Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Original Articles

A multifunctional synergy development evaluation model of the impact of

the cascade reservoir construction sequence on basins
Wanjie Zhao a, b, c, Donglin Li b, c, Yuanjian Wang b, c, *, Enhui Jiang b, c, Yanhui Liu b, c, Jieyu Li b, c,
Qiang Wang b, c
a
Hohai University, College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering, Nanjing 210098, China
b
Yellow River Institute of Hydraulic Research, YRCC, Zhengzhou 450003, China
c
Key Laboratory of Lower Yellow River Channel and Estuary Regulation, MWR, Zhengzhou 450003, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Considering the mass reservoirs construction, it is important to study the cascade reservoir construction
Water and sediment discharge sequence, which directly affects the water and sediment resource allocation, ecological environment restoration,
Ecological and environmental maintenance and socioeconomic development of the basin. Thus, we constructed an evaluation index system by compre­
Social and economic development
hensively considering the basin water and sediment discharge index, basin ecological and environmental
Multifunctional synergy development
Reservoir construction sequence
maintenance index, and basin social and economic development index. The evaluation model was established to
assess the impact of the cascade reservoir construction sequence on basin multifunctional synergy development
index. The model was applied to evaluate the cascade reservoir construction sequence in the Yangtze and Yellow
River Basin of China. The results revealed that: (1) The basin water and sediment discharge index, basin social
and economic development index, and basin multifunctional synergy development index benefits gradually
increased, the basin ecological and environmental maintenance index benefits progressively decreased in the
Yangtze and Yellow River Basin. (2) The basin water and sediment discharge index, and basin ecological and
environmental maintenance index of the planned cascade reservoir construction sequence ranked top in the
Yellow River Basin; the basin water and sediment discharge index, and basin social and economic development
index of the planned cascade reservoir construction sequence ranked top in the Yangtze River Basin. (3) The
cascade reservoir construction sequence focused more on basin social and economic development index benefits
when the level of national economic development was low, and more on basin water and sediment discharge
index benefits when it was high. (4) Reservoir capacity and installed capacity were the main factors influencing
the cascade reservoir construction sequence in the Yangtze and Yellow River Basin, respectively. These findings
provide useful information regarding the cascade reservoir construction sequence.

1. Introduction is interesting to explore which construction sequence yields the

maximum overall benefit to the basin. The cascade reservoir construc­
The construction of dams alters the natural flow regime in many tion sequence (CRCS) is often controversial for involving water resource
basins worldwide (Graf, 1999; Nilsson et al., 2005; Grill et al., 2015), utilisation, ecological environmental protection, and socioeconomic
leading to significant changes in the flow and sediment conditions development, which differ according to regions and stakeholders.
(Grant et al., 2012; Bagla, 2014; Dey et al., 2019). The ICOLD WRD Therefore, the reservoir construction sequence is an important issue in
database’s latest version contains information on almost 60,000 “large” the future.
dams (Wang et al., 2022a). Moreover, the construction of hydroelectric Scholars have conducted extensive research to assess the impact of
dam is expected to increase in the future (Zarfl et al., 2015), with plans cascade reservoir on basins and proposed evaluation indices. In terms of
for at least 3,700 dams with an installed capacity of over 1 MW (Fan water and sediment discharges, indices for evaluating the impact of
et al., 2022). When two or more reservoirs are involved, different con­ floods are the population exposed to floods (Rentschler et al., 2022),
struction sequence of reservoirs can bring different effect to the basin. It flood attenuation (Volpi et al., 2018), and human water security

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wangyuanjian_yrcc@aliyun.com (Y. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111547
Received 17 October 2023; Received in revised form 10 December 2023; Accepted 1 January 2024
Available online 8 January 2024
1470-160X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

