7. conclusions
7. Conclusions
Major human interventions with
significant ecological impact have been identified in all participating countries. The most significant human
interventions in the hydrological cycle have been made over the last decades. Today the
negative effects of these interventions are recognised and analysed, and restoration
activities are initiated. The perception of the importance of an intervention changes over
time, as the understanding of the aquatic environment evolves. Key figures and statistics
concerning freshwater resources, freshwater abstractions, and major uses by countries are
not readily comparable because of the different methods of assessment and calculation in
each country. However, comparable data characterising the hydrological cycle, the water
balance and water demand are necessary to quantify and judge the human interventions
identified in this report, and on the basis of figures which characterise the extent of
the impacts (quantity measures), to identify key issues relevant for the EEA. One of the main difficulties in
determining the significance of human interventions in the hydrological cycle on a
pan-European scale appears to be the lack of appropriate criteria or regional scale for
comparison. To that end the use of the regionalisation of the continent by the
Biogeographic Regions used for the Natura 2000 process would be inappropriate. From the
hydrological standpoint this division of Europe does not seem to be optimal due to the
fact that hydrological characteristics vary strongly within a biogeographic region.
Interventions in the hydrological cycle are not mainly based on the biogeographic regions
itself but rather caused by human pressure (population density etc.) and cultural
development. Further, distance between supply and demand, the pressure and the
intervention, becomes relevant (e.g. upstream flood control of cities, distant hydropower
generation etc.). The report and the selection of
the most significant interventions in the hydrological cycle is based on a consultation of
experts at AWW (Austria), INAG (Portugal), IOW (France), NERI (Denmark) and NIVA (Norway).
Therefore some aspects concerning other countries or regions may have been missed at this
stage and will become evident in the further process.
</head0
Permalinks
- Permalink to this version
- eb10796b3812680d57dc1d94e6312e2b
- Permalink to latest version
- HSGRCD3V6P
For references, please go to https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9167-030-8/page008.html or scan the QR code.
PDF generated on 10 Aug 2022, 04:52 PM
Document Actions
Share with others