health of rivers essay

Sign up to get the latest WWF news delivered straight to your inbox

Why are rivers so important?

On World Rivers Day, we celebrate the world’s precious waterways. But across the world, and closer to home, rivers are under threat. Why are rivers so important? And what are we doing to protect them? 

It goes without saying, but fresh, clean water is essential for humans and nature to survive. Rivers are precious sources of fresh drinking water for people across the world. And when rivers are so badly polluted by industry or unevenly distributed by poor water management practices, it can be a case of life-or-death. This unfortunately happens across the world.  

We’re working with HSBC in Kanpur, India, to help more than 30 factories involved in the production of leather reduce their water use and pollution, benefitting the environment, workers and the local community with access to clean flowing water.  

With AB InBev, the world’s leading brewer with brands such as Budweiser under its wing, we’re working with communities to develop new enterprises and encourage sustainable farming practices along the River Rwizi in Uganda, securing this valuable water source for people and nature.

Freshwater habitats account for some of the richest biodiversity in the world, and rivers are a vital, vibrant ecosystem for many species.  

But even in the UK, over three quarters of our rivers fail to meet required health standards and face multiple threats – putting an increasing pressure on the diverse wildlife that call our beautiful rivers home: from kingfishers to otters and brown trout.

People depend on rivers for their way of life and their livelihoods. From fishing to agriculture, the way we manage our waterways has a direct impact on people’s lives.  

For example, in the Yangtze River in China, the introduction of a dam unintentionally prevented carp from spawning downstream, where a commercial fishery was located. By working with HSBC and the state-owned TGD (Three Gorges Dam) company, we worked to change how the dam operated, so that it mimicked the natural flow of the river. This boosted the carp population and allowed people to continue living off the river, when previously their livelihoods were at stake.  

It was similar story in the Mekong river basin spanning Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and China’s Yunnan province, where a quarter of the world’s freshwater fish are caught. Overfishing has caused fish populations to plummet – bad news for the fish, and for the 60 million people in the region reliant on fish in their diets.  We provided support to local communities to manage conservation zones and prevent illegal fishing, and as a result local people have found it far easier to live sustainably off the river. 

Rivers are absolutely vital: for fresh drinking water, for people’s livelihoods and for nature. Unfortunately, they’re still threatened. We must commit to recovering freshwater biodiversity, restoring natural river flows and cleaning up polluted water for people and nature to thrive.  

To learn more about our work with rivers and freshwater, click  here . 

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The future of global river health monitoring

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] (LMK); [email protected] (CD); [email protected] (DT)

Affiliation Omfishient Consulting, Bremerton, Washington, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation International Water Management Institute, Silverton, South Africa

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation WWF-UK, Living Planet Centre, Woking, United Kingdom

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada, National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE), RiverLy Research Unit, Centre Lyon-Grenoble Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Villeurbanne, France

Roles Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden

Affiliation School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, University of Mpumalanga, Nelspruit, South Africa

Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada

Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

• Lauren M. Kuehne, 
• Chris Dickens, 
• David Tickner, 
• Mathis L. Messager, 
• Julian D. Olden, 
• Gordon O’Brien, 
• Bernhard Lehner, 
• Nishadi Eriyagama

• Published: September 13, 2023
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000101
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Rivers are the arteries of human civilisation and culture, providing essential goods and services that underpin water and food security, socio-economic development and climate resilience. They also support an extraordinary diversity of biological life. Human appropriation of land and water together with changes in climate have jointly driven rapid declines in river health and biodiversity worldwide, stimulating calls for an Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater ecosystems. Yet freshwater ecosystems like rivers have been consistently under-represented within global agreements such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Even where such agreements acknowledge that river health is important, implementation is hampered by inadequate global-scale indicators and a lack of coherent monitoring efforts. Consequently, there is no reliable basis for tracking global trends in river health, assessing the impacts of international agreements on river ecosystems and guiding global investments in river management to priority issues or regions. We reviewed national and regional approaches for river health monitoring to develop a comprehensive set of scalable indicators that can support “top-down” global surveillance while also facilitating standardised “bottom-up” local monitoring efforts. We evaluate readiness of these indicators for implementation at a global scale, based on their current status and emerging improvements in underlying data sources and methodologies. We chart a road map that identifies data and technical priorities and opportunities to advance global river health monitoring such that an adequate monitoring framework could be in place and implemented by 2030, with the potential for substantial enhancement by 2050. Lastly, we present recommendations for coordinated action and investment by policy makers, research funders and scientists to develop and implement the framework to support conservation and restoration of river health globally.

Citation: Kuehne LM, Dickens C, Tickner D, Messager ML, Olden JD, O’Brien G, et al. (2023) The future of global river health monitoring. PLOS Water 2(9): e0000101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000101

Editor: Jean-François Humbert, INRA/Sorbonne University, FRANCE

Received: February 19, 2023; Accepted: August 10, 2023; Published: September 13, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Kuehne et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: No data is included in the paper.

Funding: This work was supported by the CGIAR Initiative on NEXUS Gains and the World Wildlife Fund (staff support of CD and NE; contracting of LMK), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship to MLM), the Université de Lyon (H2O’Lyon Doctoral Fellowship ANR-17-EUR-0018 to MLM) and the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington (Richard C. and Lois M. Worthington Endowment to JDO). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Nearly all aspects of human society are impacted by the health of rivers. Flowing waters act as centres of organisation within the landscape, offering countless cultural and ecological services, and supporting a rich diversity of plants and animals. However, rapid changes in water and land use, climate change and a host of other anthropogenic stressors threaten the biodiversity and ecological integrity of these ecosystems [ 1 ]. As long ago as 2005, the global Millennium Ecosystems Assessment [ 2 ] concluded that freshwater ecosystems were among the most degraded and being used unsustainably. Despite the prominence and persistence of challenges including water security and impacts of climate change on hydrology, attention to the conservation of freshwater ecosystems—including rivers—has nonetheless lagged at the global scale [ 3 ]. This may be due to the perception of freshwater systems as a resource for human use rather than a precious habitat [ 4 ], their more limited spatial extent that reduces public awareness [ 5 ], a historical lack of conservation champions [ 6 ], and inadequate transdisciplinary scholarship [ 7 ]. Additional hurdles are associated with understanding and managing rivers as complex networks [ 8 ], and longstanding traditions of large-scale regulation (i.e., dams, diversions) and water extraction. In response, recent years have witnessed mounting calls for global-scale research and policy actions to stem further losses and degradation of freshwater habitats [ 9 – 11 ].

A significant hurdle to addressing the freshwater biodiversity crisis is that the major global initiatives working to thrust ecosystems onto the global development agenda consistently lack robust representation of freshwater health. These initiatives include The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for water and wetlands [ 12 ], the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Development (the SDGs), the post-2020 Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework (GBF) and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. All of these, together with globally impactful periodic reports such as the Ecological Footprint indicator [ 13 ], the Planetary Boundaries framework [ 14 ], the Water Footprint indicator [ 15 ], and others, lack comprehensive indicators of freshwater ecosystem health. Instead, these efforts generally rely on single or small numbers of proxies. For these reasons, the Emergency Recovery Plan for Freshwater Biodiversity [ 9 ], and subsequently the Sustainable Freshwater Transition set out by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, called for the development of a more robust and inclusive suite of freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem health indicators. The aim of such indicators would be to provide a foundation for consistent, widespread monitoring as part of international environmental and sustainability agreements, whether focused on fresh waters generally or river health specifically.

This paper seeks to chart a path toward policy-relevant, global river health monitoring. Our approach synthesises and builds on the substantial work to monitor river health at national and regional scales over recent decades. Leveraging knowledge established through mature large-scale programs, we identify a robust framework of indicators that can be refined and improved over time through coordinated global policy, research, and data infrastructure developments (i.e., top-down efforts). This common framework can also support local, national, and regional efforts to monitor river health with protocols that are flexible but sufficiently standardised for results to be compared between contexts (i.e., bottom-up efforts). Our objective is to align diverse monitoring and research efforts toward strategic actions over the next two decades that will ultimately facilitate robust, comprehensive, and feasible reporting on global trends in river health.

Status of large-scale river health monitoring

The first step toward a global river health framework is to evaluate current policies, concepts, and data for monitoring and assessment of river health at large-scales (i.e., national to global). The most important development in the last century is undoubtedly the passage of national—or, in the case of the European Union, regional—laws and regulations that mandate restoration and maintenance of freshwater ecosystems to meet water quality or condition standards. Examples of such laws, most of which have been enacted in the last 50 years include the Clean Water Act (1972) in the USA, the Resource Management Act (1991) in New Zealand, the European Water Framework Directive (2000), the CONAMA—Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente 357/2005 in Brazil (2005) and the Water Act of South Africa (1998). These laws created legal and financial incentives within nations to develop and refine consistent monitoring and assessment methods over time ( Fig 1 ), including indicators and metrics to evaluate the status of river ecosystems [ 16 , 17 ]. Although mature, large-scale programs are mostly restricted to a handful of economically advantaged nations, they offer a critical foundation for international or intercontinental knowledge transfers to support monitoring of river health globally [ 18 ].

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Years indicate the point at which the framework was initially published as peer-reviewed or grey literature; the subset of programs or approaches analysed herein are bolded.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000101.g001

The design of any monitoring program begins with the definition of ecosystem health. In this paper, we define ecosystem health as ’The ability of the aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain key ecological processes and a community of organisms with a species composition, diversity, and functional organisation as comparable as possible to that of undisturbed habitats within the region’ (Schofield & Davies, 1996 after Karr & Dudley, 1981). Assessments of river health can emphasise different types of indicators, which are often classified as driving forces, pressures, state, impact, and response (i.e., the DPSIR framework; [ 19 ]). Our definition of river health sets the stage for selecting indicators that reflect biophysical conditions, thus focusing on ecosystem state. This focus represents a strong departure from previous or ongoing evaluations of river health at global scales. Global assessments to date have instead concentrated on pressures on aquatic ecosystems, largely because of the relative ease of computing changes—actual or projected—in land use, anthropogenic impacts, and climate—based on remote sensing and modelled data. These pressure-based models have yielded estimates of water security and risk of biodiversity loss [ 20 ], human use of ecosystem services [ 21 ], and temporal and geographic changes in biodiversity [ 22 ].

The challenges, however, with such models are that pressures on aquatic ecosystems may or may not reflect ecosystem condition or state [ 23 , 24 ], and therefore can offer only limited insight into their relationship with driving forces and responses that can be adjusted through management, mitigation, or restoration [ 25 ]. Weak or unverifiable linkages between ecosystem state, pressures, and driving forces are unlikely to offer the strong justification needed to support policy changes or investments in river health [ 17 , 25 ]. Our focus on ecological state excludes human valuations of rivers, which may encompass socioeconomic, cultural, or spiritual values [ 26 ]. Although such valuations can and have been included in large-scale assessments of river health (e.g., [ 27 ]), we advance that the first priority is to address the considerable knowledge gaps and technical barriers to evaluating the biophysical state of rivers at a global scale. Our position is that there is an urgent need to develop a framework around ecosystem state, and forward the corresponding scientific and research agenda. Such a framework can then provide the foundation to subsequently incorporate relationships with responses and driving forces, as well as holistic social and human values.

The final critical component in designing a river health framework is the availability and quality of data to capture the chosen indicators. Data sources can be grouped into three, not necessarily mutually exclusive, classes: in situ monitoring data (including conventional biological sampling and in situ sensors as well as novel approaches of uncrewed vehicles, crowd-sourcing, or the analysis of environmental DNA), remote sensing imagery (including prospective satellite missions), and modelling (including predictive hydrological models, statistical models, or artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches). While data sources are generally expanding, fundamental challenges persist. The data required for multi-indicator monitoring frameworks are collected by myriad entities, many of which may not openly share data; datasets may also be scale-dependent, discontinuous, or come in incompatible formats (e.g. raster, vector, tables). A forward-thinking river health framework should, therefore, consider both current and anticipated data developments.

The quality of data available at varying scales is a foundational challenge. Bottom-up approaches to assess river health rely on collecting and compiling local information, often with high precision in situ data; yet this makes the expansion to larger regions time-consuming or even practically impossible. Indeed, given the paucity of river health monitoring in many parts of the world [ 18 ], monitoring global river health based on compilation of local information is a formidable task. However, top-down approaches, which usually rely on remote sensing or modelling, tend to use limited amounts of input data and are often coarse in their spatial or temporal resolution, rendering local interpretations inaccurate and uncertain.

To blend both bottom-up and top-down approaches in a global framework requires a scalable geospatial method that can discern local hydrographic features at high spatial resolution, while also allowing linkages to coarser global datasets or modelling results. A standardised, common geospatial framework based on pre-defined spatial units (e.g., river reaches and their catchments) can leverage the strengths of both approaches and adaptively incorporate higher-quality data over time. For example, results from top-down analyses can serve as initial placeholders until more precise local information (e.g., from national or regional monitoring programs) becomes available. These types of multi-scale hydrographic frameworks are increasingly available at full global coverage and high spatial resolution (e.g., HydroATLAS [ 28 ] MERIT Hydro-Vector [ 29 ]).

Besides scalability, a second foundational challenge in monitoring river health is the inherent topological structure of fluvial systems. In contrast to terrestrial systems, river health is determined by conditions in upstream drainage areas as well as more proximate influences. Point-based biological monitoring or instream water quality data can provide an integrated perspective (i.e., a healthy local habitat may indicate good conditions across the entire upstream catchment), and novel approaches such as eDNA analyses and improved chemical detectors offer promising avenues to scale up in situ sampling in the future [ 30 ]. But these methods are not yet available at a global scale, and may continue to require modelling support (e.g., for chemical compounds that are difficult to detect in the field) [ 1 ]. Using top-down approaches, upstream influences can be integrated through data processing and modelling that nests information within hierarchical catchments and allows routing of physical or biological properties along river networks (e.g., using accumulation and decay functions) (e.g., [ 24 ]). Of particular importance is the ability to evaluate longitudinal, lateral, vertical, and temporal connectivity, which is vital to freshwater ecosystems as it defines the fluxes, movement or dispersal of species, materials (including water and sediments), nutrients, and energy [ 31 ]. For this reason, a recommended framework should include a versatile geospatial data concept that can incorporate topological information of upstream, downstream and lateral connections as well as nested and hierarchical relationships between hydrographic features.

Review of monitoring approaches

We initiated this work by comprehensively reviewing existing programs and approaches to monitor and assess river health around the world [ 32 ]. We restricted our review to those implemented at a national, regional, or global scale, as we considered these most likely to possess the properties necessary to inform a global monitoring framework. We focused on operational programs that were developed for monitoring (i.e., surveillance) of river health, rather than investigative approaches. In addition to these, we also evaluated existing global indices of river health; although differing greatly from monitoring programs, their design and implementation offer important insights into the current state of global river health monitoring.

We compared each approach against the following seven criteria that are considered integral to a successful framework: consistency, representativeness, robustness, flexibility, scalability, feasibility, and informativeness [ 33 ]. To assess consistency, representativeness , and robustness , we evaluated methods of data collection and the number and types of indicators used. Flexibility, scalability , and feasibility were explored qualitatively, primarily based on the indicators and methods of data collection, followed by the complexity of methods used to harmonise and integrate data. Lastly, informativeness was qualitatively assessed in the conceptual design and methods that were used to frame and report results.

From this initial review, we identified 10 programs or approaches that met the majority of the seven criteria ( Fig 1 ). From each, we summarised the features or attributes that have the greatest potential to inform the design of a global framework: the indicators used in the assessment, the biophysical components that the indicators reflect, data types, methods of data harmonisation and integration, and practical insights applicable to the design of a global monitoring framework.

Development of the global monitoring framework

Based on the above review, we develop a framework of indicators for global river health monitoring, which we evaluated for feasibility of implementation at two time periods: by 2030 and by 2050. Rather than including indicators based on current feasibility, we considered all potential indicators, regardless of the state of readiness of the data sources or prognosis for development, even by 2050. For example, careful research and expert knowledge have gone into identifying Essential Biodiversity Variables [ 34 , 35 ], a suite of variables that are broadly agreed as necessary and sufficient to monitor national to global biodiversity. However, much coordinated and systematic development of data sources is still needed to characterise these variables at global scales [ 36 ]. Building on these and other studies that have evaluated and identified “ideal” indicators allows us to diagnose research and data gaps that, if addressed, could substantially advance monitoring of global river health. The 2030 and 2050 time horizons were chosen in light of technical considerations as well as the anticipated updating of global sustainability and ecological health initiatives (e.g., the SDGs which expire, but may be refreshed, in 2030). Given the time frames required for research and operationalizing new data sources and methods, the 2030 framework represents data sources and methods that are effectively available in the near term. The second time period of 2050 allows us to evaluate the technical horizon for promising yet feasible technologies, methods or infrastructure that can advance the accuracy and informativeness of these indicators in the near-to-medium future.

Because existing major river health monitoring programs stem from national or regional legislation, they vary in purpose (i.e., matched to specific regulatory context) and are influenced by the approaches and technologies in use at the time of their development ( Fig 1 ; Table 1 ).

