University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, B-dul Nicolae Bălcescu 1, Cod 010041, Bucureşti, Romania.
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, B-dul Nicolae Bălcescu 1, Cod 010041, Bucureşti, Romania; University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, F-38000 Grenoble, France; Romanian Academy, Institute of Geography, Str. Dimitrie Racoviţă 12, Cod 023994, Bucureşti, Romania.
J Environ Manage. 2018 Jul 1;217:735-746. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.017. Epub 2018 Apr 24.
Conducting hydromorphological assessments for evaluating the ecological status of rivers is a key requirement of the Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive - WFD) within European Union (EU) Member States. This paper aims at understanding how this requirement was implemented, through an original comparative review of methodologies for rivers' hydromorphological assessment in three EU Member States, which joined the EU at different times, and with many differences in terms of hydrographic features, socio-economic and water management systems: France, Romania, and Croatia. More precisely, the paper aims at identifying and understanding the main principles guiding the hydromorphological assessment methodologies, elements and data used, giving an overview of the results of hydromorphological river status assessment, and concluding on the stage of hydromorphological assessment implementation. France developed numerous methodologies for physical habitat survey since the 1990s and it is currently conducting a rigorous hydromorphological field survey, but it does not yet have any national methodology for rivers' hydromorphological status assessment, nevertheless foreseen for the next cycle of the WFD. Besides, Romania and Croatia have already started the assessment of the hydromorphological status of rivers within the two cycles of the River Basin Management Plans and are making efforts to improve the hydromorphological monitoring activity. The methods generally differ in indicators, data used, and spatial scale of analysis, which makes it difficult to compare the results of the assessments. Despite a common water policy, the methodological dissimilarities seem to be rather usual between EU Member States. Therefore, the standardization of methodologies appears to be necessary, but the current results could be useful for setting priorities for river restoration and for achieving a better status at a national scale.
开展水力学形态评估以评估河流的生态状况是欧盟成员国指令 2000/60/EC（水框架指令-WFD）的一项关键要求。本文旨在通过对三个在不同时间加入欧盟且在水文特征、社会经济和水管理系统方面存在诸多差异的欧盟成员国（法国、罗马尼亚和克罗地亚）的河流水力学形态评估方法进行原始比较性审查，了解这一要求是如何得到实施的。具体而言，本文旨在确定和理解指导水力学形态评估方法的主要原则、所使用的要素和数据，概述河流水力学形态状况评估的结果，并就水力学形态评估的实施阶段得出结论。法国自 20 世纪 90 年代以来就开发了许多物理生境调查方法，目前正在进行严格的水力学形态实地调查，但尚未制定任何用于河流水力学形态状况评估的国家方法，尽管这是 WFD 下一周期的规定。此外，罗马尼亚和克罗地亚已经在两个流域管理计划周期内开始了对河流水力学形态状况的评估，并正在努力改善水力学形态监测活动。这些方法在指标、使用的数据和分析的空间尺度方面通常存在差异，这使得评估结果难以比较。尽管有共同的水政策，但欧盟成员国之间似乎存在相当多的方法差异。因此，有必要对方法进行标准化，但目前的结果可能有助于确定河流恢复的优先事项，并在国家层面实现更好的状况。