(Vörösmarty et al., 2010). The sediment discharge ratio (Chen et al., 2. Methodology
2022) and trapping efficiency (TE) (Ran et al., 2013) are used to eval­
uate the impact of sediment on the basin. On the other hand, reservoir 2.1. Evaluation model framework
construction impacts the ecology and environment maintenance of the
basin. Reservoir operation will decrease connectivity (Cote et al., 2009) The BMSDI evaluation model focuses on the basin system, which can
and seasonal index (SI) (Ruhi et al., 2022), but will increase the reservoir be partitioned into three subsystems (i.e. water and sediment discharge,
storage-runoff ratio (Vörösmarty et al., 1997) and degree of regulation ecological and environmental maintenance, and social and economic
(DOR) (Kumar et al., 2022). The basin integrity index, fluvial dynamics development) (Jiang et al., 2020). The water and sediment discharge
index, dam impact index, and dam environmental vulnerability index subsystem is the backbone network of the basin system. First, it serves as
are affected by the reservoir (Latrubesse et al., 2017). In addition, the main channel for water and sediment transport through the main
reservoir operation in favour of the social and economic development of and tributary channels, with the main objective of guaranteeing the
the basin. The socioeconomic cost (Habibi Davijani et al., 2016), eco­ safety of the rivers and exerting their flooding and sediment transport
nomic attractiveness, net benefit, and loss reduction (Seliger et al., functions. Second, the ecological and environmental maintenance sub­
2016) are the primary indices to be considered in reservoir construction. system includes suitable habitats and hydrological sediment processes
Reservoir operation contributes to the development of water resource required by biological communities. Moreover, the healthy maintenance
utilisation (Li et al., 2022), water supply (Eriyagama et al., 2020), and and function of the ecological environment significantly impact the
irrigated area (Nilsson et al., 2005). Generation benefits usually include health of rivers. Finally, the social and economic development subsys­
electricity generation (Piman et al., 2016) and installed capacity tem has a direct impact on the river health and the ecological environ­
(Jumani et al., 2022). Thus, reservoir flood control population, TE, DOR, ment. The river health and the good ecological environment form the
connectivity, SI, installed capacity, and water supply are well- basis for sustainable social and economic development. The combina­
established indices for evaluating the impact of reservoirs on basins. tion of water and sediment discharge, ecological and environmental,
In summary, significant progress has been made in the single- and social and economic indices form the BMSDI (Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)).
dimensional evaluation of the reservoir’s impact on basins. However, The framework of the BMSDI model is shown in Fig. 1.
it remains a challenge to integrate different indices into an evaluation
BMSDI = β1 ⋅f1 + β2 ⋅f2 + β3 ⋅f3 (1)
model and apply the model to specific cases of reservoir’s impact. For
example, the core concept of “quantity-quality-domain-connectivity- ∑
n1 ∑
n2 n3
∑
biology” collaborative protection and restoration was proposed in the f1 = ωi ⋅BWSDIi , f2 = ωi ⋅BEEMIi , f3 = ωi ⋅BSEDIi (2)
new era (Wang et al., 2021). The health status of rivers consisted of five i=1 i=1 i=1

subsystems: service, environment, flood control, development and uti­

where BMSDI is the synergy impact evaluation function of the basin; f1 ,
lisation, and ecological function (Geng et al., 2006). Furthermore, the
f2 , and f3 are the evaluation functions of the water and sediment
water scarcity status and sustainable storage development framework
discharge, social and economic development, and ecological and envi­
were analysed from three perspectives (Zeng et al., 2013; Liu and Zhao,
ronmental development of the reservoir, respectively; β1 , β2 , and β3 are
2020; Li et al., 2023). The concept of basin system science was devel­
their respective weights. From the principle of fairness, we consider
oped, which comprised three subsystems: water and sediment discharge,
indices in equal importance, β1 =β2 =β3 , BWSDIi , BEEMIi , BSEDIi , and ωi
ecology and environmental maintenance, and social and economic
are the ith evaluation index and its weight, respectively. n1 , n2 , and n3
development (Jiang et al., 2020). Further, the ecosystem services were
are the number of evaluation indices.
assessed from the perspectives of nature, society, ecology, economy,
The calculation of BMSDI model consisted of the following five steps.
sociocultural (Fang et al., 2021; Kangas et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2023). In
Step 1: identify the evaluation indices that are the flood control popu­
general, multiple aspects of the evaluation object are considered in
lation benefit, and sediment trapping and discharging benefit in the
previous studies. To this end, we utilized the concept of basin system
water and sediment discharge index (BWSDI); the DOR, connectivity,
science (Jiang et al., 2023) and identified evaluation criteria from basin
and SI in the ecological and environmental maintenance index (BEEMI);
water and sediment discharge index (BWSDI), ecological and environ­
and the installed capacity and construction difficulty in the social and
mental maintenance index (BEEMI), and social and economic develop­
economic development index (BSEDI). Step 2: calculate the evaluation
ment index (BSEDI), which were used to develop the basin
indices and construct an evaluation index matrix of the CRCS, repre­
multifunctional synergy development index (BMSDI) evaluation model.
sented as [n!, T], where n is the number of reservoirs and T is their
The concept of basin system science used in this paper has the
operating time. Step 3: calculate the subsystem index, which is trans­
following characteristics compared to previous studies: (1) it empha­
formed into a matrix, represented as [n!⋅T, 1], normalise the evaluation
sizes the water and sediment discharge subsystem delivers water and
index matrix, and apply the game theory (Geng et al., 2016) combina­
sediment for river health; (2) the ecological and environmental main­
tion of the entropy weight method (Zou et al., 2006) and G1 method
tenance subsystem provides suitable biological habitat and influenced
(Song et al., 2022) to calculate the BWSDI, BEEMI, and BSEDI. Step 4:
river health; (3) the social and economic development subsystem relies
combine BWSDI, BEEMI, and BSEDI to obtain BMSDI. Step 5: determine
on healthy rivers and its sound ecological environment.
the CRCS ranking from the magnitude of the subsystem index and
In conclusion, although there are many studies on the reservoir’s
BMSDI.
impact on basins, they lack a comprehensive evaluation index system
and evaluation model for the impact of CRCS on the basin. The BMSDI
2.2. Evaluation index system
evaluation model, as proposed in this paper, exhibits several advantages
over traditional methods: (1) it assessed the impact of CRCS on basin by
2.2.1. BWSDI
comprehensively considering three aspects: the basin water and sedi­
(1) Flood control population benefit. This index uses the effective
ment discharge, basin ecological and environmental maintenance, and
reservoir storage and flood control population to measure the flood
basin social and economic development; (2) the rationality and reli­
control population benefit. This index characterises the social benefit of
ability of the method were investigated using the reservoirs in the Yel­
the reservoir arising from defending the flood control population from
low River Basin (YRB1) and Yangtze River Basin (YRB2) as examples; (3)
disaster damage caused by floods. The larger the value, the more sig­
the main factor influencing the CRCS in YRB1 and YRB2 had been
nificant the benefit generated by the reservoir.
identified.

