Environmental Management

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 856–867

Application of Two Quality Indices as Monitoring and Management Tools of Rivers. Case Study: The Imera Meridionale River, Italy



On the basis of the European Water Framework Directive (2000/60), the water resources of the member states of the European Community should reach good quality standards by 2015. Although such regulations illustrate the basic points for a comprehensive and effective policy of water monitoring and management, no practical tools are provided to face and solve the issues concerning freshwater ecosystems such as rivers. The Italian government has developed a set of regulations as adoption of the European Directive but failed to indicate feasible procedures for river monitoring and management. On a local scale, Sicilian authorities have implemented monitoring networks of watersheds, aiming at describing the general conditions of rivers. However, such monitoring programs have provided a relatively fragmentary picture of the ecological conditions of the rivers. In this study, the integrated use of environmental quality indices is proposed as a methodology able to provide a practical approach to river monitoring and management. As a case study, the Imera Meridionale River, Sicily’s largest river, was chosen. The water quality index developed by the U.S. National Sanitation Foundation and the floristic quality index based on the Wilhelm method were applied. The former enabled us to describe the water quality according to a spatial–temporal gradient, whereas the latter focused on the ecological quality of riparian vegetation. This study proposes a holistic view of river ecosystems by considering biotic and abiotic factors in agreement with the current European regulations. How the combined use of such indices can guide sustainable management efforts is also discussed.


Environmental assessment River management Water quality index Floristic quality index Imera Meridionale River Italy 


