Evaluation of Water Scarcity by Determining Quantity and Quality and Environmental Flow Requirement of Zarrinehrood

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• B. Sarcheshmeh
• J. Behmanesh
• vahid Rezaverdinejad

Urmia University

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v34i3.82187

Abstract

Introduction: Drying Urmia Lake, located in northwest of Iran, is mainly related to the reduction in rivers flowing into the lake and hydrological parameters changes. Considering the importance and critical ecological conditions of Urmia Lake, the purpose of this research is to accommodate the environmental water requirement in managing rivers leading to the lake, including Zarrinehrood as the largest river to the lake. Moreover, water scarcity was assessed by QQE approach in this basin.
Materials and Methods: Tennant method is easy, rapid, inexpensive, and is based on empirical relationships between the recommended percent of the MAF. The ecological conditions of the river have been determined for use in this method. In this study, different levels of EFR were calculated to protect the relevant levels of habitat quality defined in the Tennant method. Also the fraction of Blue Water Resources (BWR) required to protect a “good” level of habitat quality was considered as the suitable EFR. If it is less than the lower limit, the habitat quality will be in degraded status.
     ,          
SQQE is a complete index to demonstrate water scarcity by considering water quantity and quality and EFR indicator.
      ,               ,      
The Smakhtin method provided an indicator for assessing the water scarcity.
WSI =
Where WSI is the index of water scarcity, MAR is the mean annual flow and EWR is the environmental water requirement of river. If the water scarcity index is more than one, the river would suffer from water shortage and not be able to meet the environmental water requirement. When the water scarcity index is between 0.6 and 1, the river would be under stress, and if it is between 0.3 and 0.6 Harvesting conditions from the river is moderate, and if it is less than 0.3 the river is ecologically safe and has no shortage.
Results and Discussion: According to the Smakhtin method, can be noticed that the calculations of this method are the same quantitative index of the other method used in this research. Only the quantitative conditions are evaluated in the Smakhtin method. However, in addition to the quantity (blue water footprint), environmental requirement and water quality are also included in the other method used in this research. Figure 1 shows the mean annual flow (MAF) and environmental flow requirement (EFR). As shown in figure 1, the majority river flow has been conducted from January to June and the rest from July to December. The annual BWR in the Nezamabad station was equal to 1208 × 106 (m3/year). To protect the habitat health of Zarrinehrood river at a good level, 400×106 (m3) of water must be left in the river per year. Therefore EFR was equivalent to 33.11% of the annual BWR. It is about one-third of total BWR.
In this station, EFR ranged from 60×106 (m3/year) as severely degraded to 2400×106 (m3/year) as maximum habitat health situation by using the Tennant table (Fig 2).
 
Figure 1- Environmental flow requirement (EFR) and mean annual flow (MAF) for the (Nezamabad station) Zarrinehrood river basin
 
Figure 2- Different levels of total environmental flow requirement (EFR) in the (Nezamabad station) Zarrinehrood river. Habitat quality levels with the flows shown in table 3 (Tennant) have be matched
 
The BWF and the BWA for the studied station were calculated 830×106 and 808×106 (m3/year), respectively. The BWF is 1.02 times the BWA. Therefore, the WSI Smakhtin and S Quantity will be 1.02. 
The total GWF in this station was 1.08 times the BWR. Thus, the S Quality will be 1.08.
P is a demonstrator that shows the percentage of EFR in total BWR. It is related with the EFR to protect the habitat quality in a “good” level.
As you know, the number in the bracket shows that 33.11% of the total BWR of the basin is required as EFR, for maintaining the ecological habitat condition at the ‘good’ level. Other percentages of EFR are used to represent other ecological levels of habitat condition.
The S Quantity and S Quality for the Nezamabad station in Zarrinehrood river basin were obtained 1.02 and 1.08, respectively. Both indices are above the threshold (1.0), and the basin suffer from both qualitative and quantitative deficiencies. Thus, the final water scarcity indicator, SQQE, is 1.02 (33.11%) |1.08.
Conclusion: The EFR for protecting the good ecological level is not enough in some months during a year. Water scarcity was evaluated by simultaneously considering water quantity, water quality and EFR in the Zarrinehrood river basin in Iran. Compared with the Smakhtin method as another method of water scarcity assessment, the Smakhtin Index is only quantitatively, but the SQQE Index provides a comprehensive assessment of the water scarcity. The results imply that the studied region is suffering from both water quantity, water quality problems. The water pollution has a big role in causing the water scarcity in the river basin. This shows that only aiming on reducing water consumption cannot help impressive reduce the water scarcity. It is necessary to pay attention to reduce water pollution and water conservation. Even in the areas that the hydrological and ecological data are rare, the QQE approach as a holistic method could be used.

