This article explores Indigenous knowledge on N'bi. It examines differing worldviews and discusses what Indigenous knowledge is and how Indigenous Peoples have been sharing their knowledge. This article discusses Anishinaabek approaches to N'bi and responsibilities to N'bi that include responsibilities to the celestial beings. Indigenous Peoples have been sharing their knowledge on N'bi through Declarations and scholarly articles primarily drafted by Indigenous Peoples themselves. The knowledge shared commonly explains that N'bi is alive with responsibilities. The Declarations explain women are responsible for N'bi and offer solutions for the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in water decision‐making regimes.This article is categorized under:Human Water > Water GovernanceScience of Water > Water and Environmental ChangeHuman Water > Rights to Water
{"title":"Anishinaabek responsibilities and relationships are demonstrated in N'bi (Water) Declarations","authors":"Susan Chiblow","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1754","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1754","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores Indigenous knowledge on N'bi. It examines differing worldviews and discusses what Indigenous knowledge is and how Indigenous Peoples have been sharing their knowledge. This article discusses Anishinaabek approaches to N'bi and responsibilities to N'bi that include responsibilities to the celestial beings. Indigenous Peoples have been sharing their knowledge on N'bi through Declarations and scholarly articles primarily drafted by Indigenous Peoples themselves. The knowledge shared commonly explains that N'bi is alive with responsibilities. The Declarations explain women are responsible for N'bi and offer solutions for the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in water decision‐making regimes.This article is categorized under:<jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item>Human Water > Water Governance</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Human Water > Rights to Water</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142258626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Valerie Ouellet, Aimee H. Fullerton, Matt Kaylor, Sean Naman, Ryan Bellmore, Jordan Rosenfeld, Gabriel Rossi, Seth White, Suzanne Rhoades, David A. Beauchamp, Martin Liermann, Peter Kiffney, Beth Sanderson
Riverine fishes face many challenges including habitat degradation and climate change, which alter the productivity of the riverscapes in which fish live, reproduce, and feed. Understanding the watershed portfolio of foraging and growth opportunities that sustain productive and resilient fish populations is important for prioritizing conservation and restoration. However, the spatiotemporal distribution and availability of fish food are poorly understood relative to other factors such as abiotic habitat quantity and quality (e.g., water temperature). In this paper, we build on the concept of “foodscapes,” and describe three components of food for fish, including abundance, accessibility, and quality. We then discuss methodological advances to help address three key questions: (1) Why is food availability hard to estimate? (2) What are the consequences of uncertainty in food availability estimates? and (3) What approaches are available or emerging for quantifying food available to fish? To address the first question, we characterize data acquisition and analytical challenges; for the second, we demonstrate the importance of evaluating and communicating potential consequences of uncertainty; and for the third, we posit opportunities for future work. Collectively, we highlight the need for greater appreciation of the role food plays in stream fish conservation, especially given its critical influence on responses to warming temperatures.This article is categorized under:Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater EcosystemsWater and Life > Conservation, Management, and AwarenessWater and Life > Methods
{"title":"Food for fish: Challenges and opportunities for quantifying foodscapes in river networks","authors":"Valerie Ouellet, Aimee H. Fullerton, Matt Kaylor, Sean Naman, Ryan Bellmore, Jordan Rosenfeld, Gabriel Rossi, Seth White, Suzanne Rhoades, David A. Beauchamp, Martin Liermann, Peter Kiffney, Beth Sanderson","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1752","url":null,"abstract":"Riverine fishes face many challenges including habitat degradation and climate change, which alter the productivity of the riverscapes in which fish live, reproduce, and feed. Understanding the watershed portfolio of foraging and growth opportunities that sustain productive and resilient fish populations is important for prioritizing conservation and restoration. However, the spatiotemporal distribution and availability of fish food are poorly understood relative to other factors such as abiotic habitat quantity and quality (e.g., water temperature). In this paper, we