Description and attributes of selected large-scale (i.e., national and regional) monitoring programs or global assessment methods determined as meeting a majority of seven criteria for a successful framework [ 33 ]. In any monitoring program, a conceptual framework designates relationships between Indicators, which are often grouped by broader biophysical Components (i.e., themes or categories). Further, the conceptual framework of a specific program may treat Components as driving forces (D), pressures (P), state (S), impact (I), or responses (R) (i.e., the DPSIR framework). [Note: Components and Indicators are presented using the terminology of the individual frameworks]. A majority of frameworks include procedures where indicator data are harmonised (i.e., standardised), integrated (i.e., combined) into Component scores, and assigned to condition classes for reporting the condition of the ecosystem.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000101.t001

Nearly two decades separate early, well-established frameworks [i.e, National Aquatic Resources Survey (NARS) and Water Framework Directive (WFD)] from later ones whose implementation is less well-documented [i.e., Freshwater Biophysical Ecosystem Health Framework (FBEHF) and River Health Index (RHI)]. More recent frameworks tend to include variables based on remote-sensing data, and more explicitly incorporate scale and catchment hierarchy into the conceptual designs and reporting of results [ 32 ]. Each of the large-scale river health programs has perceived advantages and disadvantages ( Table 1 ), and collectively they exemplify the key attributes a large-scale framework should possess. These include: a clear definition of ecosystem health; indicators of multiple biophysical components; standardised methods and protocols of data collection and integration; and scale independence ( Table 1 ). The main reasons for differences in the choice and treatment of components originate from the definition of “freshwater health”, which underlies the conceptual design that combines driving forces, pressures, state, impact and responses. For example, New Zealand’s FBEHF defines ecological integrity as the maintenance of structure and function “in the face of external stress”. Therefore, while the FBEHF relies on biophysical indicators to assess condition (i.e., state), it also recommends conceptual modelling of stressor pathways (i.e., pressures and driving forces) to guide management and policy actions for remediating indicators that are below targets [ 33 ].

The biophysical categories (hereafter, ‘components’) that are monitored, and the range and type of associated indicators differ greatly among river health monitoring frameworks. The four most commonly included components are 1) biology (aquatic life), 2) water quality (physicochemical conditions), 3) physical habitat, and 4) hydrology (water quantity & dynamics) ( Table 1 ), suggesting broad agreement that these components constitute a robust and comprehensive basis for river health monitoring. A majority of the national and regional programs concur in relying on the state of the biological indicators as the primary reflection of aquatic ecosystem or river health; greater differences occur in the treatment of abiotic indicators. Abiotic features may be considered primarily with respect to influencing the biological responses (e.g., NARS, National River Health Program) or incorporated as part of the definition and measurement of ecological health (e.g., WFD, RHI, FBEHF).

Limitations associated with the scale of the monitoring also drive some design decisions, such as availability of data that can reflect indicators of ecosystem health at large scales. This can be seen most starkly in the strong contrast between regional or national-scale monitoring programs and existing global frameworks. Global frameworks tend to emphasise pressures rather than ecosystem state ( Table 1 ) [ 32 ], reflecting current data constraints to assess river health at large scales. Regardless of the source and types of data that inform indicators, frameworks share similarities in the methods used to translate indicator data into an assessment of ecological condition. Large-scale frameworks consistently entail harmonisation (i.e., standardisation) of indicator data to a common scale (e.g., 0–100) against benchmark conditions; these may be relative to local, regional, or environmentally similar reference sites, based on the distribution of values, or predetermined targets. It is typical for assessments to integrate harmonised indicator scores to the level of components and/or to an overall score (though exceptions exist, e.g. NARS). Methods of integration range from simple or geometric averaging to expert ratings. Lastly, for reporting assessment results, integrated scores are commonly classified into 3–6 condition categories (e.g., NARS, RHI, WFD) or a condition gradient (e.g., River EcoStatus Monitoring Programme), although reporting may also include fixed thresholds (e.g., NARS) or proximity to goals (e.g., Environmental Performance Index).

Development of the global framework

Across the four biophysical components, we identified a comprehensive but parsimonious suite of indicators of river health, and provide a prognosis of their readiness at a global scale in 2030 and 2050 ( Table 2 ; S1 Table ). Since these indicators were selected to represent ecosystem state rather than driving forces, pressures, impacts, or responses, all data sources must ultimately be based on either direct measurements or estimation of biological, water quality, physical habitat, or hydrologic parameters ( S1 Table ). The exception is where an explicit decision is made to use proxies as an interim measure, due to data or modelling limitations. Direct measurement may be done via remote sensing or compilation of in situ data, while estimation involves modelling—including interpolation and/or fate-based modelling—that is calibrated with direct measurements.

Each indicator is described with both challenges and opportunities for application to global monitoring, the methods available for implementation by 2030, and recommendations for development toward more accurate and widespread implementation by 2050 [see S1 Table for sources of in situ , remote sensing, and modelled datasets to support development of specific indicators]. Inclusion of each indicator within national or regional and global monitoring programs is shown (● = included, × = not included).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000101.t002

The framework emphasises modelling approaches, which can produce spatially-explicit estimates of all indicators for all rivers. This stems from the fact that both in situ and remote sensing datasets have inherent (often differing) limitations in their utility to reflect the health of freshwater ecosystems at large scales. Modelling can incorporate multiple data sources for the calibration of indicators (or, potentially, interim use of pressure-based proxies), can yield predictions for smaller rivers which are often more data-limited, and offers a way to harmonise indicators into the same hydrographic structure and scale. Importantly, modelling allows representation of uncertainty, which can be reduced as better or more data are incorporated over time and also indicate priorities for improvement (e.g., by highlighting geographic disparities in in situ data).

We organise our presentation of the state-of the-art methods for river health monitoring by biophysical component, first evaluating indicators based on their current feasibility for implementation at a global scale (i.e., 2030) followed by recommendations for development over the next two decades (i.e., 2050).

We recommend five biological indicators of river health, which are fish abundance, fish diversity, invertebrate diversity, aquatic invasive species, and primary productivity. Because biological indicators integrate catchment conditions and anthropogenic influences, they are typically considered to best reflect the ecological state and health of riverine (and other aquatic) ecosystems [ 18 ]; it is not surprising that they are well represented in biological monitoring programs, even at large scales. However, the state of current data sources demonstrates consistent bottlenecks and limitations to implementation at global scales, which will require considerable investment and focus to overcome. For example, the IUCN Red List and the Living Planet Index, arguably the most developed and recognised global systems to assess conservation status of species, suffer from well-documented taxonomic and geographic bias [ 45 – 47 ].

The most obvious challenge for global monitoring of biological indicators is that remote sensing data offer little utility; the possible exception to this is primary productivity, for which chlorophyll can be used as a (limited) proxy [ 48 ]. Capacity to measure or model biological indicators is therefore dictated by the status and availability of global in situ datasets, which currently suffer from strong geographic limitations and bias ( S1 Table ). Given that widespread development of new large scale (i.e., regional or national) monitoring programs is not expected [ 18 ], developing untapped sources of in situ biological data are essential. The rapid development of eDNA in recent years offers particular promise to help overcome the lack of biological data, but will require investment toward application for specific indicators [ 49 ] and implementation at large-scales [ 50 ]. For example, although eDNA analyses of aquatic diversity is improving with community approaches such as universal markers or meta-barcoding—and with comparable or greater sensitivity than traditional methods [ 51 ]—considerable effort is yet needed to build reference sequences and the genetic databases that these approaches rely on [ 52 ]. For these reasons, the potential for other mechanisms to bolster global datasets of aquatic diversity should not be ignored, including processing of museum specimens [ 53 ], fostering citizen science observation networks and platforms [ 54 ], and collating data from national biomonitoring programs [ 24 ]. These options also require little technology, which may be of particular importance for broadening representation in geographically remote areas [ 55 , 56 ]. Model-based data integration methods also provide ways to leverage this growing quantity and types of biological data being collected [ 57 ].

Even anticipated development and expansion of in situ data from the above sources will likely contribute little to the improvement of two indicators, which are fish abundance and primary productivity. A primary drawback of eDNA metabarcoding to evaluate biodiversity is limited ability to infer abundance [ 58 ]. Citizen-science projects equally emphasise reporting species presence rather than abundance [ 56 ]. As such, the dominant sources of in situ data for these two indicators are most likely to come from ongoing compilation of data from disparate research and monitoring efforts, the most informative of which include multi-year time series for detection of trends [ 59 , 60 ]. However, it is not possible to recommend or rely on contributions by local or even national researchers and networks without acknowledging systemic and well-documented barriers to data sharing, ranging from lack of financial support for data synthesis to cultural perspectives [ 61 ]. Given the importance of in situ data to inform biological indicators for rivers (and other aquatic ecosystems), we recommend that research funders support the creation and expansion of large-scale datasets [ 62 ], as well as adopting data sharing criteria to promote behavioural and cultural shifts in scientific practice [ 63 ].

Water quality

Four water quality indicators are recommended to reflect ecological health of rivers: water temperature, nutrient concentrations, suspended sediments, and ecotoxicants ( Table 2 ). Despite current shortcomings, we find that several of these indicators are in a favourable position for implementation at a global scale in the near future. We attribute this readiness to the fact that the respective water quality constituents (temperature, nutrients, sediments) are closely tied to physical landscape features and catchment processes that can be modelled, and that are also more readily measured using remote sensing or in situ methods. Indicators of water quality are commonly included in large-scale monitoring programs ( Table 2 ), and compilation of in situ data that can support improvements in modelling is—albeit in early stages–underway in many places ( S1 Table ). Indeed, the priority opportunities for improvement that we foresee and recommend are in broadening the collection and global compilation of in situ data, including through citizen science monitoring [ 64 ], for improved calibration of existing physical models [ 65 , 66 ]. While satellite-based remote sensing of suspended sediments is already well-developed [ 67 , 68 ] and will continue to progress thanks to the increasing resolution of satellite-based optical imagery, the resolution of thermal infrared imagery is still relatively coarse (≥ 100-m pixel size) and can thus be applied to estimate temperature for only very large rivers at present. Nonetheless, higher resolution data afforded by the imminent launch of new sensors is expected to extend thermal remote sensing to smaller rivers and substantially improve the accuracy of global water temperature models [ 69 ].

Of the four recommended water quality indicators, ecotoxicants are currently the least feasible indicator for implementation in global river health monitoring. This is due to the fact that ecotoxicants are optically inactive and highly variable and localised in their release, concentrations and behaviour [ 70 , 71 ]. The diversity and sources of organic and synthetic chemicals that may be present in fresh waters is daunting. Although agricultural pesticides are often the dominant sources of chemical risk in freshwaters [ 72 , 73 ], other sources may range from heavy metal effluents from mining operations and urban land uses to endocrine-disrupting pharmaceuticals and engineered nanomaterials [ 1 , 74 ]. This heterogeneity makes it very difficult to monitor or model ecotoxicants at large scales based on relationships with catchment development or physical processes. We therefore recommend further exploration of pressure-based proxies for the near-term, and that new research advances our understanding and modelling of persistence, fate and ecotoxicology of chemicals in river ecosystems [ 71 ].

Physical habitat

Four indicators are recommended to reflect physical habitat quality of rivers: connectivity, channel feature diversity, riparian vegetation, and instream vegetation. As with water quality, we find that several of these indicators are relatively well-situated for implementation at a global scale in the near future. However, unlike with water quality, this readiness is not due to the existence of in situ datasets but rather that physical aspects of rivers are more easily characterised from remote sensing data. As a result, anticipated increases in the resolution and capacity of remote sensing products will substantially improve our ability to measure these indicators at a global scale ( S1 Table ). For example, recent launches of high-resolution global multispectral sensors have greatly advanced our ability to measure the extent and structure of riparian vegetation even for narrow riparian corridors, while hyperspectral sensors will increasingly enable species identification, to the extent of differentiating non-native species invasions or quantifying the prevalence of non-native species [ 75 ]. Launches of spaceborne LiDAR sensors will further improve this capacity [ 76 ], as well as the identification of channel feature diversity [ 77 ].

Metrics for assessing longitudinal connectivity (i.e., river fragmentation) at large scales are already well-developed [ 78 ]; however, the global datasets of river barriers that are needed to calculate these metrics are still highly incomplete [ 79 ]. Nonetheless, broader characterization of longitudinal barriers (i.e., beyond the current emphasis on relatively large dams, diversions and road crossings) is advancing with novel remote sensing techniques [ 80 , 81 ] and manual mapping [ 82 ], including citizen-science based efforts [ 83 ]. Lateral connectivity is an important aspect of physical habitat that has lagged substantially behind measurement of longitudinal connectivity, but is poised for substantial advancement at the global scale [e.g., 84 ]. Higher-resolution remote sensing products will allow identification of lateral barriers and lateral surface water coverage and dynamics [ 85 ], while automated and machine learning approaches (e.g., convolutional neural networks) are increasing the accuracy of surface water classifications, resulting in improved capacity to characterise lateral connectivity at large scales [ 86 , 87 ] and over time [ 88 ].

Although we predict consistent improvements in most physical habitat indicators based on higher resolution and better classification of remote sensing products, the exception to this trend is the characterization of instream vegetation, which is very challenging to assess remotely [ 89 ]. This is due to tradeoffs between spatial, temporal, spectral and radiometric resolution, all of which are needed for accurate estimation of aquatic vegetation. Aquatic plants are not routinely or comprehensively measured as part of large-scale monitoring programs, resulting in limited in situ datasets to support modelling and remote sensing classification training efforts. We recommend that developing this indicator will benefit most from modelling aquatic plant diversity and abundance based on hydrographic characteristics (e.g., discharge, floodplain extent, inundation) and nutrients [ 90 , 91 ], supported by the anticipated expansion of hyperspectral imagery [ 89 ]. It is also possible that environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling—if conducted at large scales–might inform measurement of aquatic plant diversity [ 92 ]. However, development of eDNA for aquatic plants is behind even other freshwater taxonomic groups [ 93 ]; and the relation of eDNA with abundance of plants (and other biological organisms) seems likely to remain elusive for some time.

Our recommended framework includes two hydrologic indicators of river health, which are the extent of surface water and the degree of alteration from the natural flow regime. Both of these indicators currently are in a state of moderate readiness for implementation at a global scale, mostly due to a bias toward measuring large rivers, resulting in limited and inconsistent data to monitor extent and flow of small or intermittent streams [ 94 ]. However, both indicators are likely to gain substantially from recent and anticipated improvements in remote sensing products ( S1 Table ). Measurements of flow alteration are commonly included in large-scale monitoring based on national gauge systems; however, these systems disproportionately monitor large, perennial, developed, and regulated rivers [ 95 ]. Global availability of discharge measurements also depends greatly on the financial and technical capacity of countries to collect data, combined with their willingness and capacity to provide access [ 96 , 97 ]. Despite ongoing calls and resolutions for international gauge data sharing, logistical, financial, and administrative constraints have caused gauge networks and data contributions to consistently decline for several decades [ 95 , 98 ]. Modelling of flow alteration at a global scale is plagued by both the limitations and availability of in situ data stated above, and challenges in downscaling models to reflect conditions in medium or small rivers [ 99 , 100 ]. Though likely to require several decades of development–we advance that one of the most promising opportunities to improve accuracy and resolution of discharge is the emerging use of satellite altimetry, which will help fill data gaps for large and medium rivers [ 101 ]. For small (and medium) rivers, another important opportunity lies in community science initiatives to monitor streamflow, which can range from maintaining and monitoring fixed gauges [ 102 , 103 ] to low-tech options for ungauged sites [ 104 ].

In contrast to streamflow, which has been routinely measured in some countries for more than a century, systematic mapping of surface water extent is only recently possible [ 105 ]; this indicator is therefore not well represented in large scale monitoring programs. Critical limitations in measurement of surface water at a global scale are the resolution of these remote sensing data, along with substantial challenges from overhanging and emergent vegetation and frozen, snow or glacial surfaces, which interfere with the optical properties of water [ 106 ]. For this reason, mapping of surface water extent for medium or small rivers has only become feasible with very recent launches of high-resolution sensors [ 85 ]. However, even these high-resolution products are unlikely to address the substantial issue of incorporating riverine wetland areas (i.e., riparian or forested), which may be permanently or seasonally inundated. Future development of this indicator that accounts for surface water across the full spectrum of riverine habitats will likely require a combined modelling approach based on classification of high-resolution remote sensing data and topographic analyses of wetland presence and extent [ 107 , 108 ].

We initiated this work in response to what is not only a dire situation for global river health monitoring, but where we believe the prognosis and trajectory for substantial improvement over time is currently uncertain. This position is supported by other strenuous calls for improvement in global monitoring and conservation of freshwater systems and biodiversity [ 9 , 11 , 36 , 109 ]. However, we advance that important developments in policy and research have also set the stage for adoption and step-wise implementation of a global river health monitoring framework, which can support adaptive management and restoration for rivers at diverse levels of geographic organization ( Fig 2 ).

Steps and associated benefits of implementing a river health framework that adaptively supports, coordinates, and integrates research and monitoring efforts from local to international scales. A common hydrographic framework provides the structure to integrate local monitoring (bottom-up) with regional or global data syntheses (top-down), and harmonise indicators across spatial scales. Degree of Health (represented by colours) based on indicators can be integrated at increasing scales, to inform prioritisation of investments for monitoring and restoration. [Note: Degree of Health shown in the figure is indicative only and does not represent quality for any region based on actual data]. Maps of the Nile Basin https://www.hydrosheds.org/products/hydrobasins [ 99 ] are reprinted with permission from the HydroBASINS Database, HydroSHEDS 2023. African continent https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/africa::africa-countries/about [ 122 ] and world maps https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/esri::world-countries-generalized/about [ 123 ] are reprinted with permission from Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Esri Master License Agreement 7 Dec 2022.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000101.g002

A common framework to assess river health is a critical foundation to address global disparities in monitoring and evaluation. Regions and nations vary widely in the resources that they have available for this work, as well as the existence and structure of incentives [ 18 ]. An important outcome of a multi-scale framework is the ability to estimate river health in data-poor areas (albeit with more uncertainty), which can indicate geographic areas that should be prioritised for data collection, synthesis, and modelling [ 110 ]. As capacity grows to more accurately measure and compare the biophysical condition of rivers, at scales varying from reach to basin ( Fig 2 ), so too does the ability to relate condition to anthropogenic pressures and impacts, and to underlying socio-economic conditions and cultural values [ 34 ]. Biophysical conditions can serve as a basic template into which human perspectives and valuing of rivers are subsequently incorporated as additional indicators. These indicators can be developed at national or local scales, as appropriate, and with the involvement of diverse stakeholders [ 26 , 27 ].