Keywords

• Environmental Flow Requirement
• water quantity
• water quality
• Water scarcity
• Zarrinehrood

References

1- Adams Janine B. 2014. A review of methods and frameworks used to determine the environmental water requirements of estuaries. Hydrological Sciences Journal 59(3-4): 451-465.

2- Alcazar J., and Palau A. 2010. Establishing environmental flow regimes in a Mediterranean watershed based on a regional classification. Journal Hydrology 388: 41-51.

3- Anisfeld S.C. 2010. Water Resources. Island Press, Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington.

4- Arthington A.H. 2012. Environmental Flow: Saving Rivers in the Third Millennium. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA.

5- Bhakdisongkhram T., Koottatep S., and Towprayoon S. 2007. A water model for water and environmental management at Mae Moh Mine area in Thailand. Water Resource Management 21: 1535-1552.

6- Cai X., Rosegrant M.W., and Ringler C. 2003. Physical and economic efficiency of water use in the river basin: implications for efficient water management. Water Resource 1: 1–12.

7- Cosgrove W.J., and Rijsberman F.R. 2000. World Water Vision: Making Water Everybody's Business, Earth scan Public Ltd London U.K.

8- Falkenmark M., Lundqvist J., and Widstrand C. 1989. Macro-scale water scarcity requires micro-scale approaches. National Resource Forum 13: 258–267.

9- Franke N.A., Boyacioglu H., and Hoekstra A.Y. 2013. Grey water footprint accounting: Tier 1 supporting guidelines. Value of Water Research Report Series, No.65. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.

10- Hoekstra A.Y., Chapagain A.K., Aldaya M.M., and Mekonnen M.M. 2011. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earths can Press, London, UK.

11- Hoekstra A.Y., Mekonnen M.M., Chapagain A.K., Mathews R.E., and Richter B.D. 2012. Global monthly water scarcity: blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLOS ONE, 7: e32688.

12- Hoekstra A.Y. 2016. A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA. Ecological Indicators 66: 564–573.

13- Khalifeh S., Khoshnazar A. 2018. Evaluation of water quality in Zarrinehrood River using the standard quality index of Iran’s Surface Water Resources. Water & Wastewater Science & Engineering 3 (1): 22-34, spring. (In Persian with English abstract)

14- King J.M., Tharme R.E., and De Villiers M. 2000. Environmental flow assessments for rivers: manual for the building block methodology. In: De Villiers, M (Ed), Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.

15- Kirby J.M., Connor J., Ahmad M.D., Gao L., and Mainuddin M. 2014. Climate change and environmental water reallocation in the Murray Darling Basin: impacts on flows, diversions and economic returns to irrigation. Journal Hydrology.(In press).

16- Kumara B.K.H., and Srikantaswamy S. 2011. Environmental flow requirements in Tungabhadra River, Karnataka, India. National Resource 20(3): 193–205.

17- Liu J., Liu Q., and Yang H. 2016. Assessing water scarcity by simultaneously considering environmental flow requirements, water quantity, and water quality. Ecology Indicator 60: 434–441.

18- Liu J., Yang H., Gosling S.N., Kummu M., Florke M., Pfister S., Hanasaki N., Wada Y., Zhang X., Zheng C., Alcamo J., and Oki T. 2017. Water scarcity assessment in the past, present, and future. Earth's Future 5: 545-559.

19- Men B., Yu T., Kong F., and Yin H. 2014. Study on the minimum and appropriate instream ecological flow in Yitong River based on Tennant method. National Environmental Pollution Technology 13(3): 541–546.

20- Nilsalab P., Gheewala S.H., and Silalertruksa T. 2017. Methodology development for including environmental water requirement in the water stress index considering the case of Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 167: 1002–1008.

21- Nilsalab P., Gheewala S.H., and Pfister S. 2018. Method Development for Including Environmental Water Requirement in the Water Stress Index. Water Resource Management 32: 1585–1598.

22- Nilsalab P., and Gheewala S.H. 2019. Assessing the Effect of Incorporating Environmental Water Requirement in the Water Stress Index for Thailand. Sustainability, 11,152.

23- Pastor A.V., Ludwig F., Biemans H., Hoff H., and Kabat P. 2014. Accounting for envi-ronmental flow requirements in global water assessments. Hydrology Earth System Science 18(12): 5041–5059.