build on the concept of “foodscapes,” and describe three components of food for fish, including abundance, accessibility, and quality. We then discuss methodological advances to help address three key questions: (1) Why is food availability hard to estimate? (2) What are the consequences of uncertainty in food availability estimates? and (3) What approaches are available or emerging for quantifying food available to fish? To address the first question, we characterize data acquisition and analytical challenges; for the second, we demonstrate the importance of evaluating and communicating potential consequences of uncertainty; and for the third, we posit opportunities for future work. Collectively, we highlight the need for greater appreciation of the role food plays in stream fish conservation, especially given its critical influence on responses to warming temperatures.This article is categorized under:<jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item>Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Water and Life > Methods</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142258650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After Tunisia's independence from France in 1956, the country was engaged in what has been termed the “supply management policy”, that is, a maximum mobilization of water resources through large‐scale modern hydraulic infrastructure. Towards the beginning of the 1980s, the country entered a crisis and had to adopt in 1986, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, a “Structural Adjustment Program” (SAP) that prioritized measures to improve economic efficiency and liberalize the economy. Since then, Tunisian water policy has progressively shifted towards “Integrated Water Resources Management” (IWRM). This review critically analyzes the water governance discourses that have framed these policy interventions. I will draw on academic research and official and civil society reports to suggest that these discourses have been “rendered technical”, stripping issues of any political (and therefore conflicting) character. When rendered technical discourses raise development projects and policies above the terrain of political contestation, the possibilities of action available to those opposed to them become limited. This depoliticization of development interventions through technical discourses narrows the public space of democratic debate. I will also argue that the “technification” (rendering technical) process is reversible. Opposition groups can challenge technical discourses with a critical approach that can reconfigure and alter the trajectory of governmental programs. However, critical discourses can, in turn, be rendered technical.This article is categorized under:Human Water > Water GovernanceHuman Water > Rights to Water
{"title":"Immunity through technification? A critical review of water governance discourses in Tunisia","authors":"Kais Bouazzi","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1757","url":null,"abstract":"After Tunisia's independence from France in 1956, the country was engaged in what has been termed the “supply management policy”, that is, a maximum mobilization of water resources through large‐scale modern hydraulic infrastructure. Towards the beginning of the 1980s, the country entered a crisis and had to adopt in 1986, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, a “Structural Adjustment Program” (SAP) that prioritized measures to improve economic efficiency and liberalize the economy. Since then, Tunisian water policy has progressively shifted towards “Integrated Water Resources Management” (IWRM). This review critically analyzes the water governance discourses that have framed these policy interventions. I will draw on academic research and official and civil society reports to suggest that these discourses have been “rendered technical”, stripping issues of any political (and therefore conflicting) character. When rendered technical discourses raise development projects and policies above the terrain of political contestation, the possibilities of action available to those opposed to them become limited. This depoliticization of development interventions through technical discourses narrows the public space of democratic debate. I will also argue that the “technification” (rendering technical) process is reversible. Opposition groups can challenge technical discourses with a critical approach that can reconfigure and alter the trajectory of governmental programs. However, critical discourses can, in turn, be rendered technical.This article is categorized under:<jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item>Human Water > Water Governance</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Human Water > Rights to Water</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142203153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bernhard Peter Josef Becker, Caroline Jeanne Jagtenberg, Klaudia Horváth, Ailbhe Mitchell, Jesús Andrés Rodríguez‐Sarasty