A global framework will also help address disparities in river health monitoring by providing a structure for global coordination of research and monitoring efforts. Effective river health monitoring, protection, and restoration crosses standard jurisdictions, which is why there are many efforts at not only national but also basin, trans-boundary basin and regional scales [ 111 ]. A strong global commitment to a suite of river health indicators (i.e., our proposed framework) can guide and support existing and developing programs and provide structure to integrate monitoring efforts at diverse scales ( Fig 2 ) [ 35 ]. Such efforts may include the development of new monitoring tools, ranging from use of low-tech and/or citizen-science based gauging stations [e.g., CrowdHydrology, 104 ] to the development of new systems of governance or national monitoring programs [ 112 ]. A global framework can support and justify work by nations (or regions) that are engaged in or in a position to coordinate data gathering, synthesis, and evaluation toward a global agenda. Concurrently, international organisations and/or nations with resources can focus on the research gaps for global-scale indicators ( Table 2 )–many of which emphasise addressing data limitations in developing nations—when determining funding priorities.

Enabling factors

We see three fundamental factors needed to enable development and step-wise implementation of a global river health monitoring framework. First, we urge the adoption of river health monitoring and its benefits for sustainable water resource management as a priority within local, regional, and global initiatives (Steps 1–2, Fig 2 ). Rivers and river health warrant protection not only for the considerable ecological and social benefits they confer, but for the strong concordance and linkages with terrestrial conservation and protection efforts. Conservation planning has historically segregated terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems, and favoured terrestrial priorities and biodiversity, which can generally be protected in defined spatially restricted reserves [ 113 ]. However, there is mounting evidence for the co-benefits of integrating freshwater conservation and biodiversity targets into terrestrial conservation planning [ 114 , 115 ]. Specifically, because rivers are networks that connect habitats and integrate catchment conditions, actions that protect and restore rivers (and riparian areas) also benefit terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity [ 116 , 117 ], and it has been found that freshwater targets can be dramatically improved with only negligible risk for terrestrial targets [ 114 , 118 ]. Regional and international agreements and conservation planning need to acknowledge and reflect the large contribution of rivers and river health to overall biodiversity.

Second, we recommend a resolute and coordinated focus to develop methods and synthesise data sources for the framework of indicators (Steps 3–4, Fig 2 ). Decades of large-scale monitoring programs support agreement on suitable indicators, and corresponding investment in their development for global scale implementation. This requires advancing data collection and synthesis for indicators, using methods that can range from incentivising individual scientists (and governments) to share local data, to improving the resolution and availability of remote sensing products [ 11 ]. The technologies that we have outlined could improve measurement of biophysical components (or specific indicators), but implementation at the global scale requires more than technical advancement. For example, eDNA–which can estimate aquatic species presence and/or abundance of some species–has the potential to dramatically improve the availability of in situ data for critically important biological indicators ( Table 2 ). However, its use for global river health monitoring requires that the technology is accessible and widely used (i.e., outside of developed countries), and that there are platforms to synthesise eDNA data, based on agreed-upon standards of detection [ 52 ]. Similarly, machine-learning approaches, including artificial intelligence to automate classification of remote sensing data, have strong potential to advance and refine the measurement of physical habitat and hydrologic indicators [ 86 , 88 ]. However, improving and implementing these approaches to assess river health requires interdisciplinary collaboration across fields of ecology, data science, and artificial intelligence.

As previously noted, a critical advancement toward global river monitoring is agreement on the use of a multi-scale framework [ 28 , 29 ] with standardised spatial units of river reaches and catchments (Step 5, Fig 2 ). A common hydrographic framework would provide the geospatial foundation for developing recommended procedures for data collection (e.g., determination of local or regional sampling sites, synthesis, modelling methods) as well as a system for harmonising indicator data to visualize and compare ecosystem condition ( Table 1 ). Together, a common spatial system and suite of indicators would allow individual governments and researchers working at local, national or regional scales to contribute environmental and monitoring data to the global framework (i.e., bottom-up). Concurrently, international organizations and researchers working at larger scales can focus efforts to develop and improve global data sources and methods to support and complement local and national efforts (i.e., top-down) (Steps 6–8, Fig 2 ).

This leads to our third recommendation, which is to identify and promote an international organisation responsible for the coordination of national or regional commitments and accountability. Simply stated, it is not possible for a national or even regional entity to coordinate the multi-scale efforts and diversity of actions needed, nor to sustain those efforts over the time scale that is required. We do not suggest that an international organisation would do all of the work, but would rather have accountability for finalising a framework, promoting and coordinating research activities (e.g., data synthesis, modelling), housing data repositories and products (or coordinating solutions), fostering grassroot developments, and encouraging relevant national and regional policy [e.g., 112 ]. An international organisation would also be well-positioned to lead or support efforts by member countries or other entities to fund work that advances the global research agenda. Depending on the scale of the work, funding could be sought from national funding agencies, large foundations, or global funding organisations (e.g., World Bank, Global Environment Facility).

Previous examples of an international effort that could be emulated is the Global Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRA), housed within the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Initiated in 1946, the FRA has conducted global forest assessments in cooperation with member countries, which has included identification and promotion of a common framework of indicators [ 119 ]. The process has evolved and matured over time, integrating new monitoring technologies and incorporating bottom-up efforts from a larger number of nations and stakeholders as they have been developed and are available [ 120 , 121 ]. We recommend development of a similar initiative housed in an international program (e.g., the UN Environmental Programme, UN Food and Agriculture Organization) focused on river health monitoring. River health is inherently and inextricably intertwined with other environmental challenges that impact humans. An initiative to develop and improve a global river health framework would be well-positioned to work synergistically with other international initiatives, such as those focused on water security (e.g., the SDGs), biodiversity (e.g., IPBES, CBD), and climate change (e.g., the NDCs).

Applying the framework

The framework that we recommend is intended to support an adaptive process to monitor river health at a global scale. Importantly, we believe this process could result in an initial picture of global river health within the next 10 years, by 2030, a timeframe that is well-aligned to inform the anticipated review of international conventions (i.e., SDG and CBD). However, interim products could guide and inform current and emerging data monitoring, conservation, and restoration efforts. Monitoring that incorporates a majority of indicators could be implemented in data-rich areas to guide conservation and restoration planning at national or regional scales ( Fig 2 ); these would serve as useful test cases for iterative design of outputs and products (e.g., river health scorecards) that could effectively inform policy and public communications. Initial assessments at a global scale could be implemented using a subset of indicators for which data resources are robust and confidence is high ( Table 2 , Fig 2 ). Such initial or interim assessments could contribute data toward indicators and targets that are already outlined in international conventions, but which are currently inadequately measured. These include SDG 6.6.1 [“Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over time”], IPBES [“Nature” or “Nature’s benefits to people”], multiple articles within RAMSAR [Articles 2.1–2.5, 3.2, 4.3, etc] and multiple targets within the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [draft Targets 1,2,3,5 and 9].

Summary and conclusions

Historical challenges and technological barriers have stymied our capacity to monitor and assess the health of river ecosystems at a global scale. These include a relative lack of conservation awareness for fresh waters, a focus on the extractive rather than ecosystem value of rivers, monitoring methods developed for local and national purposes, and challenges in applying large-scale (i.e., remote sensing) monitoring methods to rivers. Decades of large-scale monitoring combined with technological advancements can now support development of a framework of indicators that represents the biophysical health of rivers at a global scale. However, widespread commitment to a framework is needed to focus and consolidate the monitoring approach, advance necessary research and data syntheses, and improve accuracy of these indicators over time. Through integration of bottom-up and top-down approaches, a consistent global framework will also provide critical support for river conservation and restoration efforts at scales ranging from local to international.

Supporting information

S1 table. data sources..

Current sources and compilations of in situ , remote sensing (RS), and modelled datasets that would support development of the recommended indicators outlined in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000101.s001

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out under the CGIAR Initiative on NEXUS Gains. We also gratefully acknowledge the logistical and administrative support of The International Water Management Institute.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 2. Board MA. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington D.C.: New Island; 2005. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html
• 12. Russi D, ten Brink P, Farmer A, Badura T, Coates D, Förster J, et al. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for water and wetlands. Ramsar Secretariat: Gland: IEEP: London and Brussels; 2013 p. 118p. https://teebweb.org/publications/water-wetlands/
• 13. Wackernagel M, Beyers B. Ecological footprint: Managing our biocapacity budget. New Society Publishers; 2019.
• 16. Hering D, Birk S, Solheim AL, Moe J, Carvalho L, Borja A, et al. Deliverable 2.2–2: Guidelines for indicator development. University of Duisburg-Essen: WISER (Water Bodies in Europe); 2010 p. 22. http://www.wiser.eu/download/D2.2-2.pdf
• 19. Stanners DA, Bourdeau P, European Environment Agency Task Force, United Nations, editors. Europe’s environment: the Dobříš assessment. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 1995.
• 32. Dickens J, Dickens C, Eriyagama N, Xie H, Tickner D. Towards a global river health assessment framework. Columbo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute; 2022 p. 131 pp.
• 33. Clapcott J, Young R, Sinner J, Wilcox M, Storey R, Quinn J, et al. Freshwater biophysical ecosystem health framework. New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment; 2018 p. 104. Report No.: 3194. https://environment.govt.nz/publications/freshwater-biophysical-ecosystem-health-framework/
• 37. US EPA. National Rivers and streams assessment 2013–2014: A collaborative survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2020. Report No.: EPA 841-R-19-001. https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/national-rivers-and-streams-assessment-2013-2014-results
• 38. Dallas H, Dickens C, Hill L, Kleynhans N, Louw D, Taylor J, et al. National Aquatic Ecosystem Health Monitoring Programme (NAEHMP): River Health Programme (RHP) Implementation Manual. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; 2008. Report No.: ISBN No. 978-0-621-383343-0. https://www.dws.gov.za/iwqs/rhp/projectdocuments/RHP_Implementation_Manual_FINAL_MAY2008_DWAF.pdf
• 39. Kleynhans CJ, Mackenzie J, Louw MD. Module F: Riparian vegetation response assessment index (VEGRAI). Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; 2008 p. 98. http://www.dwa.gov.za/iwqs/rhp/eco/EcoStatus/ModuleF_VEGRAI/ModuleF_VEGRAI.pdf
• 41. Europai A, Tanasca U. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. European Parliament, Council of the European Union; 2000. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32000L0060
• 42. Department of the Environment and Energy. Module 5: Integrated ecosystem condition assessment. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2017. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/ae-toolkit-module-5-integrated-ecosystem-condition-assessment.pdf
• 43. Turak E, Waddell N, Johnstone G. New South Wales (NSW) Australian River Assessment System (AUSRIVAS) Sampling and Processing Manual. Sydney, Australia: Department of Environment and Conservation, New South Wales; 2004 p. 52. https://ausrivas.ewater.org.au/index.php/manuals-a-datasheets?id=55
• 44. Hsu A, Emerson J, Levy M, de Sherbinin A, Johnson L, Malik O, et al. The 2016 Environmental Performance Index Report. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy; 2016.
• 59. Deinet S, Scott-Gatty K, Rotton H, Twardek WM, Marconi V, McRae L, et al. The Living Planet Index (LPI) for migratory freshwater fish: Technical Report. Groningen: World Fish Migration Foundation; 2020 p. 31. https://worldfishmigrationfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LPI_report_2020.pdf
• 69. Buffet L, Gamet P, Maisongrande P, Salcedo C, Crebassol P. The TIR instrument on TRISHNA satellite: a precursor of high resolution observation missions in the thermal infrared domain. In: Sodnik Z, Cugny B, Karafolas N, editors. International Conference on Space Optics—ICSO 2020. Online Only, France: SPIE; 2021. p. 26.
• 108. Halabisky M, Miller D, Stewart AJ, Lorigan D, Brasel T, Moskal LM. The Wetland Intrinsic Potential tool: Mapping wetland intrinsic potential through machine learning of multi-scale remote sensing proxies of wetland indicators. EGUsphere [preprint]. 2022; Preprint egusphere-2022-665.
• 122. ESRI. “Africa Countries” [Feature Layer]. Esri Africa; 2018. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/africa::africa-countries/about
• 123. ESRI. “World Countries Generalized” [Feature Layer]. Esri; 2022. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/esri::world-countries-generalized/about

Advertisement

Insight and Environment

Why rivers are important for everything from biodiversity to wellbeing.

The UK's 200,000 kilometres of waterway are in crisis. New Scientist's Save Britain's Rivers campaign reveals how crucial they are for the nation's health, wealth and resilience

By Graham Lawton

15 February 2023

The river Dee flows through England and Wales

Henry Ciechanowicz/Alamy

This article is part of  New Scientist and the  i’s  joint campaign, Save Britain’s Rivers .  The year-long collaboration will reveal what’s happening to the UK’s rivers and how to restore them through a series of special articles, films, podcasts and events.

STAND by a river in the UK and you are in touch with the ancients. Their short, gruff names – Thames, Leith, Taff, Lagan – speak volumes of the history of the islands, from ancient Britons through Romans, Saxons and Vikings. These rivers are part of the past and present. Yet they face an uncertain future.

All over the world, rivers are valuable, often sacred, cultural and practical assets. They are a defining feature of human settlements, exploited for millennia as a source of drinking water, food, irrigation, waste disposal, power, navigation, defence and even inspiration.

In the UK, many of these services are just as relevant today. Tap water comes mostly from rivers. Sewage is disposed into them – preferably treated but often not. Rivers irrigate crops, power homes, take away floodwaters and float boats. Millions of people spend some of their leisure time messing about on, or near, rivers.

The UK is a riverine country. Globally, about 0.8 per cent of the land is covered in freshwater. In the UK, that number is 3 per cent. It has about 1500 river systems , with a combined length of over 200,000 kilometres, ranging from gushing upland headwaters to languid floodplain meanderers, via a vast range of intermediate habitats.

By global standards, these rivers are short, narrow and shallow – “mere streams”, according to the National River Flow Archive at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in Wallingford. Yet they are extremely diverse in character. According to a recent report by the National Committee UK of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), “rivers and their floodplains are among the most important environments in the UK”.

“It’s well known that rivers and their floodplains – and the two go hand in hand – support a disproportionate level of biodiversity relative to their size within landscapes,” says report co-author Stephen Addy at the James Hutton Institute in Aberdeen, UK.

The state of Britain's rivers: Slurry, silage and sewage

Drinking water and flood management

Although rivers are important for many reasons, their most obvious benefit in the UK is the water they supply. According to Water UK , which represents the country’s water industry, about two-thirds of tap water in England and Wales comes from rivers and the reservoirs and lakes they flow into; the rest is taken from aquifers. Northern Ireland and Scotland rely almost exclusively on rivers, reservoirs and lakes. All told, 87 per cent of the UK water supply comes from these sources.

According to government statistics , water companies in the UK abstract about 4.6 cubic kilometres of river, lake and reservoir water in England for the public supply every year. People drink it, bathe in it, flush their toilets with it, irrigate their gardens with it and use it to wash their clothes, floors and cars. Offices, shops, restaurants and other firms drink deep of it too.

Water is abstracted for other purposes. Electricity generators take 3.4 cubic kilometres to turn their steam turbines, while fish and watercress farms use 0.8 cubic kilometres and agriculture and private water supplies another 0.8. That adds up to a grand total of 9.6 cubic kilometres, equivalent to a cubic tank of water more than 2 kilometres in all dimensions.

Even in a relatively rainy country like the UK, that is milking it. The UK government estimates that about 1 in 5 surface water sources are depleted by over-abstraction , which has knock-on effects on river health.

The opposite problem – too much water – is an increasingly familiar hazard during the winter. Flooding is a growing problem as climate change causes extreme weather events, including biblical downpours. According to the Environment Agency, the UK has had six of its 10 wettest years on record since 1998 . Last year was the first to see three named Atlantic storms in the space of a week .

Natural floodplains can help to mitigate flood risk by corralling the excess water and releasing it slowly back into the river. That is especially true of riverine landscapes engineered by beavers, whose dams and pools massively slow the passage of water through the system. Where rain used to hit the ground and surge straight into the waterways, it now is trapped for weeks. Beavers are being reintroduced all over the UK after they gained legal protection last year .

Plastic waste dumped along the bank of the river Thames in London

Mark Phillips/Alamy

The problem is that many of those floodplains are far from natural, let alone beavered: housing estates and industrial development are often sited on them and these are generally quite useless at mitigating floods.

Water supplies and flood defences are two of many “ecosystem services” supplied by rivers. These are vital goods and services, such as water, pollination and clean air, that flow from nature, or what is increasingly referred to as natural capital.

Economic and health benefits

The UK was the first nation – and remains one of only 26 countries – to audit its natural capital. In 2012, the government established the (now disbanded) Natural Capital Committee (NCC) to advise it on the state of England’s natural capital, in order to help deliver its commitment “to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than it inherited”. In 2020, the NCC published its first set of accounts.

These are by no means complete, as the system for totting up natural capital, called experimental ecosystem accounting, remains a work in progress and nature is complex. But they still speak volumes about the value of rivers.

