petzoldt, Thomas, Rinke, Karsten, Robson, Barbara J., Sachse, René, Schep, Sebastiaan A., Schmid, Martin, Scholten, Huub, Teurlincx, Sven, Trolle, Dennis, Troost, Tineke A., Van Dam, Anne A., Van Gerven, Luuk P.A., Weijerman, Mariska, Wells, Scott A., Mooij, Wolf M. Year: 2015 Here, we present a community perspective on how to explore, exploit and evolve the diversity in aquatic ecosystem models. These models play an important role in understanding the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, filling in observation gaps and developing effective strategies for water quality management. In this spirit, numerous models have been developed since the 1970s. We set off to explore model diversity by making an inventory among 42 aquatic ecosystem modellers, by categorizing the resulting set of models and by analysing them for diversity. We then focus on how to exploit model diversity by comparing and combining different aspects of existing models. Finally, we discuss how model diversity came about in the past and could evolve in the future. Throughout our study, we use analogies from biodiversity research to analyse and interpret model diversity. We recommend to make models publicly available through open-source policies, to standardize documentation and technical implementation of models, and to compare models through ensemble modelling and interdisciplinary approaches. We end with our perspective on how the field of aquatic ecosystem modelling might develop in the next 5–10 years. To strive for clarity and to improve readability for non-modellers, we include a glossary. Close