4.7 Article

Watershed reliability, resilience and vulnerability analysis under uncertainty using water quality data

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 109, Issue -, Pages 101-112

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.05.010

Keywords

Risk assessment; Watershed health; Reliability; Resilience; Vulnerability; Uncertainty; Water quality

Funding

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Office of Research and Development
  2. EPA [EP-C-11-006]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A method for assessment of watershed health is developed by employing measures of reliability, resilience and vulnerability (R R V) using stream water quality data. Observed water quality data are usually sparse, so that a water quality time-series is often reconstructed using surrogate variables (streamflow). A Bayesian algorithm based on relevance vector machine (RVM) was employed to quantify the error in the reconstructed series, and a probabilistic assessment of watershed status was conducted based on established thresholds for various constituents. As an application example, observed water quality data for several constituents at different monitoring points within the Cedar Creek watershed in north-east Indiana (USA) were utilized. Considering uncertainty in the data for the period 2002-2007, the R R V analysis revealed that the Cedar Creek watershed tends to be in compliance with respect to selected pesticides, ammonia and total phosphorus. However, the watershed was found to be prone to violations of sediment standards. Ignoring uncertainty in the water quality time-series led to misleading results especially in the case of sediments. Results indicate that the methods presented in this study may be used for assessing the effects of different stressors over a watershed. The method shows promise as a management tool for assessing watershed health. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available