2
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

Fig. 1. Research framework for BMSDI model.

∑
n sum of the cumulative trapping efficiency of the reservoir and the ratio
P1 = FCPi ⋅Vi (3) of the effective storage to the total storage as a measure of the sediment
i=1
trapping and discharging benefits of the reservoir. This index charac­
where P1 is the basin flood control population benefit, FCPi is the flood terises the benefit of the reservoir due to the trapping and discharging of
control population of the ith reservoir (ten thousand), Vi is the effective sediments. The larger the value, the more significant the benefit
reservoir capacity of the ith reservoir (billion m3), and n is the number of generated by the reservoir.
reservoirs.
(2) Sediment trapping and discharging benefit. This index uses the

3
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

∑
n located at the headwaters of the mainstream or the mouth of the sea (the
P2 = (ηi + (1 − TEi )) (4) outlet of the basin).
i=1
(3) SI. This index uses the ratio of the mode of the average monthly
where P2 is the sediment trapping and discharging benefit of the basin, ηi runoff vector to the annual runoff in the years after the operation of the
is the sediment discharge ratio of the ith reservoir (Zhang et al., 2018), reservoir as a measure of the extent of seasonal change. This index
TEi is the trapping efficiency of the ith reservoir, n is the number of characterizes the ability of the reservoir to change the distribution of
reservoirs (Tan et al., 2019). It should be noted that the empirical for­ flow in the year. The smaller the value, the more significant the benefit
mula for the sediment discharge ratio is used to calculate the reservoir generated by the reservoir.
TE, as follows. ∑12 →
j=1 W i,j
Sout P5,i = ∑12 ⋅100 (13)
η= (5) j=1 Wi,j
Sin
∑n
i=1 P5,i ⋅Wi
η = f (Qin , Sin , V) (6) P5 = ∑ n (14)
i=1 Wi
( )b
Sint ( )d
where P5 is the seasonal index of the basin (%), P5,i is the seasonal index
ηt = a⋅( )c ⋅ V t− 1 + e (7)
Qtin (Ruhi et al., 2022) of the ith reservoir (%), Wi,j is the monthly runoff of
→
ith reservoir in month j (billion m3), Wi,j is the vector of the monthly
ΔV t = ηt Sint (8)
runoff of ith reservoir in month j, the magnitude is the runoff (billion
m3), and the direction corresponds to the month expressed in radians, Wi
SDV t = SDV t− 1 + ΔV t (9)
is the annual runoff of ith reservoir (billion m3). n is the number of
TEt = V t /VT = (VT − SDV t )/VT (10) reservoirs. Greater values correspond to increased seasonality, whereas
smaller values indicate reduced seasonality. The maximum possible
where η is the sediment discharge ratio of the reservoir, ηt is the sedi­ value of the seasonal index is 100 %, which occurs if all runoff occurs
ment discharge ratio of the reservoir in year t, Sout and Sin are the annual within one month. The minimum value is 0 % when the runoff is evenly
discharging and incoming sediment loads of the reservoir (billion t), Qin distributed throughout the year. The planned reservoir uses Eq. (15) to
and V are the annual runoff into the reservoir and the effective reservoir simulate the reservoir mode of operation.
storage (billion m3), V t and V t− 1 are the effective reservoir storage in the ⎧ ′
VC,i ⋅Wi,j
year t and t-1 (billion m3), ΔV t is the erosion or deposition of the ⎪
⎪
⎪
′
Wi,j = Wi,j + ∑7 ′
, j = 5, 6, 7
⎪ i=5 Wi,j
reservoir in year t (billion m3), SDV t and SDV t− 1 are the cumulative ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
sediment deposition of the reservoir in the year t and t-1 (billion m3), TEt ′
VC,i ⋅Wi,j (15)
′
is the trapping efficiency of the reservoir in year t, VT is the total ⎪
⎪ Wi,j = Wi,j − ∑7 W′ , j = 9, 10, 11
⎪
⎪
reservoir storage (billion m3). a, b, c, d, and e are the Eq. (7) empirical
⎪
⎪ i=5 i,j
⎪
⎩
parameters. ′
Wi,j = Wi,j , j = others