24- Pfister S., Koehler A., and Hellweg S. 2009. Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environmental Science & Technology 43: 4098–4104.

25- Pfister S., Boulay A.M., Berger M., Hadjikakou M., Motoshita M., Hess T., Ridoutt B., Weinzettel J., Scherer L., Doll P., Manzardo A., Nunez M., Verones F., Humbert S., Buxmann K., Harding K., Benini L., Oki T., and Henderson A. 2017. Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: a response to Hoekstra (2016) a critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA. Ecological Indicators 72: 352–359

26- Sandoval-Soils S., A.M.ASCE D. C., and McKinney M.ASCE. 2014. Integrated water management for environmental flows in the Rio Grande. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 140(3): 355-364.

27- Smakhtin V.U., Revenga C., and Döll P. 2004.Talking into account environmental water requirements in global-scale resources assessments. Comprehensive Assessment Reasearch Report 2. Colombo, Sri Lanka.

28- Smakhtin V.U., Revenga C., and Döll P. 2004. A pilot global assessment of environmental water requirements and scarcity. Water International 29: 307–317.

29- Smakhtin V.U., Shilpakar R.L., and Hughes D.A. 2006. Hydrology-based assessment of environmental flows: an example from Nepal. Hydrology Science Journal 51(2): 207–222.

30- Sullivan C.A., Meigh J.R., Giacomello A.M. 2003. The water poverty index: development and application at the community scale. National Resource Forum 27: 189–199.

31- Sun T., Yang Z.F., and Cui B.S. 2008. Critical environmental flows to support integrated ecological objectives for the Yellow River Estuary, China. Water Resource Management 22: 973-989.

32- Sun T., Xu J., and Yang Z.F. 2013. Environmental flow assessments in estuaries based on an integrated multi- objective method. Hydrology Earth System Science 17: 751-760.

33- Tennant D.L. 1976. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries 1: 6–10.

34- Tharme R.E. 2003. A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Resource Application 19: 397–441.

35- Tharme R.E., and Smakhtin V.U. 2003. Environmental flow assessment in Asia: capitalizing on existing momentum. In: Proceedings of the First Southeast Asia Water Forum Chiang Mai Thailand 2: 301–313.

36- The Iranian Department of Environment 2016. Iran water quality index for surface water resources-conventional parameters (IRWQISC), https://www.doc.ir/portal/file/?696074/.

37- Van vliet M.T.H., Franssen W.H.P., Yearsley J.R., Ludwig F., Haddeland I., Lettenmaier D.P., and Kabat P. 2013. Global river discharge and water temperature under climate change. Global Environmental Change 23: 450–464.

38- Vörösmarty C.J., McIntyre P.B., Gessner M.O., Dudgeon D., Prusevich A., Green P., Glidden S., Bunn S.E., Sullivan C.A., Liermann C.R., and Davies P.M. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467: 555-561.

39- Xia J., Feng H.L., Zhan C.S., and Niu G.W. 2006. Determination of a reasonable percentage for ecological water use in the Haihe River Basin, China. Pedosphere 16(1): 33–42.

40- Xia X., Yang Z., and Wu Y. 2009. Incorporating Eco-environmental Water Requirement in Integrated Evaluation of Water Quality and Quantity. A study for the Yellow River. Water resource management, 23: 1067-1079. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-008-9315-z.

41- Yang Z., Cui B., and Liu J. 2005. Estimation methods of eco-environmental water requirements: Case study. Ser D Earth Sciences, Vol.48 No.8: 1280–1292. DOI: 10.1360/02yd0495.

42- Yang Z.F., Liu J.L., Cui B., and Zhong P. 2008. Eco-environmental water demands for the Baiyangdian Wetland. Front Environ Science Engineering China, 2(1): 73-80. DOI: 10.1007/s11783-008-0015-y.

43- Zeng Z., Liu J., Koeneman P.H., Zarate E., and Hoekstra P.D.I.A. 2012. Assessing water footprint at river basin level: a case study for the Heihe River Basin in Northwest China. Hydrology Earth System Science Discussion 9: 5779–5808.

44- Zeng Z., Liu J., and Savenije H.H.G. 2013. A simple approach to assess water scarcity integrating water quantity and quality. Ecology Indicator 34: 441–449.

45- Zhou L.I., Zhong Q.I., Xia Z.H., and Cheng Q.I. 2014. Calculation of Eco-environmental Water Demand for River Dalinghe Applied Mechanics and Materials, ISSN 1662782, 535: 276-280.