Water abstraction alone is worth £6.8 billion a year – essentially what it would cost to keep the taps on if rivers didn’t supply the UK with water – and the asset is worth £134 billion (the NCC stressed that these aren’t price tags on nature: given that the natural world supports all life on Earth, its value is infinite). Wetlands sequester 3.5 million tonnes of carbon a year, worth £831 million; that asset is valued at nearly £30 billion. Hydroelectricity generation produces 6865 gigawatt-hours a year, worth £136 million; the value of that asset is £2.2 billion.

These “provisioning and regulating” services are supplemented by some less tangible, but no less valuable cultural services. Around 1 in 10 of the UK’s 5.8 billion annual outdoor recreational and tourist visits are centred on freshwater, worth £681 million; the asset is worth £32 billion. Recreational fishing is a £1.7 billion a year industry. Around 2.7 million people gain health benefits from being in or around freshwater , worth £870 million a year. The asset value of this is nearly £48 billion. Even house prices benefit from the proximity of a river to the tune of £2.9 billion a year.

Essential habitats for biodiversity

One asset that has yet to be incorporated into natural capital accounting is biodiversity, but it is clear that rivers are an important repository of what is left in the UK. Globally, rivers and other bodies of fresh water are disproportionately biodiverse. Despite covering less than 1 per cent of Earth’s surface, they are home to around a third of described species of vertebrate , including approximately 40 per cent of all fish.

The UK’s rivers and the wetlands they feed are disproportionately biodiverse too, though to a lesser extent. They are home to around 10 per cent of the UK’s species , according to the Environment Agency. The IUCN lists 346 river-dependent species, some endangered, including eels, otters, the bar-tailed godwit and feather mosses. The Environment Agency says that over 10 per cent of UK freshwater and wetland species are threatened with extinction.

Rivers are biodiverse in part because they themselves are diverse. A short stretch of lowland river can feature 10 different habitats – pools, riffles (shallow water flowing quickly over stones), glides (deeper, slow-flowing water), backwaters, beds of aquatic vegetation, submerged tree roots, exposed sediment, riverbanks, riparian vegetation and floodplains – all of which provide food and shelter for a different repertoire of species. Further upstream are headwaters, waterfalls and rapids, which also host specialist species such as the freshwater pearl mussel, white-clawed crayfish, brook lamprey and bullhead, as well as juvenile salmon, trout and grey mullet. These juvenile fish will eventually migrate out to sea and become part of the UK fishing industry’s £713 million annual earnings .

Rare chalk streams and poor ecological health

England is also home to the vast majority of the world’s chalk streams, rare and internationally important habitats fed from alkaline aquifers in chalk and characterised by their gravel and flint beds and crystal clear water. They are home to unique ecosystems and have been described as an English Great Barrier Reef . There are only 210 of these waterways in the world and 170 of them are in England (the rest are in northern France).

Unsurprisingly, the value of ecosystem services is strongly related to the ecological state of the asset . In much of the UK, that isn’t a happy tale . England, Wales and Northern Ireland have no rivers considered to be in high ecological health, according to criteria laid down in the four nations’ Water Framework Directives ; only 14 per cent are good . The rest are moderate, poor or bad. None is in a good state in terms of chemical pollution and none is in good overall health. In Scotland, 8 per cent of rivers are in high ecological health.

The IUCN report is blunt on this issue, concluding that “truly natural [river] environments that have escaped both direct and indirect human alteration no longer exist”. However, there is hope, according to Addy. “There are some grounds for being optimistic. River restoration in the UK is undergoing a step change, there are more and more projects going on everywhere.”

• mental health /
• biodiversity /
• Save Britain's Rivers

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

When nature gives people the 'ick'

Subscriber-only

The US is doing its biggest-ever survey of nature and wildlife

Why we need to be honest with children about the brutality of nature

Environment, popular articles.

Trending New Scientist articles

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• Political History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Linguistics
• Browse content in Literature
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cultural Studies
• Technology and Society
• Browse content in Law
• Company and Commercial Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Local Government Law
• Criminal Law
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Public International Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Police Regional Planning
• Property Law
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Microbiology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Palaeontology
• Environmental Science
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Browse content in Environment
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Environmental Politics
• International Relations
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Economy
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Russian Politics
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• Native American Studies
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Migration Studies
• Organizations
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Reviews and Awards
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

1 Why Should We Care About Rivers?

• Published: November 2004
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter focuses on the importance of rivers, and explains why humans should care about them. Rivers provide water to drink, water that helps crops to grow, and the water that fuels or cools industries. Water is a universal solvent and is used at some stage in the manufacture of every product that people consume. Rivers transport wastes, and to some extent transform them. If not for this self-purifying function of rivers, many estuaries and deltas would be even more polluted. Rivers transport goods, generate power, and sustain recreation. The chapter emphasizes that the society which does not protect its rivers destroys its own lifelines. It also reveals that despite the history of public awareness of environmental issues in America, many people remain unaware of how substantially human activities have altered rivers across the nation.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

We want to hear from you! Let us know what you think about our website.

interstitialRedirectModalTitle

interstitialRedirectModalMessage

• Show search

Climate Change Stories

Removing Barriers to Reconnect Rivers

Restoring rivers for fish, for nature, for people.

February 26, 2024 | Last updated May 16, 2024

• What's at Stake
• Our Approaches
• Project Examples
• Critical Funding

Each year, more than 1,000 fish species around the world migrate to, from or within rivers to reproduce, escape predation or drought, find feeding grounds, seek warmer or cooler waters, or fulfill other critical life cycle needs. Healthy river and stream corridors are also essential for amphibians, reptiles and mammals, such as manatees and river porpoises. Some swim from larger rivers, lakes or headwaters, while others—like salmon, river herring and some trout—travel thousands of miles across oceans and bays to reach critical freshwater habitats. Sadly, their journeys are increasingly becoming more treacherous, or not possible at all.

Green up your inbox

Get updates from nature every month.

These aquatic species face obstacles of all sorts, such as dams, locks, levees and culverts, many of which are impassible. Sometimes the places they need to get to—floodplains, wetlands and side channels that offer life-stage-specific nutrition, protection from predators and ideal conditions for rearing young or laying eggs—have been destroyed or are severely degraded. We know that wetlands are disappearing at three times the rate of tropical forests, and, according to new research in Scientific Data , in just the last 30 years, we've lost nearly 232,000 square miles (600,000 square kilometers) of floodplains—an area the size of France or California.

And the same waters through which fish migrate or go to spawn are becoming increasingly polluted, or in some cases, drying up all together.

These are the primary reasons why freshwater species populations around the globe have declined an average of 81% since 1970—far more than declines seen in terrestrial or marine species.

Migratory Fish and Barriers by the Numbers

Monitored populations of migratory freshwater fish have declined an average of 81% between 1970 and 2020.

Just one-third of the world's longest rivers remain free-flowing.

River systems altered by dams and other barriers have led to 40% of America’s fish species being listed as imperiled and many commercial fisheries being decimated.

Nearly 1 million dams, culverts and other barriers across the United States block fish from migrating upstream.

Such declines affect more than just fish and other wildlife. Migratory fish support commercial and recreational fishing industries that generate tens of billions in revenue each year. In Alaska’s Bristol Bay alone, the sustainable commercial harvest of wild salmon is valued at $2.2 billion annually and employs more than 10,000 people. In 2022, Bristol Bay experienced a record return of nearly 72 million sockeye salmon. This yearly migration makes for a rich ecosystem and remarkable way of life for people in Indigenous communities where the harvest of wild salmon is a cherished part of their culture.

How We Improve Freshwater Health & Connectivity

We protect and restore freshwater systems.

Fresh water is connected to everything The Nature Conservancy does, and we’re determined to protect and restore freshwater ecosystems at unprecedented scales. By leveraging our long history of innovation and collaboration, we know we can scale up breakthrough strategies for fresh water that are durable and long-lasting. Our work in Ecuador serves as a prime example of ways in which we’re implementing long-term protection efforts to conserve freshwater systems above and below ground to keep them healthy and intact.

We’re already working on close to 400 projects in nearly 40 countries, but we must go further and faster to achieve our goals for 2030 . ( For a broader picture of our freshwater work around the globe, visit “ Water Connects Us All ” on nature.org .)

Protection and restoration can go hand-in-hand. TNC’s work to restore streams, rivers, wetlands and floodplains is a strategy we use to mitigate the impacts of man-made structures or development that affect the hydrology and health of freshwater systems and the wildlife and people that depend on them.

Many of these man-made structures, like ditches, levees or dikes, are designed to drain wetlands or straighten rivers by cutting them off from side channels or floodplains, which often provide some of the most important habitat for fish and a wide array of other species. These same structures can drastically impact the trees and plants in these places, which are adapted to periodic, natural fluctuations of high and low flows.

TNC has dozens of projects to improve the health of streams by restoring natural meanders and/or reconnecting them to side channels or other low-lying areas, and we and our partners have spearheaded some of the largest floodplain reconnection projects in the United States. Learn more .

We Overcome Barriers and Ensure Rivers Flow Freely

Only some one-third of the world’s largest rivers remain free flowing. Most have been severed by dams or other barriers. For example, in the United States, only some 2% of the nation’s 3 million miles of rivers and streams remain free-flowing and undeveloped, similar to other heavily developed nations. And countless other, smaller rivers and streams been altered by dams, locks, levees or culverts that impair or prevent the migration of aquatic species.

Overcoming Barriers

Below is a snapshot of how TNC addresses barriers that affect our freshwater systems. Click on each square to learn more.

Removing Obsolete Dams

In cases where the value dams provide is outweighed by operational costs and the impacts to nature and people, TNC supports their removal. The removal of dams restores flows and the benefits they provide to people and nature. Obsolete dams can have a wide range of impacts on the environment and local communities, including loss of biodiversity, blocking fish migrations, trapping sediment and nutrients that maintain habitat and estuary health, and altering flow patterns that drive the productivity of downstream floodplains and wetlands. These impacts can affect public safety, food and water supplies, livelihoods, recreation and overall community well-being.

Avoiding New Dams

Or ensuring the “right fit.” More than 161,000 miles (260,000 kilometers) of free-flowing rivers are at risk of being impacted by the construction of new hydropower dams—equal to more than 39 times the length of the Nile. The impacts of these new dams would fall disproportionately in river basins with the greatest freshwater fish harvests and with the highest diversity of freshwater species, and—in many cases—greatly affect critical food sources for or displace Indigenous peoples.

Although dams can provide hydroelectric power, help reduce flood risk and store water to use later to irrigate crops, for drinking water and other purposes, their high ecological and socioeconomic costs mean they must prove their worth, and the case against them in our evolving energy sector is considerable. When and where new dams are proposed, we advocate for large-scale planning that factors in energy demand, other sources of renewable energy, project costs, and environmental and societal impacts. Our work within Brazil’s Tapajos River basin well illustrates this strategy put into action.

A Focus on Culverts

When roads cross streams—often over culverts—it can be problematic for the stream’s health and the safety of the road. Not only can poorly designed or undersized culverts hinder or block the migration of aquatic species, they can fail due to the increasing intensity of storms and growing development, which produces more runoff. TNC works with many partners to identify and fix problematic road crossings to enhance the movement of aquatic species as well as help road managers avoid tragedies, decrease much costlier emergency repairs and reduce expensive detours for travelers.

Explore examples of projects designed to address freshwater barriers that impact the movement of aquatic species, affect river health and impact people.

Protecting & Restoring Stream Flows

Obstacles aren’t an issue for aquatic species if there isn’t enough water to begin with. TNC employs an array of strategies aimed at improving or restoring “environmental” flows. Such work includes efforts to protect groundwater, modernizing the operations of dams, working with farmers to improve the efficiency of irrigated crops and the creation of water funds that help protect water sources and flows. See examples of such work .

Groundwater Isn’t Just Underground

Did you know that groundwater provides about 30% of the nation’s surface streamflow, according to estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey? The rest is from rain and snowmelt. And some systems are completely driven by groundwater or completely dependent.

Examples of Our Freshwater Work

The projects below are not a complete listing of the projects TNC is involved with to help improve the health of our freshwater systems. Rather, what’s listed below serve as some of our best examples, many of which feature videos.

Select Freshwater Projects

Click on each square to learn more.

Addressing Dams & Culverts

• Helping shape Brazil’s hydropower future .
• TNC is helping remove obsolete dams and plan for new ones in Europe .
• Dam removals are helping “free” Kentucky’s Green River.
• Two dam removals and a fish passage made a big difference at Maine’s Penobscot River .
• Dam removals in Massachusetts brought back to life a “once-dead” river.
• Removing old dams created new hope for New Hampshire’s Bellamy River .
• Removing a dam helped improve the health of the Delaware River .
• TNC has prioritized dam removals throughout Tennessee.
• Removing “deadbeat” dams is reconnecting and restoring Vermont’s “broken streams.”
• TNC scientists recently detailed efforts to streamline culvert improvements in Maine.
• TNC received NOAA grants to improve culverts and bridges in North Carolina to improve fish passage and river health.
• TNC helped the State of Georgia produce a handbook to help improve the design of roads that cross streams .
• Tidal gates can also be a barrier for migrating fish; learn how TNC in Oregon addresses these to benefit salmon.
• This article published in TNC’s magazine provides an overview of work to address barriers to fish migration and the other impacts they have on people and nature.

Freshwater Restoration

• The restoration of 3,000 floodplain acres along 14 miles of the once-“channelized” Pocomoke River in Maryland.
• Nearly 150 projects in Oregon benefit salmon.
• Several projects in Ohio , funded through the state’s mitigation program, are improving river health.
• Projects in Arkansas benefit the Cache and Kings rivers.
• The reconnection of a 3.5-mile-long side channel along the lower Mississippi River.
• Restoring meanders to Montana’s Ruby River .
• Big lessons learned from the restoration of Little Creek in Missouri.
• Protecting and restoring Chinook and steelhead habitat in the upper Snake River in Idaho .
• Restoring spawning habitat in the Great Lakes.
• Restoring wetlands on Hawaii’s island of O’ahu.

Restoring Wetlands & Floodplains

• A 25-square-mile floodplain reconnection at “ Mollicy Farms ” along the Ouachita River in Louisiana.
• A 6,700-acre project at TNC’s Emiquon Preserve along the Illinois River in Illinois.
• A series of habitat reconnection projects on the Willamette River in Oregon.
• A 1,040-acre levee “setback” project along the Missouri River in Missouri.
• Work in Washington’s Puget Sound benefits salmon.
• Giving more room to the Sacramento River in California.
• Restoring tidal wetlands benefits salmon in Oregon.

Protecting and Restoring Stream Flows

• TNC is behind a myriad of efforts to protect groundwater that also supplies much of the flows in our rivers and streams. Learn more .
• The Sustainable Rivers Program improves the way many large dams are operated to produce more benefits and minimize environmental impacts.
• We work with farmers to reduce the amount of water they use to irrigate their crops. Our work in Nebraska , Arizona , Arkansas and other several states serve as prime examples of this strategy.
• We’re working to address water flows and water scarcity in a variety of different ways throughout the drought-prone Colorado River Basin in the U.S.
• TNC and its partners manage 32 Water Funds initiatives around the globe that provide a steady source of funding for the conservation of more than 7 million acres of watersheds and secure drinking water for nearly 50 million people. Colorado’s Yampa River Fund employs a variety of strategies aimed at protecting flows, and water funds we’ve helped launch in Africa and India that focus on agriculture improvements do as well. In Ecuador, two water funds are aimed at protecting water—and flows—at headwater sources.

Partnerships & Funding that Improve Freshwater

As an environmental non-profit organization, the support of our donors enables TNC to leverage its science-based expertise and past work to influence and implement new projects that improve the health of freshwater systems around the globe. It’s important to note, however, that in the face of so much loss and degradation of habitat, partnerships—and the funding they can provide—are paramount in order to work at scale and achieve meaningful results.

In the U.S., critical partnerships and related funding include, but are not limited to:

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• The National Fish Passage Program
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• The U.S. Forest Service
• The Natural Resources Conservation Service
• The Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Native American Fish and Wildlife Society
• The Federal Highways Administration
• The National Fish Habitat Partnership
• American Rivers
• The Atlantic Salmon Federation
• Trout Unlimited
• Numerous state fish and wildlife agencies
• Many local U.S. Tribes and Canadian First Nations

Internationally, critical partnerships include, but are not limited to:

• Dam Removal Europe
• World Wildlife Fund
• World Fish Migration Foundation
• Wetlands International
• Fauna and Flora International
• Conservation International

Dive Deeper

Sustainable Rivers Program

The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are finding new ways to strike a sustainable balance in how people use and protect the many benefits that rivers provide.

The Comeback: Alewives Return To Maine Rivers

Many of Maine’s rivers are experiencing a remarkable comeback. One of the world’s great migrations is returning to our waters. We’re talking about alewives!

Unleashing Rivers

New England’s waterways—the most heavily dammed in the United States—are making a comeback.

By Jenny Rogers

NOTIFICATIONS

Human impact on rivers.

• + Create new collection

Human beings have an impact on river ecosystems . The relationship living organisms have with each other and with their environment is extremely complex. Impacts on a species or a non-living element may have long-term consequences for a river ecosystem.

Several key areas of human impact on river ecosystems are:

• flow modifications
• exotic species
• harvesting.

Pollution is difficult to control because it is often the result of human infrastructure around a river. Pollution enters the river, sometimes in small amounts, at many different locations along the length of the river. Common sources of pollution come from rural and urban areas.

The clearing of forests to produce farmland has led to on-going erosion, with large quantities of sediment deposited into rivers. Agricultural intensification (substantial increases in fertiliser application and increased stock numbers) has resulted in nutrient and chemical loss to nearby streams and rivers. Elevated nutrient concentrations (especially nitrogen and phosphorus – key components of fertilisers) can result in the eutrophication of slow-moving waterways.

Urban areas add to this pollution when contaminants (PAHs and heavy metals) are washed off hard surfaces such as roads and drain into water systems. Sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emitted from factories and power stations enter river systems through acid rain. Sewage and effluent are discharged into rivers in some areas.

Pollution can lower the pH of the water, affecting all organisms from algae to vertebrates. Biodiversity decreases with decreasing pH.

Farmers, industry and local authorities are working together to reduce direct pollution from entering New Zealand rivers.

Flow modifications

Dams alter the flow, temperature and sediment in river systems. Reduced flow alters aquatic habitats – reducing or removing populations of fish, invertebrates and plants that depend on the flow to bring food. Reduced flow also decreases tributary stream flow, changing habitats and altering the water table in the stream aquifer. Consequently, riverside vegetation may be affected and decline in numbers. This may affect animal biodiversity, for example, bird species may leave the area if their habitat is lost or altered.

Changes in water temperature due to flow modification can affect insect development by not allowing them to complete their life cycle.

Rivers are connected systems, and barriers such as dams, culverts and floodgates disconnect one area from another. They prevent species such as eels from migrating – isolating previously connected populations.

Water taken from rivers for irrigation can lower river flows (a concern in Canterbury).

Exotic species

Exotic species have been introduced to river systems sometimes intentionally (for example, for fishing purposes or as food for other species) and sometimes unintentionally (for example, species come in on the bottom of boats or on fishing gear or they escape from pond areas during flooding, such as koi carp ).

These organisms can affect native species. They may compete with them for prey and habitat. They may prey on native species, alter habitats, breed with native species to produce another species or they may introduce harmful diseases and parasites. Once established, these species can be difficult to control or eradicate, particularly because of the connectivity of the flowing river. They can easily migrate to many areas affecting native species.

Excessive fishing in river ecosystems can drastically reduce numbers of species. For example, numbers of eels and whitebait in the Waikato River have reduced since the 1970s. Commercial eeling began in the 1960s and peaked in the 1970s with an annual average catch of 2000 tonnes. In the early 1980s, 400–450 tonnes per annum were harvested, with less than 200 tonnes per annum harvested since 2000.

Whitebait tonnage has also drastically reduced from an average of 46 tonnes per annum in the 1950s to 3 tonnes in 2000. Reducing stocks of a particular species can have an effect on other species such as birds that feed off river fish. The birds leave the area when river fish decline. Find out more about whitebaiting .

Nature of science

Scientific research sometimes reveals environmental problems can be linked to human activity. This balance between environmental needs and our needs is often the subject of debate involving scientists, iwi, environmentalists, authorities and local people. Such discussion can lead to further science exploration and possible solutions.

Activity ideas

The activity, River connections helps students visualise the interdependence within the river environment.

The activity Monitoring stream health and interactive Stream health monitoring and assessment provide step-by-step instructions, protocols, recording sheets and how-to videos for monitoring stream health.

Related content

The level 3 Connected article Testing the waters describes how scientists use the nature of science to investigate freshwater pollution.

See our newsletters here .

Would you like to take a short survey?

This survey will open in a new tab and you can fill it out after your visit to the site.

Essay On Growing Pollution In Rivers

Table of Contents

Short Essay On Growing Pollution In Rivers

Rivers play a vital role in our lives, providing water for drinking, agriculture, and industry, and supporting diverse ecosystems. However, growing pollution in rivers is a major environmental issue that has severe consequences for human health, the ecosystem, and the economy.

The primary sources of pollution in rivers are industrial waste, agricultural runoff, sewage, and solid waste. Industries release toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and other hazardous waste into rivers, which can harm aquatic life and contaminate drinking water sources. Agricultural runoff, which includes fertilizers and pesticides, can also harm aquatic life and disrupt the balance of the ecosystem. Sewage, on the other hand, contains human waste and chemicals that can cause water-borne diseases and pose a serious health risk. Solid waste, including plastic and other forms of litter, can harm aquatic life, and cause blockages in the river system.

The consequences of growing pollution in rivers are far-reaching and include harm to human health, loss of aquatic life, and disruption of the ecosystem. Exposure to toxic chemicals and pathogens in polluted water can cause diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and typhoid fever. Moreover, the loss of aquatic life affects the food chain, leading to declines in populations of fish and other wildlife. The disruption of the ecosystem also affects the livelihoods of people who depend on fishing and other aquatic resources for their income.

In order to address the growing pollution in rivers, it is essential to take a comprehensive and integrated approach. This includes reducing the release of pollutants from industries and agriculture, treating sewage, and promoting solid waste management. Governments, communities, and individuals can also play a role in reducing pollution in rivers through initiatives such as waste reduction, responsible consumption, and participating in clean-up efforts.

In conclusion, growing pollution in rivers is a major environmental issue with serious consequences for human health, the ecosystem, and the economy. Addressing this issue requires a collective effort and a commitment to protecting our rivers for future generations.

Long Essay On Growing Pollution In Rivers

Rivers are an essential part of life and our environment, providing us with drinking water, food, and transportation routes. Unfortunately, the quality of river water is declining due to increasing pollution. In this article, we discuss the causes and effects of pollution in rivers and how we can work together to reduce it. Read on to find out more!

Introduction: Definition and Types of Water Pollution

Water pollution is defined as the presence of harmful substances in water. These substances can be bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, or parasites. They can also be inorganic substances such as heavy metals, chemicals, or toxic compounds. Water pollution can occur in freshwater or saltwater environments.

There are two types of water pollution: point source and nonpoint source. Point source pollution occurs when pollutants are discharged into water from a single point, such as a factory or sewage treatment plant. Nonpoint source pollution occurs when pollutants enter water from many sources, such as runoff from agricultural fields or city streets.

Water pollution can have serious effects on the environment and human health. It can cause problems such as algae blooms, fish kills, and beach closures. Water pollution can also lead to the spread of disease.

Causes of Water Pollution

Water pollution has many causes, ranging from agricultural runoff to untreated sewage.

One of the main causes of water pollution is agricultural runoff. When farmers fertilize their fields, the chemicals can run off into nearby waterways. This can cause problems for both people and animals who rely on those waters for drinking, swimming, or fishing.

Another major cause of water pollution is untreated sewage. If sewage isn’t properly treated before it’s released into rivers or lakes, it can contaminate the water and make people sick. This is a particular problem in developing countries where infrastructure isn’t always up to par.

Industrial waste is also a major contributor to water pollution. Factories often release harmful chemicals into rivers or lakes near their facilities. These chemicals can pollute the water and make it unsafe for people and animals alike.

Finally, littering can also lead to water pollution. When people litter on beaches or in lakes, the trash can eventually end up in the water and pollute it. This is not only harmful to the environment, but it’s also unsightly.

Effects of Water Pollution on Rivers

Water pollution is a major problem in rivers all over the world. It is caused by many different things, including sewage and industrial waste, chemicals from farms and factories, and even runoff from city streets. All of these pollutants can have serious effects on the environment and on human health.

One of the most significant effects of water pollution is the loss of biodiversity. When rivers are polluted, the plants and animals that live in them are often killed or driven away. This can lead to a decline in populations of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In addition, it can cause problems for the people who depend on rivers for their livelihoods, such as fishermen and women.

Another effect of water pollution is the contamination of drinking water supplies. Rivers are often used as sources of water for cities and towns. If they are polluted, this water can contain harmful bacteria and viruses that can make people sick. In some cases, it can even be deadly.

Finally, water pollution can also cause problems for the economy. When businesses or farms pollute rivers, it can cost them money in fines or damages. In addition, it can make it harder for people to use the river for recreation or tourism. This can lead to a loss of revenue for local businesses and economies.

Solutions to Reduce Water Pollution in Rivers

Water pollution has become a major problem in rivers all over the world. There are many ways to reduce water pollution, but it is important to find the right solution for each river. Here are some solutions to reduce water pollution in rivers:

1. Improve Wastewater Treatment

Wastewater treatment is one of the most important ways to reduce water pollution. Improving wastewater treatment can help to remove pollutants from sewage before it is released into rivers. This can help to protect aquatic life and make rivers safer for recreation.

2. Reduce Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater runoff is a major source of water pollution in rivers. Stormwater can pick up pollutants from streets, parking lots, and other areas and carry them into rivers. Reducing stormwater runoff can help to reduce water pollution. One way to do this is by using rain gardens or green roofs, which can absorb rainfall and prevent it from running off into rivers.

3. Prevent Soil Erosion

Soil erosion is another major source of water pollution. When soil erodes, it can carry pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers into rivers. This can harm aquatic life and make the water unsafe for people to drink or swim in. There are several ways to prevent soil erosion, including planting trees and vegetation, building retaining walls, and covering exposed soil with mulch or straw.

It is clear that river pollution is a growing problem and must be addressed urgently. As individuals, we can take steps to reduce our environmental impact by reducing plastic waste and other pollutants. Governments also need to step up their efforts in tackling this issue with stricter regulations on industry and better public awareness campaigns. Only then can the rivers of the world become clean again.

Manisha Dubey Jha is a skilled educational content writer with 5 years of experience. Specializing in essays and paragraphs, she’s dedicated to crafting engaging and informative content that enriches learning experiences.

Related Posts

Essay on importance of yoga, essay on cow, climate change essay, essay on slaver, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on Water Pollution for Students and Children

500+ words essay on water pollution.

Water is the most important resource for survival on a planet. It is the essence of life on our planet – Earth. Yet if you ever see a river or lake around your city, it would be evident to you that we are facing a very serious problem of Water pollution. Let us educate ourselves about water and water pollution . Two-thirds of the Earth’s surface is covered by water , seventy-six perfect of your body is made up of water.

Water and Water Cycle

As you already know water is everywhere and all around.  However, we have a fixed amount of water on earth. It just changes its states and goes through a cyclic order, known as the Water Cycle. The water cycle is a natural process that is continuous in nature. It is the pattern in which the water from oceans, seas, lakes, etc gets evaporated and turns to vapor. After which it goes through the process of condensation, and finally precipitation when it falls back to earth as rain or snow.

What is Water Pollution?

Water pollution is the contamination of water bodies (like oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, aquifers, and groundwater) usually caused due to human activities. Water pollution is any change, minor or major in the physical, chemical or biological properties of water that eventually leads to a detrimental consequence of any living organism . Drinking water, called Potable Water, is considered safe enough for human and animal consumption.

Sources of Water Pollution

• Domestic Waste
• Industrial effluents
• Insecticides and pesticides
• Detergents and Fertilizers

Some of the water pollutions are caused by direct Sources, such as factories, waste management facilities, refineries, etc, that directly releases waste and dangerous by-products into the nearest water source without treating them. Indirect sources include pollutants that infuse in the water bodies via groundwater or soil or via the atmosphere through acidic rain.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Effects of Pollution of Water

The effects of Water Pollution are:

Diseases: In humans, drinking or consuming polluted water in any way has many disastrous effects on our health. It causes typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and various other diseases.

Eradication of Ecosystem: Ecosystem is extremely dynamic and responds to even small changes in the environment. Increasing water pollution can cause an entire ecosystem to collapse if left unchecked.

Eutrophication: Chemicals accumulation and infusion in a water body, encourages the growth of algae. The algae form a layer on top of the pond or lake. Bacteria feed on this algae and this event decreases the amount of oxygen in the water body, severely affecting the aquatic life there

Effects of the food chain: Turmoil in food chain happens when the aquatic animals (fish, prawns, seahorse, etc) consume the toxins and pollutants in the water,  and then the humans consume them.

Prevention of Water Pollution

The best way to prevent large-scale water pollution is to try and reduce its harmful effects. There are numerous small changes we can make to protect ourselves from a future where water is scarce.

Conserve Water: Conserving water should be our first aim. Water wastage is a major problem globally and we are only now waking up to the issue. Simple small changes made domestically will make a huge difference.

Treatment of sewage: Treating waste products before disposing of it in water bodies helps reduce water pollution on a large scale. Agriculture or other industries can reuse this wastewater by reducing its toxic contents.

Use of environment-friendly products: By using soluble products that do not go on to become pollutants, we can reduce the amount of water pollution caused by a household.

Life is ultimately about choices and so is water pollution. We cannot live with sewage-strewn beaches, contaminated rivers , and fish that are poisonous to drink and eat. To avoid these scenarios,  we can work together to keep the environment clean so the water bodies, plants, animals, and people who depend on it remain healthy. We can take individual or teamed action to help reduce water pollution. As an example, by using environmentally friendly detergents, not pouring oil down the drains, reducing the usage of pesticides, and so on. We can take community action too to keep our rivers and seas cleaner. And we can take action as countries and continents to pass laws against water pollution. Working together, we can make water pollution less of a problem—and the world a better place.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essay on Importance of Rivers

Students are often asked to write an essay on Importance of Rivers in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Importance of Rivers

Significance of rivers.

Rivers are crucial to all life on Earth. They supply water, a vital resource for humans, animals, and plants. Rivers also provide fertile soil for agriculture, helping us grow food.

Rivers as Habitats

Rivers are home to numerous species. They support biodiversity, offering a habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife. This biodiversity is essential for a balanced ecosystem.

Transport and Trade

Historically, rivers have been important routes for transport and trade. They have helped civilizations prosper by connecting different regions for commerce.

Rivers and Recreation

Rivers offer recreational activities like fishing, boating, and swimming. They are also a source of aesthetic beauty, inspiring artists and poets alike.

250 Words Essay on Importance of Rivers

Introduction, economic significance.

Rivers are the cradle of human civilization, with many ancient societies, such as the Egyptians, Indus Valley, and Mesopotamians, flourishing along riverbanks. Today, they continue to drive economies by providing water for agriculture, generating hydroelectric power, facilitating transport, and supporting fisheries.

Ecological Importance

Rivers maintain ecological balance by facilitating the nutrient cycle. They transport sediments and nutrients from the land to the sea, fostering rich, productive ecosystems like wetlands and estuaries. They also provide habitats for a wide range of species, contributing to biodiversity.

Human Health and Recreation

Rivers are essential for human health, supplying fresh water for drinking and sanitation. Additionally, they offer recreational opportunities, such as boating, swimming, and fishing, promoting physical health and mental well-being.

Climate Regulation

Rivers play a critical role in climate regulation. They absorb carbon dioxide, helping to mitigate climate change. Moreover, the water cycle, integral to climate patterns, is heavily influenced by rivers.

In conclusion, rivers are vital for sustaining life on earth. They are economic engines, ecological regulators, sources of health and recreation, and climate moderators. In the face of escalating environmental challenges, it is crucial to prioritize river conservation to ensure a sustainable future for all.

500 Words Essay on Importance of Rivers

The role of rivers in civilization and culture.

Rivers have been instrumental in the development of civilizations. Many ancient societies such as the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, and Ancient Egypt sprouted along the fertile riverbanks. These water bodies provided the necessary resources for agriculture, transportation, and trade, leading to the growth of prosperous societies.

Moreover, rivers have profound cultural and spiritual significance. They are often revered in various religions and mythologies, symbolizing life, purity, and rejuvenation. The Ganges in India, the Nile in Egypt, and the Jordan River in the Middle East are prime examples of rivers deeply intertwined with cultural identities.

Economic Importance of Rivers

The potential of rivers for generating hydroelectric power cannot be overlooked. Countries with abundant river resources, like Canada and Norway, have harnessed this potential to produce a significant portion of their electricity.

Ecological Significance

Rivers are vital ecological corridors, supporting a wide array of flora and fauna. They maintain the health of wetlands, which are biodiversity hotspots and crucial for climate regulation. Rivers also play a key role in nutrient cycling. They transport nutrients from land to sea, aiding in the productivity of marine ecosystems.

Rivers and Climate Change

Despite their immense importance, rivers worldwide face severe threats due to pollution, over-extraction, and climate change. It is imperative that we understand the multifaceted roles of rivers and strive to protect and conserve these invaluable natural assets. By doing so, we not only ensure our survival but also contribute to the health and resilience of our planet.

In the words of Leonardo da Vinci, “Water is the driving force of all nature.” Indeed, rivers, as the most tangible manifestation of this element, are the driving force of life, culture, economy, and ecology. Their importance cannot be overstated, and their preservation is a task that falls upon all of us.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Advertisement

A bibliometric analysis of river health based on publications in the last three decades

• Research Article
• Published: 28 September 2022
• Volume 30 , pages 15400–15413, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ce Wen 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Zhuo Zhen 1   na1 ,
• Ling Zhang 1 , 2 &
• Changzhou Yan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2624-206X 1  

668 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Rivers are a vital part of the earth’s environment and the basis for human survival. River health has been widely concerned by scholars and practitioners, and the number of studies in this area is increasing. In order to examine the evolution of river health research and identify the research frontiers, a total of 675 articles were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database, and CiteSpace was used for bibliometrics. The results revealed that the research on river health is multidisciplinary. Freshwater Biology and Ecological Indicators were two of the most influential journals. Researchers and institutions from America, Australia, and China were the core research forces, and a certain gap was observed between developed and developing countries in river health. The most productive institution was Michigan State University, followed by Griffith University and Hohai University. There are three development trends in river health: (1) Research scale is expanding; (2) Research methods are diversified and interdisciplinary; and (3) Evaluation index is more comprehensive and systematic. The frontier of river health had been expanded from the connotation of river health to the evaluation methods, evaluation indexes, and comprehensive river ecological research. Overall, research on river health is a well-developed and promising research field. This study provides a framework in the river health field for new researchers and helps scholars to identify further potential perspectives on collaborators, research frontiers, hotspots, and research trends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Tri-Decadal Visualization Analysis on River Health Studies: A Global Perspective

Current research status of large river systems: a cross-continental comparison

Bibliometrics-based Research Hotspots and Development Trends in Eco-hydrology of Dammed Rivers

Explore related subjects.

• Environmental Chemistry

Data availability

Not applicable.

Alilou H, Rahmati O, Singh VP, Choubin B, Pradhan B, Keesstra S, Ghiasi SS, Sadeghi SH (2019) Evaluation of watershed health using fuzzy-ANP approach considering geo-environmental and topo-hydrological criteria. J Environ Manage 232:22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.019

Article   Google Scholar  

Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.120202.110122

Boulton AJ (1999) An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and prognosis. Freshw Biol 41:469–479. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00443.x

Bozzetti M, Schulz UH (2004) An index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages for subtropical streams in southern Brazil. Hydrobiologia 529:133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-004-5738-6

Bunn SE, Davies PM, Mosisch TD (1999) Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian and catchment degradation. Freshw Biol 41:333–345. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00434.x

Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1993) The Value of clean water: the public’s willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resour Res 29:2445–2454. https://doi.org/10.1029/93WR00495

Chen C (2016) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57:359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi

Chen C (2004) Searching for intellectual turning points: progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:5303–5310. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307513100

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cooper JAG, Ramm AEL, Harrison TD (1994) The estuarine health index: a new approach to scientific information transfer. Ocean Coast Manag 25:103–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0964-5691(94)90043-4

Costanza R (2012) Ecosystem health and ecological engineering. Ecol Eng 45:24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.03.023

Costanza R, Mageau M (1999) What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquat Ecol 33:105–115

De-La-Ossa-Carretero JA, Lane MF, Llansó RJ, Dauer DM (2016) Classification efficiency of the B-IBI comparing water body size classes in Chesapeake Bay. Ecol Indic 63:144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.010

Fryirs K (2003) Guiding principles for assessing geomorphic river condition: application of a framework in the Bega catchment, South Coast, New South Wales, Australia. CATENA 53:17–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00199-6

Halpern BS, Longo C, Hardy D, McLeod KL, Samhouri JF, Katona SK, Kleisner K, Lester SE, Oleary J, Ranelletti M, Rosenberg AA, Scarborough C, Selig ER, Best BD, Brumbaugh DR, Chapin FS, Crowder LB, Daly KL, Doney SC, Elfes C, Fogarty MJ, Gaines SD, Jacobsen KI, Karrer LB, Leslie HM, Neeley E, Pauly D, Polasky S, Ris B, St Martin K, Stone GS, Rashid Sumaila U, Zeller D (2012) An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488:615–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11397

Han H, Li H, Zhang K (2019) Urban water ecosystem health evaluation based on the improved fuzzy matter-element extension assessment model: case study from Zhengzhou City, China. Math Probl Eng 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7502342

Harris J (1995) The use of fish in ecological assessments. Aust J Ecol 20:65–80

Hoque YM, Raj C, Hantush MM et al (2013) How do land-use and climate change affect watershed health? A scenario-based analysis. Water Qual Expo Heal 6:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1ay02219a

Innis SA, Naiman RJ, Elliott SR (2000) Indicators and assessment methods for measuring the ecological integrity of semi-aquatic terrestrial environments. Hydrobiologia 422–423:111–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4164-2_9

Jeong J, Kannan N, Arnold JG (2014) Effects of urbanization and climate change on stream health in north-central Texas. J Environ Qual 43:100–109. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0345

Jiang J, Xie X, Fan L (2021) Trends of blockchain research in management and business. ACM Int Conf Proceeding Ser 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1145/3473141.3473253

Jiang Y, Hou L, Shi T, Gui Q (2017) A review of urban planning research for climate change. Sustain 9.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122224

Johnson LB, Breneman DH, Richards C (2003) Macroinvertebrate community structure and function associated with large wood in low gradient streams. River Res Appl 19:199–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.712

Karr JR (1999) Defining and measuring river health. Freshw Biol 41:221–234. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00427.x

Karr JR, Dudley DR (1981) Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environ Manage 5:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01866609

Karr JR (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21–27

Kuang W (2012) Evaluating impervious surface growth and its impacts on water environment in Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan Metropolitan Area. J Geogr Sci 22:535–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-012-0945-y

Ladson AR, White LJ, Doolan JA, Finlayson BL, Hart BT, Lake PS, Tilleard JW (1999) Development and testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshw Biol 41:453–468. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00442.x

Li F, Zhang Y, Altermatt F, Zhang X (2021) Consideration of multitrophic biodiversity and ecosystem functions improves indices on river ecological status. Environ Sci Technol 55:16434–16444. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05899

Li T, Huang X, Jiang X, Wang X (2018) Assessment of ecosystem health of the Yellow River with fish index of biotic integrity. Hydrobiologia 814:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2541-5

Liu C, Zhang S.-L, Cui W.-Y, Lin C, Zhang J (2019) The review of river health assessment in China. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61630-8_14

Macintosh KA, Cromie H, Forasacco E, Gallagher K, Kelly FL, McElarney Y, O’Kane E, Paul A, Rippey B, Rosell R, Vaughan L, Ward C, Griffiths D (2019) Assessing lake ecological status across a trophic gradient through environmental and biological variables. Sci Total Environ 690:831–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.038

Meng W, Zhang N, Zhang Y, Zheng B (2009) Integrated assessment of river health based on water quality, aquatic life and physical habitat. J Environ Sci 21:1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62377-3

Meyer JL (1997) Stream health: incorporating the human dimension to advance stream ecology. J North Am Benthol Soc 16:439–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468029

Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Urban ecology: an international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_12

Munyika S, Kongo V, Kimwaga R (2014) River health assessment using macroinvertebrates and water quality parameters: a case of the Orange River in Namibia. Phys Chem Earth 76–78:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.01.001

Norris RH, Thoms MC (1999) What is river health? Freshw Biol 41:197–209. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00425.x

O’Brien A, Townsend K, Hale R, Sharley D, Pettigrove V (2016) How is ecosystem health defined and measured? A critical review of freshwater and estuarine studies. Ecol Indic 69:722–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.004

Oberdorff T, Pont D, Hugueny B, Belliard J, Berrebi Dit Thomas R, Porcher JP (2002) Development and validation of a fish-based index for the assessment of ‘river health’ in France. BFPP – Bull Fr Pech Prot des Milieux Aquat 405–433. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2002043

Pan G, Xu Y, Yu Z, Song S, Zhang Y (2015) Analysis of river health variation under the background of urbanization based on entropy weight and matter-element model: a case study in Huzhou City in the Yangtze River Delta. China Environ Res 139:31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.02.013

Pinto U, Maheshwari BL, Morris EC (2014) Understanding the relationships among phytoplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and water quality variables in peri-urban river systems. Water Environ Res 86:2279–2293. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143014x13975035526220

Petersen RCJ (1992) The RCE: a riparian, channel, and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshw Biol 27:295–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1992.tb00541.x

Ruaro R, Gubiani ÉA (2013) A scientometric assessment of 30 years of the Index of Biotic Integrity in aquatic ecosystems: applications and main flaws. Ecol Indic 29:105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.016

Shan C, Dong Z, Lu D, Xu C, Wang H, Ling Z, Liu Q (2021) Study on river health assessment based on a fuzzy matter-element extension model. Ecol Indic 127:107742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107742

Sun R, Wei L, Zhang H, Chen L (2020) Acta ecologica sinica. Shengtai Xuebao/ Acta Ecol Sin 40:376–386.  https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201812252802 (In Chinese) 

Sun X, Hu C, Xie J (2012a) Influence analysis of reservoirs on river health. Adv Mater Res 368–373:1241–1244. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.368-373.1241

Sun X, Hu C, Xie J (2012b) Influence analysis of flow-sediment processes on river health. Adv Mater Res 356–360:2389–2392. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.356-360.2389

Tan X, Ma P, Bunn SE, Zhang Q (2015) Development of a benthic diatom index of biotic integrity (BD-IBI) for ecosystem health assessment of human dominant subtropical rivers. China J Environ Manage 151:286–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.048

Terra BDF, Araújo FG (2011) A preliminary fish assemblage index for a transitional river-reservoir system in southeastern Brazil. Ecol Indic 11:874–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.11.006

Uchida N, Kubota K, Aita S, Kazama S (2020) Aquatic insect community structure revealed by eDNA metabarcoding derives indices for environmental assessment. PeerJ 2020:1–15. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9176

Virtanen LK, Soininen J (2016) Temporal variation in community-environment relationships and stream classifications in benthic diatoms: implications for bioassessment. Limnologica 58:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2016.01.003

Voulvoulis N, Arpon KD, Giakoumis T (2017) The EU water framework directive: from great expectations to problems with implementation. Sci Total Environ 575:358–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228

Vugteveen P, Leuven RSEW, Huijbregts MAJ, Lenders HJR (2006) Redefinition and elaboration of river ecosystem health: perspective for river management. Hydrobiologia 565:289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-1920-8

Walsh CJ, Waller KA, Gehling J, Mac Nally R (2007) Riverine invertebrate assemblages are degraded more by catchment urbanisation than by riparian deforestation. Freshw Biol 52:574–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01706.x

Wang S, Zhang Q, Yang T, Zhang L, Li X, Chen J (2019) River health assessment: proposing a comprehensive model based on physical habitat, chemical condition and biotic structure. Ecol Indic 103:446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.013

Wen F, Han Q, Xu J, Hu C, Chen J, Li G, Dong Z, Wang G (2007) Definition and connotation of river health. Adv Water Sci 18:0–10.  https://doi.org/10.14042/j.cnki.32.1309.2007.01.023  (In Chinese)

Wilson MA, Carpenter SR (1999) Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States: 1971–1997. Ecol Appl 9:772–783. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0772:EVOFES]2.0.CO;2

Woznicki SA, Nejadhashemi AP, Tang Y, Wang L (2016) Large-scale climate change vulnerability assessment of stream health. Ecol Indic 69:578–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.002

Wu N, Cai Q, Fohrer N (2012a) Development and evaluation of a diatom-based index of biotic integrity (D-IBI) for rivers impacted by run-of-river dams. Ecol Indic 18:108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.10.013

Wu N, Schmalz B, Fohrer N (2012b) Development and testing of a phytoplankton index of biotic integrity (P-IBI) for a German lowland river. Ecol Indic 13:158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.022

Xu S, Liu Y (2014) Assessment for river health based on variable fuzzy set theory. Water Resour 41:218–224. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0097807814020134

Yang W (2012) Analysis for the impact factors of river health. Adv Mater Res 356–360:693–697. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.356-360.693

Yang Z, Yang K, Su L, Hu H (2020) Two-dimensional grey cloud clustering-fuzzy entropy comprehensive assessment model for river health evaluation. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 26:726–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1536519

Young RG, Matthaei CD, Townsend CR (2008) Organic matter breakdown and ecosystem metabolism: functional indicators for assessing river ecosystem health. J North Am Benthol Soc 27:605–625. https://doi.org/10.1899/07-121.1

Zhang K, Wang J, Ge Y, Xie P, Ma X, Zhou Q (2021a) Health assessment of the Hi River based on benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) and the effects of different months and years. Shengtai Xuebao/ Acta Ecol Sin 41:5868–5878. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb202002280365

Zhang Z, Li Y, Wang X, Li H, Zheng F, Liao Y, Tang N, Chen G, Yang C (2021b) Assessment of river health based on a novel multidimensional similarity cloud model in the Lhasa River. Qinghai-Tibet Plateau J Hydrol 603:127100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127100

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the anonymous reviewers and editors for their suggestions and comments on this manuscript.

This project was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDA23030203).

Author information

Ce Wen and Zhuo Zhen contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

Key Laboratory of Urban Environment and Health, Fujian Key Laboratory of Watershed Ecology, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen, 361021, China

Ce Wen, Zhuo Zhen, Ling Zhang & Changzhou Yan

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China

Ce Wen & Ling Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Ce Wen and Ling Zhang performed the study; Ce Wen and Zhuo Zhen analyzed the data; Ce Wen and Zhuo Zhen wrote the manuscript. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Changzhou Yan .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication.

All the authors have agreed to publish this article.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1.31 MB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wen, C., Zhen, Z., Zhang, L. et al. A bibliometric analysis of river health based on publications in the last three decades. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30 , 15400–15413 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23267-3

Download citation

Received : 13 May 2022

Accepted : 21 September 2022

Published : 28 September 2022

Issue Date : February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23267-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• River health
• River health assessment
• Bibliometrics
• Web of Science Core Collection
• Research hotspots
• Research trends
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Content Guidelines
• Privacy Policy

Upload Your Knowledge on Environmental Pollution:

• Essay on River Water Pollution in India (with statistics)

In India, river pollution has crossed the mark of crisis. Three important river systems of the north like Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra are suffering from pollution.

Fresh water is only 2.7 per cent out of total water available in nature. The remaining 97.3 per cent is saline water. Out of the total fresh water (2.7%), 0.003 per cent water exists in rivers, whose total volume is 108 cubic km while the volume of water existing in lakes is 1, 26,070 cubic km. Thus, the water deposit in lakes is more than the water deposit in rivers.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

But even though water of rivers is lesser than that of lakes, river water is more important because it is distributed over a larger part. River water continues flowing and does not remain in any river for more than two weeks whereas, water of lakes remains there for years.

River water is used to a maximum extent because of its common reach to the biotic community. Maximum economic activities concentrate around rivers. At present, 50 per cent population of the world resides in 250 river basins, where they use river water for different activities including agriculture and industry. In India, dense population is settled near the banks of rivers Ganga, Yamuna, Damodar, Hooghly, Cauvery, Godavari and Chambal. This has polluted these rivers to a large extent. Rhine river of Europe, literal meaning of which is pure (Rhine=Pure), is polluted to a great extent.

In Ruhar river basin, at the junction of river Rhine and river Ruhar, death is caused by bathing and swimming there. Every hour 1,200 ton polluted salts are disposed off in river Rhine. Due to pollution, Rhine is called “Europe’s Sewage Ditch’. Water of river Rhine sustains about 20 million persons who are suffering health hazards continuously due to pollution of water.

The main river Seine of France on whose banks the city of Paris is located is being polluted incessantly. Heaps of dead fish and sewage foam are spreading near its banks. According to one study, in the total length from Paris on river Seine to La Harre (Port located in the English Channel), about one million cubic metre polluted sewage water is disposed. Similarly in Po river of Italy, about 300 million ton wastes are disposed off every year. Rivers of Scandinavian region are being polluted by acid rain caused due to winds coming from the side of Great Britain and Germany, which carry sulphuric acid in them.

In India, river pollution has crossed the mark of crisis. Three important river systems of the north like Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra are suffering from pollution. Maximum populated areas of the world are settled in all the three basins. These river systems originating from snow peaks of Himalayas are the basis of prosperity of India in different forms.

In southern India, river Godavari, Cauvery, Krishna and Mahanadi are highly polluted. Rivers of India are no more rivers but have been converted into filthy drains. The Comptroller and Auditor General (GAG) of India has entrusted the responsibility of examination of quality of water to the Environ­mental Research Laboratory (ERL), Lucknow.

ERL has divided tested water in five categories, i.e.. A, B, C, D and E. Description of these categories is given below:

1. Category (A): Suitable for Drinking

2. Category (B): Suitable for bathing, swimming and entertainment

3. Category (C): Potable after traditional treatment

4. Category (D): Suitable for fish and forest animals

5. Category (E): Suitable for irrigation, industrial cooling and waste disposal

In India, river pollution has extended in every context. In the hilly portion of Kulu Valley of Himachal Pradesh, water level of river Vyas has degenerated from ‘A’ level to ‘B’ level, though Manali is a famous tourist place of Kulu Valley. Lakhs of tourists from foreign and local places come here.

Due to increasing terrorist activities in Kashmir, the number of tourists has increased in Kulu valley. The water of river Beas is used for drinking purposes in Manali and Kulu but the attention of planners is not drawn towards the hotel and restaurant business, developing at a very fast rate where there is no proper arrangement for disposal of sewerage and waste. Plastic and other non-perishable materials are continuously disposed off in this river.

Pollution in River Ganga :

Water of river Ganga, which is considered as nectar in India, has become poisonous today. What to talk of drinking, it cannot even be used for bathing. A dangerous virus named Bacteriophase is found in the Ganga. The quantity of mud is increasing continuously. The cities of Haridwar, Bijnaur, Farukhabad, Kanpur, Allahabad, Banaras, Ghazipur, Ballia, Chhapra, Patna, Barauni and Munger are settled on the banks of river Ganga, dispose of sewage and industrial waste in the Ganga, spreading dangerous pollution.

Due to presence of such pollutant materials, ERL laboratory of Lucknow has placed water of river Ganga in ‘D’ category, according to which it water is not suitable for drinking and bathing. It can be used only for fisheries and forest creatures. Our relation with river Ganga is also from the historical point of view and not just from the religious angle. Our civilization and devel­opment is connected with this river basin. Jawaharlal Nehru had remarked that “The Ganga is Life of India”. In the beginning, the water of river Ganga was very pure, soft and healthy.

Our ancestors had framed rules for preserving the purity of its water but revolu­tionary economic development and increasing population during the 20th century have broken these rules. Brahm Puran scriptures written between 325 to 400 AD clearly stated that “Keep Ganga clean”. Throwing dirty water, throwing flowers after worship, washing filthy clothes, throwing of hair, rowdyism, doing vulgar activities, throwing of dirty clothes etc. were prohibited.

We could not think of pollution of river Ganga 1,500 years back. Today, as a result of it, water of river Ganga is going beyond the reach of the biotic community and we have played an important role in this. Mainstream of river Ganga flows through four states, i.e., Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal, but its companion rivers bring water from Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

In the Ganga, mainly silt, biotic and chemical pollutants are found. Silt is received from soil through soil erosion. About 150 crore ton silt is deposited in the Ganga every year. Soil erosion can be controlled by dense tree plantation in watershed areas. This can help get rid of the silt problem. Organic and chemical pollutants come from cities situated near the banks of river Ganga.

