PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, 2594AV, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Royal HaskoningDHV, Laan 1914 no 35, P.O. Box 1132, 3800BC Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
Water Res. 2022 Jan 1;208:117851. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117851. Epub 2021 Nov 9.
What policy is needed to ensure that good-quality water is available for both people's needs and the environment? The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), which came into force in 2000, established a framework for the assessment, management, protection and improvement of the status of water bodies across the European Union. However, recent reviews show that the ecological status of the majority of surface waters in the EU does not meet the requirement of good status. Thus, it is an important question what measures water management authorities should take to improve the ecological status of their water bodies. To find concrete answers, several institutes in the Netherlands cooperated to develop a software tool, the WFD Explorer, to assist water managers in selecting efficient measures. This article deals with the development of prediction tools that allow one to calculate the effect of restoration and mitigation measures on the biological quality, expressed in terms of Ecological Quality Ratios (EQRs). To find the ideal modeling tool we give a review of 11 predictive models: 10 models from the field of Machine Learning and, additionally, the Multiple Regression model. We present our results in terms of a 'prediction-interpretation competition'. All these models were tested in a multiple-stressor setting: the values of 15 stressors (or steering factors) are available to predict the EQR values of four biological quality elements (phytoplankton, other aquatic flora, benthic invertebrates and fish). Analyses are based on 29 data sets from various water clusters (streams, ditches, lakes, channels). All 11 models were ranked by their predictive performance and their level of model transparency. Our review shows a trade-off between these two aspects. Models that have the best EQR prediction performance show non-transparent model structures. These are Random Forest and Boosting. However, models with low prediction accuracies show transparent response relationships between EQRs on the one hand and individual steering factors on the other hand. These models are Multiple Regression, Regression Trees and Product Unit Neural Networks. To acknowledge both aspects of model quality - predictive power and transparency - we recommend that models from both groups are implemented in the WFD Explorer software.
为了确保人们的需求和环境都能得到优质水源,需要采取哪些政策?欧盟的《水框架指令》(WFD)于 2000 年生效,为欧盟范围内水体的评估、管理、保护和改善制定了框架。然而,最近的审查表明,欧盟大多数地表水的生态状况不符合良好状态的要求。因此,一个重要的问题是,水资源管理当局应该采取哪些措施来改善其水体的生态状况。为了找到具体的答案,荷兰的几个研究所合作开发了一种软件工具,即 WFD Explorer,以帮助水资源管理者选择有效的措施。本文涉及开发预测工具的问题,这些工具可以计算恢复和缓解措施对生物质量的影响,用生态质量比(EQR)来表示。为了找到理想的建模工具,我们对 11 种预测模型进行了回顾:10 种来自机器学习领域的模型,以及另外一种多元回归模型。我们以“预测-解释竞争”的形式呈现我们的结果。所有这些模型都在多胁迫环境下进行了测试:15 个胁迫因素(或控制因素)的值可用于预测四个生物质量要素(浮游植物、其他水生植物、底栖无脊椎动物和鱼类)的 EQR 值。分析基于来自各种水体(溪流、沟渠、湖泊、渠道)的 29 个数据集。通过预测性能和模型透明度对所有 11 种模型进行了排名。我们的综述表明,这两个方面之间存在权衡。预测 EQR 性能最好的模型具有非透明的模型结构。这些模型是随机森林和提升。然而,预测精度较低的模型显示了 EQR 与单个控制因素之间的透明响应关系。这些模型是多元回归、回归树和乘积单元神经网络。为了同时考虑模型质量的这两个方面——预测能力和透明度,我们建议在 WFD Explorer 软件中同时实施来自这两个组的模型。