Operational water management is a critical global challenge, and decision making can be improved by using mathematical optimization. This paper provides an overview of optimization techniques, both exact and heuristic, used in water management. It focuses on the use of optimization techniques in the short term: operational planning in reservoir management, control of open channels, hydropower scheduling, and operation of polder drainage pumps. Principles of model predictive control, methods for optimization under forecast uncertainty, and approaches for conflict resolution are explained with the help of educational examples and practical cases. Challenges and research questions to be addressed in the future are presented as an outlook.This article is categorized under:Engineering Water > MethodsScience of Water > Water and Environmental ChangeWater and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness
{"title":"Optimization methods in water system operation","authors":"Bernhard Peter Josef Becker, Caroline Jeanne Jagtenberg, Klaudia Horváth, Ailbhe Mitchell, Jesús Andrés Rodríguez‐Sarasty","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1756","url":null,"abstract":"Operational water management is a critical global challenge, and decision making can be improved by using mathematical optimization. This paper provides an overview of optimization techniques, both exact and heuristic, used in water management. It focuses on the use of optimization techniques in the short term: operational planning in reservoir management, control of open channels, hydropower scheduling, and operation of polder drainage pumps. Principles of model predictive control, methods for optimization under forecast uncertainty, and approaches for conflict resolution are explained with the help of educational examples and practical cases. Challenges and research questions to be addressed in the future are presented as an outlook.This article is categorized under:<jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item>Engineering Water > Methods</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142203156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Water security as a concept recognizes the profound connections between the physical and social aspects of water. Yet, water security research features limited perspectives from two disciplines directly concerned with human behavior—the behavioral and psychological sciences. This review aims to characterize the main areas of research on water (including floods and droughts) which do feature concepts and methods from the behavioral and psychological sciences, discuss knowledge gaps, and draw attention to their potential to contribute to water‐related research. Bibliometric mapping of published water research identifies five research clusters and associated sub‐clusters: risk perception and flood, climate change and drought, water quality and water conservation, drinking water and bottled water, and mental health and WASH. A summary of research in each cluster and sub‐cluster highlights the application of many conceptual frameworks and behavioral determinants associated with water‐related behavior. Few articles focus on the role of governance or structural factors, and studies in low‐ and middle‐income countries are less represented in some clusters. The discussion considers the scope to apply higher level organizing frameworks for structuring behavioral and psychological science applications in water security and for exploring synergies with the physical and wider social sciences. In conclusion, further engagement with behavioral and psychological science within, between, and beyond the clusters identified here, could potentially deepen understanding of human–water interactions and enhance the design of measures to promote water security.This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change
{"title":"Water on the mind: Mapping behavioral and psychological research on water security","authors":"Declan Conway","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1755","url":null,"abstract":"Water security as a concept recognizes the profound connections between the physical and social aspects of water. Yet, water security research features limited perspectives from two disciplines directly concerned with human behavior—the behavioral and psychological sciences. This review aims to characterize the main areas of research on water (including floods and droughts) which do feature concepts and methods from the behavioral and psychological sciences, discuss knowledge gaps, and draw attention to their potential to contribute to water‐related research. Bibliometric mapping of published water research identifies five research clusters and associated sub‐clusters: risk perception and flood, climate change and drought, water quality and water conservation, drinking water and bottled water, and mental health and WASH. A summary of research in each cluster and sub‐cluster highlights the application of many conceptual