  1. Al-Ani MY, Al-Nakib SM, Ritha NM, Nouri AM, Al-Assima A (1987) Water quality index applied to the classification and zoning of Al-Jaysh Canal, Baghdad, Iraq. Journal of Environmental Science and Health 22:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan JD, Castillo MM (2008) Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters, 2nd edn. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. American Public Health Association (APHA) (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water & wastewater, Centennial 21st edn. APHA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreas BK, Lichvar RW (1995) Floristic index for establishing assessment standards: a case study for northern Ohio. Technical Report WRP-DE-8. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  5. Bordalo AA, Nilsumranchit W, Chalermwa K (2001) Water quality and use of the Bangpakong river (Eastern Thailand). Water Research 35(15):3635–3642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bordalo AA, Teixeira R, Wiebe WJ (2006) A water quality index applied to an international shared river basin: the case of the Douro river. Environment Management 38:910–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown RM, McClelland NI, Deininger RA, Tozer RG (1970) A water quality index—do we dare? Water and Sewage Works 117(10):339–343Google Scholar
  8. Brown RM, McClelland NI, Deininger RA, O’Connor MF (1972) A water quality index: crashing the psychological barrier. In: Jenkins SH (ed) Advances in water pollution research. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 787–794Google Scholar
  9. Busch D, Ingraham N, Smith S (1992) Water uptake in woody riparian phreatophytes of the southwestern United States: a stable isotope study. Ecological Applications 2:450–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang NB, Chen HW, Ning SK (2001) Identification of river water quality using the fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach. Journal of Environmental Management 63(3):293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman D (1996) Water quality assessments: a guide to the use of biota, sediments and water in environmental monitoring. wnd ed. Taylor & Francis, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Union (EU) (1975) Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States. Official Journal L194(25/07/1975):0026–0031Google Scholar
  13. Fennessy MS (1995) Quality assurance project plan for the project: testing the FQAI as an indicator of riparian wetland disturbance. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio Google Scholar
  14. Giardina G, Raimondo FM, Spadaro V (2007) A catalogue of plants growing in Sicily. Bocconea 20:5–582Google Scholar
  15. Glenn E, Tanner R, Mendez S, Kehret T, Moore D, Garcia J, Valdes C (1998) Growth rates, salt tolerance and water use characteristics of native and invasive riparian plants from the delta of the Colorado River, Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments 40:281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graf WL (2004) Damage control: restoring the physical integrity of America’s rivers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greuter W, Burdet HM, Long G (1984–1989) Med-Checklist. A critical inventory of vascular plants of the circum-Mediterranean countries. Conservatoire et Jardin Botanique de la ville de Genève & Secrétariat Med-Checklist, Genève, Vols 1–3Google Scholar
  18. Herrera-Silveira JA, Comin FA, Aranda-Cirerol N, Troccoli L, Capurro L (2004) Coastal water quality assessment in the Yucatan Peninsula: management implications. Ocean and Coastal Management 47:625–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. INEA (Istituto Nazionale Economia Agraria) (2001) Qualità delle acque ad uso irriguo. INEA, RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. Jin C (2008) Biodiversity dynamics of freshwater wetland ecosystems affected by secondary salinisation and seasonal hydrology variation: a model based study. Hydrobiologia 598:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karr JR, Chu EW (2000) Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia 422(423):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lacoul P, Freedman B (2006) Relationship between aquatic plants and environmental factors along a steep Himalayan altitudinal gradient. Aquatic Botany 84:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Legislative Decree No. 152, 5 May (1999) Official Gazette of the Italian Republic 124, 29 May Legislative Decree no 152, 3 April (2006) Official Gazette of the Italian Republic 88, 14 AprilGoogle Scholar
  24. Livingstone DA (1963) Chemical composition of rivers and lakes. Geological Survey Paper 440-G, pp G1–G64Google Scholar
  25. Lopez RD, Fennessy MS (2002) Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Applications 12(2):487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malle KG (1996) Il disinquinamento del Reno. Le Scienze 330:66–71Google Scholar
  27. Miller WW, Joung HM, Mahannah CN, Garret JR (1986) Identification of water quality differences in Nevada through index application. Journal of Environmental Quality 15:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell MK, Stapp WB (1995) Field manual for water quality monitoring: an environmental education program for schools, 9th edn. Green Project, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (1993) Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Onaindia M, De Bikuña BG, Benito I (1996) Aquatic plants in relation to environmental factors in northern Spain. Journal of Environmental Management 47:123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Osugi T, Tate S, Takemura K, Watanabe W, Ogura N, Kikkawa J (2007) Ecological research for the restoration and management of rivers and reservoirs in Japan. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 3:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. PAI (2004) Hydrological restoration program. Department of Territory and Environment, Sicilian Government, PalermoGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodgers JC, Parker KC (2003) Distribution of alien plant species in relation to human disturbance on the Georgia Sea Islands. Diversity and Distributions 9(5):385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shafroth P, Friedman J, Ishinger L (1995) Effects of salinity on establishment of Populus fremontii (cottonwood) and Tamarix ramosissima (saltcedar) in southwestern United States. Southwestern Naturalist 55:58–65Google Scholar
  35. Štambuk-Giljanović N (1999) Water quality evaluation by index in Dalmatia. Water Research 33:3423–3440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swink F, Wilhelm G (1979) Plants of the Chicago region: a checklist of the vascular flora of the Chicago region, with keys, notes on local distribution, ecology, and taxonomy, and a system for evaluation of plant communities. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, ILGoogle Scholar
  37. Tutin TG, Heywood TH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine SM, Webb DA (1964–1993) Flora Europea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  38. UNDP Human Developments Reports (2003) http://hdr.undp.org/en/
  39. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (1993) National water summary 1990–91. USGS Water Supply Paper no. 2400. USGS, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Vicory AH, Tennant PA (1995) Sustainable management of the Ohio River (USA) by an interjurisdictionally represented commission. Water Science and Technology 32:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000) Official Journal of the European Community L327:1–71Google Scholar
  42. Wilhelm G, Ladd D (1988) Natural area assessment in the Chicago region. Transactions 53rd North America Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Louisville, KY, pp 361–375Google Scholar
  43. Yoder CO (1991) Answering some concerns about biological criteria based on experiences in Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus, OH, pp 95–104Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department DACPA, Division of Plant Biology and EcologyUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations