IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i16p9111-d614450.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Management of Global Warming Effects in the European Water Framework Directive: Consideration of Social–Ecological System Features in the Elbe River Basin District

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Sievers

    (Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, 2311 EZ Leiden, The Netherlands)

  • Christoph Zielhofer

    (Institute of Geography, Leipzig University, 04103 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Frank Hüesker

    (Department of Environmental Politics, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, UFZ, 04318 Leipzig, Germany)

Abstract

In this study, we examined the extent to which global warming management is currently integrated into the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), the central legal framework for water management in the EU. We focused on the Elbe River Basin District and how global warming is addressed in its water management. We used the social–ecological systems (SES) approach as our theoretical framework, representing an eminent analytical frame of biosphere-based sustainability science. In our study, we analysed core characteristics of SES in the context of global warming to evaluate the effectiveness of current water management in the Elbe River basin concerning long-term changing climate conditions. To determine to what extent each SES feature is considered in the Elbe water management, we applied a scale of 1 to 5. Our results show that the SES feature “scale and openness” is best addressed (score 4.0) by the Elbe River basin management, followed by “context dependency” (score 3.9); however, “non-linearity, uncertainty, unpredictability” (score 3.2), “self-organisation and adaptability” (score 3.1), and “dynamics” (score 3.0) have only moderate impacts. SES features can only be considered comprehensively if global warming is accounted for in an integrated way at a European level. In order to ensure effective implementation, explicit regulations and legally binding obligations are most likely required.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Sievers & Christoph Zielhofer & Frank Hüesker, 2021. "Management of Global Warming Effects in the European Water Framework Directive: Consideration of Social–Ecological System Features in the Elbe River Basin District," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9111-:d:614450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9111/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9111/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klauer, Bernd & Schiller, Johannes & Bathe, Frauke, 2014. "Cost-effective improvement of river morphology," UFZ Discussion Papers 9/2014, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    2. Guy Ziv & Karen Mullin & Blandine Boeuf & William Fincham & Nigel Taylor & Giovanna Villalobos-Jiménez & Laura von Vittorelli & Christine Wolf & Oliver Fritsch & Michael Strauch & Ralf Seppelt & Marti, 2016. "Water Quality Is a Poor Predictor of Recreational Hotspots in England," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Klauer, Bernd & Sigel, Katja & Schiller, Johannes, 2016. "Disproportionate costs in the EU Water Framework Directive—How to justify less stringent environmental objectives," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 10-17.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    2. Jan Macháč & Jan Brabec, 2018. "Assessment of Disproportionate Costs According to the WFD: Comparison of Applications of two Approaches in the Catchment of the Stanovice Reservoir (Czech Republic)," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(4), pages 1453-1466, March.
    3. Silvia Novelli & Francesca Moino & Patrizia Borsotto, 2022. "External Benefits of Irrigation in Mountain Areas: Stakeholder Perceptions and Water Policy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, August.
    4. Anzaldua, Gerardo & Gerner, Nadine V. & Lago, Manuel & Abhold, Katrina & Hinzmann, Mandy & Beyer, Sarah & Winking, Caroline & Riegels, Niels & Krogsgaard Jensen, Jørgen & Termes, Montserrat & Amorós, , 2018. "Getting into the water with the Ecosystem Services Approach: The DESSIN ESS evaluation framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 318-326.
    5. Klauer, Bernd & Sigel, Katja & Schiller, Johannes & Hagemann, Nina & Kern, Katharina, 2015. "Unverhältnismäßige Kosten nach EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Ein Verfahren zur Begründung weniger strenger Umweltziele," UFZ Reports 01/2015, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ).
    6. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen & Brian H. Jacobsen, 2021. "Incorporating time lags and uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis of water quality improvements – a case study of Limfjorden, Denmark," IFRO Working Paper 2021/01, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Kristina Ek & Lars Persson, 2020. "Priorities and Preferences in Water Quality Management - a Case Study of the Alsterån River Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(1), pages 155-173, January.
    8. Helena Ukić Boljat & Neven Grubišić & Merica Slišković, 2021. "The Impact of Nautical Activities on the Environment—A Systematic Review of Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Perni, Angel & Jackson-Blake, Leah & Balana, Bedru B. & Mckee, Annie & Dunn, Sarah & Helliwell, Rachel & Psaltopoulos, Demetris & Skuras, Dimitris & Cooksley, Susan & Slee, Bill, 2015. "A transdisciplinary approach to the economic analysis of the European Water Framework Directive," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 34-45.
    10. Alcon, Francisco & de-Miguel, María Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Assessment of real and perceived cost-effectiveness to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9111-:d:614450. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.