IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i2p391-d306009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Assessment of the Performance of the PLUS+ Tool in Supporting the Evaluation of Water Framework Directive Compliance in Scottish Standing Waters

Author

Listed:
  • David Donnelly

    (The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK)

  • Rachel C. Helliwell

    (The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK)

  • Linda May

    (UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0QB, UK)

  • Brian McCreadie

    (Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Inverdee House, Baxter Street, Aberdeen AB11 9QA, UK)

Abstract

Phosphorus is one of the main causes of waterbodies in Scotland being at less than good ecological status (GES) in terms of the water framework directive (WFD). In Scotland, there are more than 8000 standing waters, defined as lakes and reservoirs that have a surface area of more than 1 hectare. Only about 330 of these are monitored routinely to assess compliance with the WFD. The export coefficient tool PLUS+ (phosphorus land use and slope) has been developed to estimate total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in the unmonitored sites; modelled values are then compared to WFD target concentrations for high, good, moderate, poor, and bad status to assess compliance. These type-specific or site-specific targets are set by the regulatory authority and form part of a suite of physical, chemical, and ecological targets that are used to assess GES, all of which must be met. During development, the PLUS+ tool was applied to 323 monitored catchments and 7471 unmonitored catchments. The efficacy of the tool was assessed against TP concentrations observed in 2014 and found to perform well in the rural catchments. 51% of standing waters had the same modelled and observed WFD class (i.e., High, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad), and a further 40% of standing waters had a modelled WFD class that was within one class of observed water quality. The tool performed less well in catchments with larger inputs of TP from urban sources (e.g., sewage). The greatest deviations between measured and modelled classes were explained by the shortage of information on wastewater treatment works, fish farms, migratory birds, levels of uncertainty in TP measurements, and the amount of in-lake re-cycling of P. The limitations of the tool are assessed using data from six well documented case study sites and recommendations for improving the model performance are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • David Donnelly & Rachel C. Helliwell & Linda May & Brian McCreadie, 2020. "An Assessment of the Performance of the PLUS+ Tool in Supporting the Evaluation of Water Framework Directive Compliance in Scottish Standing Waters," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-24, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:2:p:391-:d:306009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/2/391/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/2/391/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bin Yang & Zhanqi Wang & Xiaowei Yao & Ji Chai, 2020. "Assessing the Performance of Land Consolidation Projects in Different Modes: A Case Study in Jianghan Plain of Hubei Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, February.

    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:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:2:p:391-:d:306009. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.