The waste of 29 big cities having population of more than one lakh and 23 medium cities having population ranging between 50,000 to one lakh situated on the banks of river, is mixing in it. In most of these cities, there is no sewerage system. Chemical pollutants from waste coming out of the industrial units situated on banks of the river also mix with the water polluting it.

The Ganga flows through densely populated areas of India. Among the big industries located on the banks of Ganga River, 86 are in Uttar Pradesh, three are in Bihar and 43 are in West Bengal. In Uttar Pradesh, 59 out of the 86 industries are leather industries, which dispose off poisonous chemicals in heavy quantities. Poisonous indus­trial wastes including acid, alkaline, sulphate, nitrate etc. also directly mix in the Ganga without any treatment.

Maximum domestic waste mixes in Ganga in West Bengal. Thus, on an average, among the pollutants mixing in Ganga, 80 per cent is domestic waste and 20 per cent is industrial waste. Domestic filth of the metropolitan city of Kolkata and the waste of nearby textile industries, paper industries, tanneries etc. is disposed off in the Bhagirathi-Hooghly river.

Ganga Action Plan:

Ganga Action Plan was started in 1986 for control of water pollution in the Ganga. The main function of this plan was to make river Ganga free from disposal of waste of the cities settled on the banks of the river. The scheme is to make Ganga pollution free from Rishikesh to Kolkata. The Central Pollution Control Board had prepared a five year project for the action plan in 1984. The Central Ganga Authority was formed for its implementation in 1985 and Ganga Action Plan was then launched to make the Ganga pollution free.

First Phase of Ganga Action Plan:

The first phase of the Ganga Action Plan (1986-1993) was inaugurated by late Rajiv Gandhi at the Rajendra Prasad Ghat of Banaras. A National Protection Agency was constituted for its implementation. During the first phase of Ganga Action Plan, 261 schemes involving an expenditure of 462 crores were undertaken in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal. Up to the year 1999, 254 schemes had been completed. Under this plan, a scheme was prepared to divert 134 million litre out of 873 million litre waste water disposed by 25 cities declared as ‘A’ class in 1985.

The objectives of Ganga Action Plan are as under:

1. Convert drains carrying filthy water from different cities settled on the banks of river Ganga and divert sewage water to sewerage treatment plants. After treatment in refining plants, use water in fish farms and for irrigation and generate power from the remaining waste after treatment.

2. Establish sewage treatment plants in cities settled on the banks of river Ganga.

3. Construction of community latrines in cities located on the banks of river Ganga so that most of the sewage can be controlled at the source itself. Construction of electrified cremation grounds and suitable disposal areas for urban wastes.

4. Prevent situation pollution by controlling soil erosion from banks of the river.

5. Create awareness regarding pollution of river Ganga and make people conscious about its purification.

Special stations have been created at 27 places starting from Rishikesh in Uttaranchal to Utuberia in West Bengal for testing the quality of water of the river Ganga during the first phase of Ganga Action Plan. These stations are being operated by experts from Bharat Heavy Electricals (BHEL) Haridwar, National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) Nagpur, Patna University Research Institute etc.

Great achievements were expected from Ganga Action Plan in the first phase from 1986 to 1993, but in spite of all such great works on a large scale executed during such a long period, river Ganga has not been purified. In the name of making Ganga pollution free, hundreds of crores of rupees were wasted in the polluted water of the river, also starting economic pollution.

Ecologists also think that the condition of the ecology has deteriorated during the operation of Ganga Action Plan. Since the first phase of the Ganga Action Plan could not prove effective, the Government of India started the second phase of the Action Plan in the year 2001. The role of Uttar Pradesh Water Corporation, Central Pollution Board and Central Public Works Department and PWD still remain important in carrying out the plan.

Yamuna Pollution :

The Yamuna River too has changed from its original form. In the ancient period, its water was called ‘Water of Faith’ due to its purity, but today its water is not considered fit for drinking or bathing. The latest research was conducted by Environment Research Laboratory- (ERL) Lucknow, as reported by Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. At present, Yamuna water is suitable only for fish culture and for consumption by animals.

Yamuna is the main linking river of Ganga. It originates from the western slope of Bandar Poonchh of Yamunotri glacier. After starting from Yamunotri, it travels 1384 kms and joins river Ganga near Allahabad. During this flow route, Yamuna River is polluted by many polluting sources. Yamuna carries flow of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in large quantity from farm lands of Haryana. Not only this sewage water of Yamuna Nagar, Panipat, Sonepat, Karnal, Delhi, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Mathura, Agra and Itawa etc. cities also mixes in Yamuna.

Delhi Municipal Corporation contributes the most in polluting Yamuna River. Wastes and excreta water in large quantity from Okhla Industrial Estate is disposed off in Yamuna River. Apart from Delhi, disposal of sewage in large quantity is also done by Mathura and Agra. Like Delhi, industrial wastes along with sewage water pollute Yamuna here also. In Delhi, Yamuna water contains Benzene Hexa Chloride (BHC) at the rate of 218 nenogram per litre whereas, in Agra it contains BHC at the rate of 1733 nenogram per litre, which is six times more than that found in Delhi.

Due to eutrophication in Yamuna, the water has become greenish. Eutrophication is the creation of favourable conditions for development of plants. Increase in concentration of nutritive elements is a favourable activity for eutrophication of plants due to which maximum growth takes place in algae and phytoplankton. As a result of it, the water becomes greenish.

Yamuna Action Plan :

For making river Ganga free from pollution, its companion rivers were also placed on priority to make them pollution-free. Yamuna Action Plan was sanctioned in April 1993 to keep Yamuna clean. It was estimated to spend Rs 510 crores on this Action Plan. Different schemes covering 21 cities of Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh are being implemented to remove pollution from the water of river Yamuna.

Damodar River Pollution:

Damodar River is being affected by the big industries and mineral environment in Jharkhand and West Bengal. Industrial areas of Dhanbad, Sindri, Bokaro, Asansol, Burnpur, Raniganj and Durgapur are situated on its banks. Dhanbad coal area has the biggest coal fields of India spread over 450 sq. km. Coal ash in a large quantity from here is spreading a thick layer over the water of river Damodar. Besides the above rivers of Northern India, rivers Godavari, Chambal, Cauvery, Krishna and Mahanadi in South India have also come in the grip of pollution. To keep all these rivers free from pollution, various schemes are being executed with the assistance from many countries.

Related Articles:

• 6 Major Polluted Rivers of India

Upload and Share Your Article:

• Description *
• Author Name *
• Author Email Id. (required) *
• File Drop files here or Select files Max. file size: 128 MB, Max. files: 5.
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Privacy Overview

• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Brasil (Portuguese)
• India (English)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• Feature Stories
• Explore All
• Subscribe page
• Submissions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertising
• Wild Madagascar
• Selva tropicales
• Mongabay.org
• Tropical Forest Network

Lack of research as contaminated Yaqui River poses health risks

Share this article

If you liked this story, share it with other people.

• Amid a water crisis, Yaqui communities in the northwestern Mexican state of Sonora lack safe drinking water due to contamination by arsenic, salinity and heavy metals as unveiled by several studies over the years.
• The water crisis, driven by decades of overexploitation, unequal water distribution and drought, intensifies contamination, particularly affecting coastal areas with saltwater intrusion and surpassing safe limits in certain regions.
• Members of the Yaqui tribe blame mining operations and agribusiness for the contamination, but there are few studies to confirm their source.
• They argue contamination has led to diabetes and health complications among community members, as well as cultural impacts.

YAQUI VALLEY, Mexico — In June, residents of communities along the Yaqui River found various dead tilapia, carp and catfish floating on the banks of the river. According to Guadalupe Flores Maldonado, this was not a singular event. Fish die-offs have been happening for over a month now.

Health officials said it was because of the heat, said Maldondo, a local from the Yaqui village of Loma de Bácum. “However, the heat has always been like this here, and there has never been a fish die-off. That makes us suspect that there is contamination.”

For generations, the waters of the Yaqui River ran so clean that the Yaqui peoples could fish from its banks and drink safely from the stream. But in recent decades, a large portion of the river has dried up and the little water that remains is contaminated. Locals point to a host of unresolved problems, including overexploitation, dams and aqueducts diverting water, drought, mining waste, agrochemical abuse and poor waste management.

Few scientific studies that analyze this contamination, its sources and its impact on locals exist, leaving a gap in assessing this environmental problem. Locals whom Mongabay spoke with say they feel left behind by the government and health officials.

Maldonado first noticed a change in the quality of water in 2016, when several large companies began mining operations in the upper course of the Yaqui River. Over the years, arsenic contamination produced by these companies has leached into the water, leading to health complications and other impacts in Yaqui villages downstream, he said.

“In recent times, there have been more deaths from cancer but both the Ministry of Health and the Federal Commission for Protection against Health Risks say it is due to other causes,” Maldonado told Mongabay over WhatsApp audio messages. “We are trying to get all the mining companies that are bordering our territory to go farther away because their toxic waste goes into the subsoil and that contaminates us.”

But overall water problems in the Yaqui Valley came way before the mining companies. Ever since the mid-20 th century when the Mexican government began developing the Yaqui River dam system, which is an extensive arrangement of imposing concrete dams that stopped the river’s flow, the Yaquis have been largely left without water . In addition, locals complain that intensive agricultural producers who use large quantities of fertilizers have affected the little water that is left.

Tracking sources of contamination

There are no mining projects inside the Yaqui tribe’s territory. However, in the upper course of the Yaqui River, many kinds of minerals are mined along the river by transnational companies, including gold, silver, copper and lithium . Operations are carried out by the Canadian mining companies Pan American Silver and Kootenay Silver Inc., as well as several national companies.

Mongabay found no evidence that suggests these companies are directly responsible for the contamination in the Yaqui territory.

“In the middle basin of the Yaqui River, contamination has been associated with mining activity,” particularly mercury contamination, Martín Enrique Jara Marini, senior researcher at the Food and Development Research Center (CIAD), told Mongabay. In the lower basin where the Yaqui territory is located, the contamination is because of the large amounts of agrochemicals used, he said. “However, more precise studies are required to determine if this is really true.”

Although the Yaqui Valley is a semidesert, it’s considered one of the country’s most productive breadbaskets. Research has shown that intensive agricultural production contributes to poor water quality in the area because the large quantities of fertilizers applied, such as phosphorus, leach into water sources.

“These are places of very intensive agriculture where crops are grown several times a year in several agricultural cycles,” Maria Vicenta Esteller, a researcher at the Inter-American Institute of Technology and Water Sciences at the Autonomous University of Mexico State, told Mongabay. “The typical crop in the Yaqui Valley is wheat, so almost all of the companies have wheat crops, and when it isn’t the wheat season, they grow chile peppers and vegetables as well as a few fruit trees.”

One study found that, although minimal, the levels of phosphorus in the lower basin of the Yaqui River exceeded the recommended values for the protection of aquatic life. Too much phosphorus can stimulate the excess growth of algae, which leads to low dissolved oxygen levels, a blockage of sunlight needed by organisms and plants in the water and a degraded habitat for macroinvertebrates and other aquatic life.

Near the coast, shrimp farms dump waste into the Guasimas Bay, where the Yaqui River once poured into the Gulf of California. The contamination is made up of organic waste, chemicals that are added to the shrimp’s food and antibiotics. Mario Luna Romero, a spokesperson from the Yaqui community, said the shrimp farms have become a problem because they release contamination in the bay. In the past, Yaquis could fish and collect clams and put them straight on a plate. Now, the shells come out dirty because of all the pollution.

“It is true that [shrimp farms] are a problem because they use a lot of water, which is recirculated,” Vicenta explained. “[They] take water from the bay, put it in the farms, and a large volume of water from the shrimp farms is dumped back into the sea or, in this case, the bay.”

Impact on Yaqui community

According to José Moctezuma from the National Institute of Anthropology and History, due to the lack of water and contamination, the Yaquis have been unable to cultivate culturally important foods , such as wheat, corn and beans. This has led to a dependency on junk food, which has caused high rates of diabetes and other health issues among Yaqui peoples.

“A series of foods, both animals and vegetables, are disappearing or becoming contaminated in such a way that no one grows anything anymore,” he told Mongabay over a video call.

For the Yaquis, the river represents much more than production and profits; its decline threatens the survival of certain elements of Yaqui culture. “It has always been a connection with the spiritual,” Luna told Mongabay. “Water, due to its ability to evaporate, could then be a conduit to communicate with the gods or with your loved ones who died.”

In one study , researchers assessed the drinking water in three Yaqui villages — Vícam, Potam and Cócorit — and found high levels of arsenic, which is naturally occurring but can also be released into the environment through human activities , such as mining and agriculture. It is number one on the priority list of hazardous substances issued by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

According to the researchers, Potam showed the highest concentration of arsenic, exceeding both Mexican and international standards. Vícam and Cócorit were within the national standards, but both exceeded the international limit.

Exposure to arsenic is linked to a variety of cancers in humans, as well as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, kidney and liver problems and other health complications. Other studies from 2019 , 2018 , 2013 and earlier showed similar results.

“The main impact [of contamination] is environmental — with pollution, aquatic fauna and flora are lost, along with the ecosystem services the river provides,” Briseida Lopez Alvarez, a researcher at the College of San Luis, told Mongabay. “Likewise, water cannot be used for the population without treatment, nor for recreational or cultural activities. This last aspect is vital for the Yaqui peoples.”

Banner image: A traditional Yaqui ceremonial hut in Vícam which is made from alamo — a tree threatened by the lack of water in the region — mesquite (Prosopis) and giant reed (Arundo donax). Image by Abimael Ochoa Hernández for Mongabay.

As drought parches Mexico, a Yaqui water defender fights for a sacred river

Almazán, B.R., Esteller, M.V., Garrido-Hoyos, S.E. et al. (2023) Nitrogen and phosphorus budget in an intensive irrigation area and effects on littoral water and groundwater (Yaqui Valley, Northwestern Mexico). Environ Monitoring Assessment, 195, 147. doi: 10.1007/s10661-022-10721-5

Vega-Millán, C.B., Dévora-Figueroa, A.G., Burgess, J.L. et al. (2021) . Inflammation biomarkers associated with arsenic exposure by drinking water and respiratory outcomes in indigenous children from three Yaqui villages in southern Sonora, México. Environmental Science Pollution Research, 28, 34355–34366. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-13070-x

García-Rico, L., Meza-Figueroa, D., Jay Gandolfi, A. et al. (2019). Health Risk Assessment and Urinary Excretion of Children Exposed to Arsenic through Drinking Water and Soils in Sonora, Mexico. Biological Trace Element Research, 187, 9–21. doi: 10.1007/s12011-018-1347-5

Maldonado Escalante, J. F., Meza Figueroa, D., Dévora Figueroa, A. G., García Rico, L., Burgess, J. L., Lantz, R. C., … Meza Montenegro, M. M. (2018). An integrated health risk assessment of indigenous children exposed to arsenic in Sonora, Mexico. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal , 25 (3), 706–721. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2018.1449098

Burgess, J., Kurzius-Spencer, M., O’Rourke, M. et al. (2013). Environmental arsenic exposure and serum matrix metalloproteinase-9. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 23, 163–169. doi: 10.1038/jes.2012.107

Meza-Montenegro, M. M., Jay Gandolfi, A., Santana-Alcántar, M. E., et al. (2012). Metals in residential soils and cumulative risk assessment in Yaqui and Mayo agricultural valleys, northern Mexico. Science of the Total Environment, 433: 472-481. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.083

FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.

To wipe or to wash? That is the question

Toilet paper: Environmentally impactful, but alternatives are rolling out

Rolling towards circularity? Tracking the trace of tires

Getting the bread: What’s the environmental impact of wheat?

Consumed traces the life cycle of a variety of common consumer products from their origins, across supply chains, and waste streams. The circular economy is an attempt to lessen the pace and impact of consumption through efforts to reduce demand for raw materials by recycling wastes, improve the reusability/durability of products to limit pollution, and […]

Free and open access to credible information

Latest articles.

Bangkok turns to urban forests to beat worsening floods

Bats & bees help ni-Vanuatu predict storms — but will climate change interfere?

In Venezuela, natural regeneration helps restore a threatened cloud forest

Successful Thai community-based hornbill conservation faces uncertain future

The Itombwe owl: Two birds and an identity crisis

Wildlife busts in Malaysia’s Taman Negara show progress, and gaps, in enforcement

Action at Scale: Elizabeth Yee on The Rockefeller Foundation’s Climate Strategy

you're currently offline

Mammography Returns to the Ridge at Feather River Health Center

Sep 10, 2024

Hanging on one wall of the new Women’s Imaging center at Adventist Health’s Feather River Health Center is a framed quilt featuring colorful flowers blooming over layers of intricate, black-and-white floral patterns. For Valerie Cleary, RT, the center’s lead mammography technologist, the quilt is a strong reminder of the Ridge’s resilience. It originally hung in the mammography center in Paradise as a gift from the local quilt shop, Morning Star Quilts, and was carefully preserved – waiting for a new place to be seen and enjoyed.

“This quilt survived the fire, and has now come full circle with us,” Valerie noted. She worked at the previous mammography center since 2003. The past few years, with no mammography services being offered in Butte County, she has commuted to work at other Adventist Health locations. Now, she has returned to Paradise to oversee mammography and DEXA Scans (the latter are used to measure bone density and detect osteoporosis) at the new Women’s Imaging center. Bringing these services back to the community has been an important part of Adventist Health’s commitment to caring for this community.

“For the last few years, patients have had to go off the ridge to obtain a mammogram,” she shared. “Women tend to hate having mammograms done,” Valerie continued, “so any kind of excuse or barrier makes it even harder.

Cleary said it’s critically important for women to get regular mammograms: “It’s essential for women—and even men, as some do get breast cancer—to be aware of their breast health,” she explained. “The main reason is to catch breast cancer early. People need to keep up on their monthly self-exams, regular check-ups, and annual mammograms.

As a veteran mammographer, Cleary has seen the techniques evolve, and said the Paradise center uses top-of-the-line tech: 3D imaging, which includes tomosynthesis. This enables the scans to take images of 1-millimeter slices of the breast, so the doctor can look at all the layers, which means the scans provide more details and can catch earlier evidence of anything that might cause concerns.

The Women’s Imaging center at Adventist Health’s Feather River Health Center (5125 Skyway, Paradise, CA) will host an Open House on October 17, 2024 from 4 - 6 p.m. Take a look at all of the services offered at Adventist Health Feather River.

Related articles

September 10, 2024

Recruitment Fraud Alert

August 30, 2024

Adventist Health Castle Introduces New Mammography System to Hawai‘i

June 18, 2024

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience, understand site usage, measure service effectiveness, and tailor content and ads to your interests. By clicking "Accept" or continuing to browse our site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For details, see our Website Privacy Policy .

Leadership, employees and United Steel Workers representatives with three U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management Paducah Site contractors — Four Rivers Nuclear Partnership, Swift & Staley and Mid-America Conversion Services — are pictured after receiving the 2024 Kentucky Labor Cabinet Governor's Safety and Health Award.

PADUCAH, Ky. — In a significant recognition of excellence coming from the top level of state government, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (EM) Paducah Site contractors Four Rivers Nuclear Partnership, Swift & Staley and Mid-America Conversion Services have been honored with the 2024 Kentucky Labor Cabinet Governor's Safety and Health Award for their exceptional performance and commitment to creating a safe work environment.

The award spotlights organizations that have demonstrated exemplary safety practices and a commitment to protecting their workers. By achieving this honor, the three EM contractors set a high standard for safety in their industry, highlighting the importance of vigilance and continuous improvement in workplace health and safety.

“The Governor's Safety and Health Award is a testament to the outstanding safety culture cultivated by the Department of Energy,” EM Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office Manager Joel Bradburne said. “Their achievements in maintaining a safe work environment demonstrates the unwavering commitment to the health and safety of our site workforce.”

The three Paducah contractors were honored for achieving a significant safety milestone: surpassing 3 million safe work hours collectively without a lost workday in 2023. This accomplishment underscores the dedication to a safe work culture at Paducah and recognizes the workforce for its commitment to safety.

“The dedication shown by the workforce at the site in achieving such a high safety record reflects their proactive approach to workplace safety,” EM Paducah Site Lead April Ladd said. “Their efforts not only protect their employees but also contribute to the overall success of the DOE mission at the site.”

The award, presented annually, was given to 42 companies in Kentucky for exceptional performance in safety, underscoring the importance of prioritizing the well-being of employees throughout the commonwealth.

-Contributors: Kearney Canter, Dylan Nichols, Amanda Scott

To receive the latest news and updates about the Office of Environmental Management, submit your e-mail address. 

Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History Essays

Saint petersburg.

Ewer and basin (lavabo set)

Probably made at Chisinau Court Workshop

Andrei Nikiforovich Voronikhin

Alexander Danilovich Menshikov (1673–1729)

Unknown Artist, Swiss, Austrian, or German, active Russia ca. 1703–4

Samuel Margas Jr.

The Empress Elizabeth of Russia (1709–1762) on Horseback, Attended by a Page

Attributed to Georg Christoph Grooth

Table snuffbox

Niello scenes after a print entitled Naufrage (Shipwreck) by Jacques de Lajoüe , published in Paris 1736

Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) (1694–1778)

Jean Antoine Houdon

Imperial Porcelain Manufactory, St. Petersburg

Cup with cover and saucer

Two bottle coolers

Zacharias Deichman the Elder

Catherine II The Great, Empress of Russia

Jean-Baptiste Nini

Coffee service

Johan Henrik Blom

Tureen with cover

Tureen with cover and stand

Jacques-Nicolas Roettiers

Possibly by Pierre-François-Mathis de Beaulieu (for Jean Georges)

Pair of scallop-shell dishes

Sugar bowl (from a tea service)

Workshop of David Roentgen

Beaker and saucer

David Roentgen and Company in Saint Petersburg

Johann Friedrich Anthing

Drop-front desk (secrétaire à abattant or secrétaire en cabinet)

Attributed to Martin Carlin

Pair of Flintlock Pistols of Empress Catherine the Great (1729–1796)

Johan Adolph Grecke

Gardner Manufactory

Center table

Imperial Armory, Tula (south of Moscow), Russia

Female Shaman

Pair of vases

Nikolai Stepanovich Vereshchagin

Jugate busts of Czarevitch Paul and Maria Feodorovna of Russia

James Tassie

Wolfram Koeppe Department of European Sculpture and Decorative Arts, The Metropolitan Museum of Art

October 2003

The Birth of Saint Petersburg Russia, or “Muscovy” as it was often called, had rarely been considered a part of Europe before the reign of Czar Peter I (Piotr Alexeievich), known as Peter the Great (r. 1682–1725). His supremacy marked the beginning of the country’s “Westernization,” whereby the political, economic, and cultural norms of the western European monarchies would become the basis for “civilizing” Russia. A radical transformation was needed to launch Russia into the modern world, a transformation later called the Petrine Revolution. The young czar, feeling oppressed by the medieval traditions and ecclesiastical patriarchy of seventeenth-century Moscow, wanted to Westernize Russia in a hurry, defying the sluggish pace of history.

Saint Petersburg was born on May 16, 1703 (May 5 by the old Julian Russian calendar). On that day, on a small island on the north bank of the Neva River, Peter cut two pieces of turf and placed them cross-wise. The setting was inauspicious. The area was a swamp that remained frozen from early November to March, with an annual average of 104 days of rain and 74 days of snow. The army, under the command of Alexander Menshikov ( 1996.7 ), had conquered the region shortly before. To show his gratitude, the czar later appointed Menshikov the first governor-general of Saint Petersburg. The fortification of the territory kept the Swedish enemy at bay and secured for Russia permanent access to the Baltic Sea. The partially ice-free harbor would be crucial to further economic development. All buildings on the site were erected on wooden poles driven into the marshy, unstable ground. Stones were a rare commodity in Russia, and about as valuable as precious metals.

The Dutch name “Piterburkh” (later changed to the German version, “Petersburg”) embodied the czar’s fascination with Holland and its small-scale urban architecture. He disliked patriarchal court ceremony and felt at ease in the bourgeois domestic life that he experienced during his travels throughout Europe on “the Great Embassy” (1697–98). However, the primary purpose of this voyage was to acquire firsthand knowledge of shipbuilding—his personal passion—and to learn about progressive techniques and Western ideas.

The victory over the Swedish army at Poltava in June 1709 elevated Russia to the rank of a European power, no longer to be ignored. Peter triumphed: “Now with God’s help the final stone in the foundation of Saint Petersburg has been laid.” By 1717, the city’s population of about 8,000 had tripled, and grew to around 40,000 by the time of Peter’s death in 1725. Saint Petersburg had become the commercial, industrial, administrative, and residential “metropolis” of Russia. By the 1790s, it had surpassed Moscow as the empire’s largest urban vicinity and was hailed as the “Venice of the North,” an allusion to the waterway system around the local “Grand Canal,” the Neva River.

Peter the Great’s Successors The short reign of Peter’s second wife, Empress Catherine I (r. 1725–27), who depended on her long-time favorite Menshikov, saw the reinstatement of the luxurious habits of the former imperial household. The archaic and ostentatious court display in the Byzantine tradition  that Peter had so despised was now to be restored under the pretext of glorifying his legacy. Enormous sums of money were lavished on foreign luxury items, demonstrating the court’s new international status and its observance of western European manners ( 68.141.133 ).

During the reigns of Empress Anna Ioannovna (r. 1730–40), niece of Peter I ( 1982.60.330a,b ), and her successor Elizabeth (Elizaveta Petrovna, r. 1741–62; 1978.554.2 ), Peter’s daughter, Saint Petersburg was transformed into a Baroque extravaganza through the talents of architect Bartolomeo Francesco Rastrelli (1700–1771) and other Western and Russian artisans. Foreign powers began to recognize Russia’s importance and competed for closer diplomatic relations. Foreign immigrants increased much faster than the local population, as scholars, craftsmen, artisans, and specialists of all kinds flocked to the country, and especially to Saint Petersburg ( 65.47 ; 1982.60.172,.173 ; 1995.327 ).

Catherine the Great (r. 1762–96) In a coup d’état assisted by the five Orloff brothers ( 33.165.2a–c ; 48.187.386,.387 ), Catherine II overthrew her husband, the ill-fated Peter III (r. 1762) and became empress. Catherine saw herself as the political heir of Peter the Great. A German-born princess of Anhalt-Zerbst who, after her marriage, became more Russian than any native, Catherine aimed at completing Peter’s legacy ( 52.189.11 ; 48.73.1 ). Having lived in isolation in the shadow of Elizabeth I since her marriage to the grand duke in 1745, the time had come to satisfy her thirst for life and her insatiable quest for culture and international recognition. An admirer of the Enlightenment and devoted aficionada of Voltaire’s writings, Catherine stimulated his cult in Russia ( 1972.61 ). In response, the French philosopher dedicated a poem to the czarina; her reply, dated October 15, 1763, initiated a correspondence that influenced the empress on many matters until Voltaire’s death in 1778. The hothouse cultural climate of Saint Petersburg during Catherine’s reign can be compared to the artistic and intellectual ferment in New York City in the second half of the twentieth century.

Catherine’s desire to enhance her fame and her claim to the throne was immortalized by her own witty play on words in Latin: “Petro Primo / Catharina Secunda” (To Peter the First / from Catherine the Second). This she had inscribed on the vast lump of granite in the form of a wave supporting the Bronze Horseman on the banks of the Neva in front of Saint Isaac’s Cathedral in Saint Petersburg. This triple-lifesize equestrian figure of Peter the Great took the French sculptor Falconet twelve years to complete, until it was finally cast—after three attempts—in 1782.

Catherine had military expansion plans for Russia and a cultural vision for its capital Saint Petersburg. Above all, she knew how to attract devoted supporters. Only nine days after the overthrow of her husband, Catherine wrote to Denis Diderot, offering to print his famous Encyclopédie , which had been banned in France. Catherine recognized the power of art to demonstrate political and social maturity. She acquired entire collections of painting ( Watteau , for example), sculpture, and objects. The empress avoided anything that could be called mediocre or small. With the help of sophisticated advisors, such as Prince Dmitrii Golitsyn, her ambassador in Paris, Denis Diderot, Falconet, and the illustrious Baron Friedrich Melchior von Grimm, the empress assembled the core of today’s State Hermitage Museum. Catherine favored luxury goods from all over Europe ( 33.165.2a–c ; 48.187.386,.387 ; 17.190.1158 ). She commissioned Sèvres porcelain and Wedgwood pottery as well as hundreds of pieces of ingeniously conceived furniture from the German manufactory of David Roentgen in Neuwied ( 48.73.1 ). Furthermore, she encouraged and supported Russian enterprises and craftsmen, like local silversmiths ( 47.51.1–.5 ; 1981.367.1,.2 ) and the Imperial Porcelain Manufactory ( 1982.60.171 ; 1982.60.177,.178 ; 1982.60.175 ), as well as privately owned manufactories ( 1982.60.158 ). Catherine especially liked the sparkling decorative products of the Tula armory steel workshop ( 2002.115 ), genuine Russian art forms with a fairy-tale-like appearance, and in 1775 merged her large collection of Tula objects with the imperial crown jewels in a newly constructed gallery at the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg.

Catherine’s son and successor Paul I (Pavel Petrovich, r. 1796–1801) disliked his mother and her aesthetic sensibility ( 1998.13.1,.2 ). As grand duke, he had spent most of his time with his second wife Maria Feodorovna ( 1999.525 ) outside of Saint Petersburg, in Gatchina Palace and Pavlovsk Palace. These they transformed into the finest Neoclassical architectural gems in Europe ( 1976.155.110 ; 2002.115 ).

Koeppe, Wolfram. “Saint Petersburg.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History . New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/stpt/hd_stpt.htm (October 2003)

Further Reading

Cracraft, James. The Petrine Revolution in Russian Imagery . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Koeppe, Wolfram, and Marina Nudel. "An Unsuspected Bust of Alexander Menshikov." Metropolitan Museum Journal 35 (2000), pp. 161–77.

Shvidkovsky, Dmitri, and Alexander Orloff. St. Petersburg: Architecture of the Tsars . New York: Abbeville, 1995.

Additional Essays by Wolfram Koeppe

• Koeppe, Wolfram. “ Abraham and David Roentgen .” (June 2013)
• Koeppe, Wolfram. “ Hungarian Silver .” (February 2016)
• Koeppe, Wolfram. “ Collecting for the Kunstkammer .” (October 2002)

Related Essays

• Byzantium (ca. 330–1453)
• Sèvres Porcelain in the Nineteenth Century
• Abraham and David Roentgen
• Antoine Watteau (1684–1721)
• The Decoration of Arms and Armor
• East and West: Chinese Export Porcelain
• Edward Lycett (1833–1910)
• Empire Style, 1800–1815
• European Tapestry Production and Patronage, 1600–1800
• French Porcelain in the Eighteenth Century
• French Silver in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
• From Italy to France: Gardens in the Court of Louis XIV and After
• German and Austrian Porcelain in the Eighteenth Century
• James McNeill Whistler (1834–1903)
• James McNeill Whistler (1834–1903) as Etcher
• The Neoclassical Temple
• Neoclassicism
• Northwest Coast Indians Musical Instruments
• Venice in the Eighteenth Century

List of Rulers

• List of Rulers of Europe
• Central Europe (including Germany), 1600–1800 A.D.
• Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, 1600–1800 A.D.
• France, 1600–1800 A.D.
• Iran, 1600–1800 A.D.
• Low Countries, 1600–1800 A.D.
• 17th Century A.D.
• 18th Century A.D.
• Architecture
• Baroque Art
• Eastern Europe
• French Literature / Poetry
• Gilt Silver
• Scandinavia

Artist or Maker

• Anthing, Johann Friedrich
• Beaulieu, Pierre-François-Mathis de
• Blom, Johan Henrik
• Bouillat, Edme François, I
• Carlin, Martin
• Chisinau Court Workshop
• Deichman, Zacharias, the Elder
• Feodorovna, Maria
• Gardner Factory
• Grecke, Johan Adolph
• Grooth, Georg Christoph
• Houdon, Jean Antoine
• Imperial Armory, Tula
• Imperial Porcelain Manufactory
• Lajoüe, Jacques de
• Margas, Samuel, Jr.
• Nini, Jean-Baptiste
• Prudhomme, Elie
• Roentgen, David
• Roettiers, Jacques-Nicolas
• Rotari, Pietro
• Sèvres Manufactory
• Tassie, James
• Vereshchagin, Nikolai Stepanovich
• Voronikhin, Andrei N.
• Watteau, Antoine

Online Features

• 82nd & Fifth: “Curls” by Wolfram Koeppe

Health | Judge to consider Orlando Health hospital…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

Daily e-Edition

Evening e-Edition

Health | Judge to consider Orlando Health hospital purchase deal today

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez is considering a plan for Orlando Health to pay $439 million in cash for Melbourne Regional Medical Center and Rockledge Regional Medical Center in Brevard County and Sebastian River Medical Center in Indian River County, according to court documents.

Orlando Health would buy the hospitals from Steward Health Care, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May. Lopez will hold the hearing in Texas, where Steward is based.

A court document filed Sunday said the process of selling the hospitals started in April, when Leerink Partners LLC, an investment-banking advisory firm hired to help market Steward’s assets, contacted dozens of potential buyers to gauge interest. It solicited additional possible bidders after the bankruptcy petition was filed.

The document, a declaration by Toby King, a senior managing director at Leerink, said Orlando Health initially submitted an oral bid in late July and on Aug. 1 submitted a proposal to become what is known as a “stalking horse bidder.” A stalking horse bidder sets an initial bid.

Lopez on Aug. 22 approved Orlando Health’s designation as the stalking horse bidder. The court document said Steward did not receive any other “qualified bids” by an Aug. 26 deadline.

In the declaration, King said he believes there is “sound business justification” for the sale.

“In my opinion, the sale transaction constitutes the best terms available after the completion of a robust and extensive marketing and sale process,” he said in the document. “First and foremost, the sale transaction provides the debtors with significant sale proceeds. Further, the sale transaction was conducted in good faith and is the product of hard-fought, arm’s-length negotiations with the buyer among sophisticated professionals and with the oversight of the debtors’ independent transformation committee.”

Medical Properties Trust, Inc., which owns the hospital properties and leases them to Steward, has raised objections to the Orlando Health deal. The objections stem from unresolved questions about the sale of the real estate.

In addition to the hospitals in Brevard and Indian River counties, Steward owns Coral Gables Hospital, Hialeah Hospital, North Shore Medical Center and Palmetto General Hospital in Miami-Dade County and Florida Medical Center in Broward County. Court documents do not show a successful bidder for those hospitals.

Steward also has operated hospitals in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

• Contact Us at the Orlando Sentinel
• Send a News Tip to the Orlando Sentinel

More in Health

SUBSCRIBER ONLY

Health | errors in deloitte-run medicaid systems can cost millions and take years to fix.

Health | When should I get flu and COVID shots? Experts disagree — but say get them however you can

Business | Cures for rare diseases now exist. Employers don’t want to pay

Restaurants, Food & Drink | Orange County restaurant shut down for roaches last week