frameworks and behavioral determinants associated with water‐related behavior. Few articles focus on the role of governance or structural factors, and studies in low‐ and middle‐income countries are less represented in some clusters. The discussion considers the scope to apply higher level organizing frameworks for structuring behavioral and psychological science applications in water security and for exploring synergies with the physical and wider social sciences. In conclusion, further engagement with behavioral and psychological science within, between, and beyond the clusters identified here, could potentially deepen understanding of human–water interactions and enhance the design of measures to promote water security.This article is categorized under:\u0000Human Water > Water Governance\u0000Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented\u0000Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change\u0000","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141927822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dawn R. URycki, Anish A. Kirtane, Rachel Aronoff, Colton C. Avila, Rosetta C. Blackman, Luca Carraro, Olivier Evrard, Stephen P. Good, Diana C. Hoyos J., Nieves López‐Rodríguez, Demetrio Mora, Yvonne Schadewell, Oliver S. Schilling, Natalie C. Ceperley
Environmental DNA (eDNA) has revolutionized ecological research, particularly for biodiversity assessment in various environments, most notably aquatic media. Environmental DNA analysis allows for non‐invasive and rapid species detection across multiple taxonomic groups within a single sample, making it especially useful for identifying rare or invasive species. Due to dynamic hydrological processes, eDNA samples from running waters may represent biodiversity from broad contributing areas, which is convenient from a biomonitoring perspective but also challenging, as hydrological knowledge is required for meaningful biological interpretation. Hydrologists could also benefit from eDNA to address unsolved questions, particularly concerning water movement through catchments. While naturally occurring abiotic tracers have advanced our understanding of water age distribution in catchments, for example, current geochemical tracers cannot fully elucidate the timing and flow paths of water through landscapes. Conversely, biological tracers, owing to their immense diversity and interactions with the environment, could offer more detailed information on the sources and flow paths of water to the stream. The informational capacity of eDNA as a tracer, however, is determined by the ability to interpret the complex biological heterogeneity at a study site, which arguably requires both biological and hydrological expertise. As eDNA data has become increasingly available as part of biomonitoring campaigns, we argue that accompanying eDNA surveys with hydrological observations could enhance our understanding of both biological and hydrological processes; we identify opportunities, challenges, and needs for further interdisciplinary collaboration; and we highlight eDNA's potential as a bridge between hydrology and biology, which could foster both domains.This article is categorized under:Science of Water > Hydrological ProcessesScience of Water > MethodsWater and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems
{"title":"A new flow path: eDNA connecting hydrology and biology","authors":"Dawn R. URycki, Anish A. Kirtane, Rachel Aronoff, Colton C. Avila, Rosetta C. Blackman, Luca Carraro, Olivier Evrard, Stephen P. Good, Diana C. Hoyos J., Nieves López‐Rodríguez, Demetrio Mora, Yvonne Schadewell, Oliver S. Schilling, Natalie C. Ceperley","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1749","url":null,"abstract":"Environmental DNA (eDNA) has revolutionized ecological research, particularly for biodiversity assessment in various environments, most notably aquatic media. Environmental DNA analysis allows for non‐invasive and rapid species detection across multiple taxonomic groups within a single sample, making it especially useful for identifying rare or invasive species. Due to dynamic hydrological processes, eDNA samples from running waters may represent biodiversity from broad contributing areas, which is convenient from a biomonitoring perspective but also challenging, as hydrological knowledge is required for meaningful biological interpretation. Hydrologists could also benefit from eDNA to address unsolved questions, particularly concerning water movement through catchments. While naturally occurring abiotic tracers have advanced our understanding of water age distribution in catchments, for example, current geochemical tracers cannot fully elucidate the timing and flow paths of water through landscapes. Conversely, biological tracers, owing to their immense diversity and interactions with the environment, could offer more detailed information on the sources and flow paths of water to the stream. The informational capacity of eDNA as a tracer, however, is determined by the ability to interpret the complex biological heterogeneity at a study site, which arguably requires both biological and hydrological expertise. As eDNA data has become increasingly available as part of biomonitoring campaigns, we argue that accompanying eDNA surveys with hydrological observations could enhance our understanding of both biological and hydrological processes; we identify opportunities, challenges, and needs for further interdisciplinary collaboration; and we highlight eDNA's potential as a bridge between hydrology and biology, which could foster both domains.This article is categorized under:<jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item>Science of Water > Hydrological Processes</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Science of Water > Methods</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141866477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Denielle Perry, Sarah Praskievicz, Ryan McManamay, Alark Saxena, Kerry Grimm, Nicolas Zegre, Lucas Bair, Benjamin L. Ruddell, Richard Rushforth
The United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity set forth the 30 × 30 target, an agenda for countries to protect at least 30% of their terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas by 2030. With <6 years to reach that goal, riverine conservation professionals are faced with the difficult decision of prioritizing which rivers or river segments should be conserved (protected and/or restored). While incorporating resilience into conservation planning is essential for enhancing, restoring, and maintaining the vital riverine ecosystem services (ES) most threatened by climate change and other environmental and human stresses, this paradigm is at odds with traditional conservation approaches that are either opportunistic or reactionary, where only unique and highly visible ecosystems have been prioritized. Barriers to implementing resilience‐based riverine conservation planning include: (1) difficulties in conceptualizing and quantifying resilience; (2) insufficient consideration of the social components of riverine systems; (3) the inapplicability of terrestrial‐only conservation models to aquatic systems; and (4) the traditional ad hoc and opportunistic approach to conservation. To overcome these barriers, we propose a resilience‐based riverine conservation framework that includes: (1) assessing riverine resilience using indicator frameworks; (2) considering rivers as dynamically coupled social–ecological systems; (3) explicitly incorporating terrestrial–aquatic network connectivity into conservation decision‐making; and (4) strategic systems planning using a novel resilience–conservation matrix as a tool. This framework has the potential to transform conservation practices around the globe to more effectively protect river systems and enhance their resilience to climate change and human development.This article is categorized under:Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and AwarenessScience of Water > Water and Environmental ChangeHuman Water > Water Governance
{"title":"Resilient riverine social–ecological systems: A new paradigm to meet global conservation targets","authors":"Denielle Perry, Sarah Praskievicz, Ryan McManamay, Alark Saxena, Kerry Grimm, Nicolas Zegre, Lucas Bair, Benjamin L. Ruddell, Richard Rushforth","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1753","url":null,"abstract":"The United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity set forth the 30 × 30 target, an agenda for countries to protect at least 30% of their terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas by 2030. With <6 years to reach that goal, riverine conservation professionals are faced with the difficult decision of prioritizing which rivers or river segments should be conserved (protected and/or restored). While incorporating resilience into conservation planning is essential for enhancing, restoring, and maintaining the vital riverine ecosystem services (ES) most threatened by climate change and other environmental and human stresses, this paradigm is at odds with traditional conservation approaches that are either opportunistic or reactionary, where only unique and highly visible ecosystems have been prioritized. Barriers to implementing resilience‐based riverine conservation planning include: (1) difficulties in conceptualizing and quantifying resilience; (2) insufficient consideration of the social components of riverine systems; (3) the inapplicability of terrestrial‐only conservation models to aquatic systems; and (4) the traditional ad hoc and opportunistic approach to conservation. To overcome these barriers, we propose a resilience‐based riverine conservation framework that includes: (1) assessing riverine resilience using indicator frameworks; (2) considering rivers as dynamically coupled social–ecological systems; (3) explicitly incorporating terrestrial–aquatic network connectivity into conservation decision‐making; and (4) strategic systems planning using a novel resilience–conservation matrix as a tool. This framework has the potential to transform conservation practices around the globe to more effectively protect river systems and enhance their resilience to climate change and human development.This article is categorized under:<jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item>Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Human Water > Water Governance</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"204 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141866476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Charles B. van Rees, Matthew L. Chambers, Angela J. Catalano, Daniel X. Buhr, Andressa Vianna Mansur, Damon M. Hall, Alec Nelson, Burton Suedel, Robert J. Hawley, Brian Bledsoe, Nate Nibbelink
Nature‐based solutions (NbS, and related concepts like natural infrastructure, Ecosystem‐based Adaptation, and green infrastructure) are increasingly recognized as multi‐benefit strategies for addressing the critical sustainability challenges of the Anthropocene, including the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis. Mainstreaming NbS in professional practice requires strategic, landscape‐level planning integrating multiple sources of benefits and their synergies and trade‐offs. Levee setbacks (LS) are among the best‐studied riverine NbS with recognized benefits for flood risk management, drought resilience, water quality management, recreational opportunities, and ecological restoration for biodiversity. Although awareness of the multifarious benefits of LS as forms of Natural Capital is growing, implementation remains ad‐hoc and opportunistic. To address this critical implementation gap for one major example of NbS, we review and synthesize literature across diverse disciplines to provide an overview of the primary social, economic, and ecological mechanisms that affect the co‐benefit delivery of LS projects. Next, to make this information relevant to NbS practitioners, we link these mechanisms to spatial metrics that can be used to approximate the relative magnitude of project benefits and costs across these mechanisms. Finally, we highlight examples of key synergies and trade‐offs among benefits that should be considered for LS planning. This synthetic approach is intended to familiarize readers with the diverse potential benefits of LS, and provide an understanding of how to select and prioritize potential sites for further study and implementation. Synergies and trade‐offs among important benefit drivers abound, and social equity concerns will be paramount in ensuring the successful implementation of LS and other NbS in the future.This article is categorized under:Engineering Water > Sustainable Engineering of WaterEngineering Water > Planning WaterWater and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems
人们日益认识到，基于自然的解决方案（NbS，以及自然基础设施、基于生态系统的适应和绿色基础设施等相关概念）是应对人类世的关键可持续性挑战（包括气候紧急情况和生物多样性危机）的多效益战略。要将 NbS 纳入专业实践的主流，需要进行战略性的景观级规划，整合多种效益来源及其协同作用和权衡。堤坝后退（LS）是研究最为深入的河流 NbS 之一，其在洪水风险管理、抗旱能力、水质管理、休闲机会和生物多样性生态恢复方面的效益已得到公认。尽管人们对作为自然资本形式的 "LS "的多种益处的认识在不断提高，但其实施仍然是临时性和机会性的。为了解决这一重要的 NbS 实施差距，我们回顾并综合了不同学科的文献，概述了影响 LS 项目共同效益交付的主要社会、经济和生态机制。接下来，为了使这些信息与净减排实践者相关，我们将这些机制与空间指标联系起来，这些指标可用于近似估算这些机制中项目效益和成本的相对大小。最后，我们重点举例说明了LS规划中应考虑的效益之间的主要协同作用和权衡。这种综合方法旨在让读者熟悉 LS 的各种潜在效益，并了解如何选择和优先考虑潜在地点，以便进一步研究和实施。重要效益驱动因素之间的协同与权衡比比皆是，而社会公平问题将是确保未来成功实施 LS 和其他 NbS 的重中之重：水工程> 水的可持续工程 水工程> 水规划 水与生命> 淡水生态系统的性质
{"title":"An interdisciplinary overview of levee setback benefits: Supporting spatial planning and implementation of riverine nature‐based solutions","authors":"Charles B. van Rees, Matthew L. Chambers, Angela J. Catalano, Daniel X. Buhr, Andressa Vianna Mansur, Damon M. Hall, Alec Nelson, Burton Suedel, Robert J. Hawley, Brian Bledsoe, Nate Nibbelink","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1750","url":null,"abstract":"Nature‐based solutions (NbS, and related concepts like natural infrastructure, Ecosystem‐based Adaptation, and green infrastructure) are increasingly recognized as multi‐benefit strategies for addressing the critical sustainability challenges of the Anthropocene, including the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis. Mainstreaming NbS in professional practice requires strategic, landscape‐level planning integrating multiple sources of benefits and their synergies and trade‐offs. Levee setbacks (LS) are among the best‐studied riverine NbS with recognized benefits for flood risk management, drought resilience, water quality management, recreational opportunities, and ecological restoration for biodiversity. Although awareness of the multifarious benefits of LS as forms of Natural Capital is growing, implementation remains ad‐hoc and opportunistic. To address this critical implementation gap for one major example of NbS, we review and synthesize literature across diverse disciplines to provide an overview of the primary social, economic, and ecological mechanisms that affect the co‐benefit delivery of LS projects. Next, to make this information relevant to NbS practitioners, we link these mechanisms to spatial metrics that can be used to approximate the relative magnitude of project benefits and costs across these mechanisms. Finally, we highlight examples of key synergies and trade‐offs among benefits that should be considered for LS planning. This synthetic approach is intended to familiarize readers with the diverse potential benefits of LS, and provide an understanding of how to select and prioritize potential sites for further study and implementation. Synergies and trade‐offs among important benefit drivers abound, and social equity concerns will be paramount in ensuring the successful implementation of LS and other NbS in the future.This article is categorized under:<jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item>Engineering Water > Sustainable Engineering of Water</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Engineering Water > Planning Water</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141776153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Energy transitions are reshaping hydrosocial relations. How they will be reshaped, however, depends on location and water's material relationship to other resources and industrial activities embedded within energy transitions. To highlight this, we focus on three different resources—coal, natural gas, and lithium—to signal how the water–energy nexus will be reworked in a transition away from fossil fuels. We examine the water–coal nexus as an example of a resource relationship that is transitioning out, or that is being moved away from in the green energy transition. Natural gas represents the “bridge fuel” used through the transition. Lithium illustrates a resource inside the green transition, as it is a fundamental material for green technologies in the transition to a low‐carbon future. Coal, natural gas, and lithium each have their own material impacts to water resources that stem from their industrial lifecycle and different implications for communities shaped by coal, natural gas, and lithium activities. To explore this, we review each of these resources' connection to water, their legal and regulatory dimensions, and their impact on communities and water justice. We argue that the energy transition is also a hydrosocial transition that will create uneven water‐related benefits and burdens. To maximize sustainability and equity, efforts to decarbonize energy systems must examine the localized, place‐based hydrosocial relations that differentially affect communities.This article is categorized under:Engineering Water > Planning WaterHuman Water > Water GovernanceHuman Water > Rights to Water
{"title":"Water throughout the green energy transition: Hydrosocial dimensions of coal, natural gas, and lithium","authors":"Joshua J. Cousins, Alida Cantor, Bethani Turley","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1751","url":null,"abstract":"Energy transitions are reshaping hydrosocial relations. How they will be reshaped, however, depends on location and water's material relationship to other resources and industrial activities embedded within energy transitions. To highlight this, we focus on three different resources—coal, natural gas, and lithium—to signal how the water–energy nexus will be reworked in a transition away from fossil fuels. We examine the water–coal nexus as an example of a resource relationship that is transitioning <jats:italic>out</jats:italic>, or that is being moved away from in the green energy transition. Natural gas represents the “bridge fuel” used <jats:italic>through</jats:italic> the transition. Lithium illustrates a resource <jats:italic>inside</jats:italic> the green transition, as it is a fundamental material for green technologies <jats:italic>in</jats:italic> the transition to a low‐carbon future. Coal, natural gas, and lithium each have their own material impacts to water resources that stem from their industrial lifecycle and different implications for communities shaped by coal, natural gas, and lithium activities. To explore this, we review each of these resources' connection to water, their legal and regulatory dimensions, and their impact on communities and water justice. We argue that the energy transition is also a hydrosocial transition that will create uneven water‐related benefits and burdens. To maximize sustainability and equity, efforts to decarbonize energy systems must examine the localized, place‐based hydrosocial relations that differentially affect communities.This article is categorized under:<jats:list list-type=\"simple\"> <jats:list-item>Engineering Water > Planning Water</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Human Water > Water Governance</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Human Water > Rights to Water</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141776154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
James J. A. Blair, Noel Vineyard, Dustin Mulvaney, Alida Cantor, A. Sharbat, Kate Berry, Elizabeth Bartholomew, Ariana Firebaugh Ornelas
As a key ingredient of batteries for electric vehicles (EVs), lithium plays a significant role in climate change mitigation, but lithium has considerable impacts on water and society across its life cycle. Upstream extraction methods—including open‐pit mining, brine evaporation, and novel direct lithium extraction (DLE)—and downstream processes present different impacts on both the quantity and quality of water resources, leading to water depletion and contamination. Regarding upstream extraction, it is critical for a comprehensive assessment of lithium's life cycle to include cumulative impacts related not only to freshwater, but also mineralized or saline groundwater, also known as brine. Legal frameworks have obscured social and ecological impacts by treating brine as a mineral rather than water in regulation of lithium extraction through brine evaporation. Analysis of cumulative impacts across the lifespan of lithium reveals not only water impacts in conventional open‐pit mining and brine evaporation, but also significant freshwater needs for DLE technologies, as well as burdens on fenceline communities related to wastewater in processing, chemical contaminants in battery manufacturing, water use for cooling in energy storage, and water quality hazards in recycling. Water analysis in lithium life cycle assessments (LCAs) tends to exclude brine and lack hydrosocial context on the environmental justice implications of water use by life cycle stage. New research directions might benefit from taking a more community‐engaged and cradle‐to‐cradle approach to lithium LCAs, including regionalized impact analysis of freshwater use in DLE, as well as wastewater pollution, cooling water, and recycling hazards from downstream processes.This article is categorized under: Human Water > Human Water Human Water > Water Governance Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change
作为电动汽车（EV）电池的关键成分，锂在减缓气候变化方面发挥着重要作用，但锂在其整个生命周期中会对水和社会产生相当大的影响。上游萃取方法（包括露天开采、卤水蒸发和新型直接锂萃取（DLE））和下游工艺对水资源的数量和质量都会产生不同的影响，导致水资源枯竭和污染。在上游开采方面，对锂的生命周期进行全面评估的关键是，不仅要评估与淡水相关的累积影响，还要评估与矿化或含盐地下水（又称盐水）相关的累积影响。法律框架在监管通过卤水蒸发提取锂时，将卤水视为矿物质而非水，从而掩盖了对社会和生态的影响。对整个锂生命周期累积影响的分析表明，不仅传统的露天开采和卤水蒸发对水产生影响，而且 DLE 技术也需要大量淡水，加工过程中的废水、电池制造过程中的化学污染物、储能过程中的冷却用水以及回收过程中的水质危害也对周边社区造成负担。锂电池生命周期评估（LCAs）中的水分析往往不包括盐水，也缺乏按生命周期阶段用水对环境正义影响的水社会背景。新的研究方向可能得益于对锂生命周期评估采取更多社区参与和从摇篮到摇篮的方法，包括对 DLE 中淡水使用的区域化影响分析，以及下游流程中的废水污染、冷却水和回收危害。本文分类：人类水 > 人类水人类水 > 水治理人类水 > 想象和表现中的水水科学 > 水与环境变化
{"title":"Lithium and water: Hydrosocial impacts across the life cycle of energy storage","authors":"James J. A. Blair, Noel Vineyard, Dustin Mulvaney, Alida Cantor, A. Sharbat, Kate Berry, Elizabeth Bartholomew, Ariana Firebaugh Ornelas","doi":"10.1002/wat2.1748","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1748","url":null,"abstract":"As a key ingredient of batteries for electric vehicles (EVs), lithium plays a significant role in climate change mitigation, but lithium has considerable impacts on water and society across its life cycle. Upstream extraction methods—including open‐pit mining, brine evaporation, and novel direct lithium extraction (DLE)—and downstream processes present different impacts on both the quantity and quality of water resources, leading to water depletion and contamination. Regarding upstream extraction, it is critical for a comprehensive assessment of lithium's life cycle to include cumulative impacts related not only to freshwater, but also mineralized or saline groundwater, also known as brine. Legal frameworks have obscured social and ecological impacts by treating brine as a mineral rather than water in regulation of lithium extraction through brine evaporation. Analysis of cumulative impacts across the lifespan of lithium reveals not only water impacts in conventional open‐pit mining and brine evaporation, but also significant freshwater needs for DLE technologies, as well as burdens on fenceline communities related to wastewater in processing, chemical contaminants in battery manufacturing, water use for cooling in energy storage, and water quality hazards in recycling. Water analysis in lithium life cycle assessments (LCAs) tends to exclude brine and lack hydrosocial context on the environmental justice implications of water use by life cycle stage. New research directions might benefit from taking a more community‐engaged and cradle‐to‐cradle approach to lithium LCAs, including regionalized impact analysis of freshwater use in DLE, as well as wastewater pollution, cooling water, and recycling hazards from downstream processes.This article is categorized under:\u0000Human Water > Human Water\u0000Human Water > Water Governance\u0000Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented\u0000Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change\u0000","PeriodicalId":501223,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Water","volume":"30 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141650470","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：