2.2.2. BEEMI where W′i,j is the runoff in month j without ith reservoir (billion m3), VC,i
(1) DOR. This index uses the ratio of effective reservoir storage and is the combined storage of ith reservoir (billion m3), other indices have
runoff as a measure of reservoir DOR. This index characterises the ability the same meaning as above.
of the reservoir to control changes in hydrological factors. The larger the
value, the more significant the benefit generated by the reservoir. 2.2.3. BSEDI
∑n (
Vi (1) Installed capacity. This index uses the installed capacity of the
P3 = ) (11) reservoir as a measuring index. This index characterises the power
Wi
production capacity of the reservoir. The larger the value, the more
i=1

where P3 is DOR of the basin (Nilsson et al., 2005), Vi is the effective significant the benefit generated by the reservoir.
reservoir storage of the ith reservoir (billion m3), Wi is the annual runoff ∑
n

into the ith reservoir (billion m3), n is the number of reservoirs. As P6 = Cpower,i (16)
opposed to using the total reservoir storage (Nilsson et al., 2005; Lehner
i=1

et al., 2011), this study adopted effective reservoir storage to accurately where P6 is the installed capacity of the basin (ten thousand kW) and
portray the regulation ability of the reservoir. Cpower,i is the installed capacity of the ith reservoir (ten thousand kW). n
(2) Connectivity. The index measures reservoir connectivity by using
is the number of reservoirs.
the ratio of the total squared lengths of river segments separated by the
(2) Construction difficulty. This index uses the average of the nor­
reservoir, to the squared lengths of rivers in the basin. This index
malised values of the dam length, dam height, excavation and filling
characterises the reservoir impact on the free flow of water, sediment,
volume, and elevation of the reservoir dam as a measure of the reservoir
and living organisms in the river system in both temporal and spatial
construction difficulty. This index characterises the difficulty level of the
directions. The larger the value, the more significant the benefit
engineering technology and the construction conditions of the reservoir.
generated by the reservoir.
The smaller the value, the more significant the benefit generated by the
∑n
l2i reservoirs when they were built in the same year.
P4 = ⋅100 (12)
i=1
L2 DLi + DHi + DEFVi + DLEi
CDi = (17)
4
where P4 is connectivity of the basin (%) (Cote et al., 2009), li is the
length of the ith river segment (km), L is the overall length of the river The reservoirs were ranked from smallest to largest according to CDi ,
(km), and n is the number of reservoirs. When the first reservoir was and the matrix [R1, …, Ri, …, Rn] was generated. The matrix of each
constructed on the river, the connectivity was minimised to 0.5 when construction sequence scheme was [N1, …, Ni,…, Nn], where Ri and Ni
the reservoir was located at position L/2 and maximised to 1 when it was are the labels representing the reservoirs with selected values ranging

4
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

from 1 to 7, and n = 7. respectively. In 2022, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the major
cities in the YRB1 and YRB2 were 67.3 × 109 and 201.3 × 109 yuan,
while Ri = N i
respectively. The basins provide abundant water resources, with average
P7,i = n, P7 = sum(P1 , …, Pi ) (18)
else P7,i = n − abs(N1 − R1 ), P7 = sum(P1 , …, P) annual runoffs of 62.8 × 109 and 928 × 109 m3, respectively, and are the
main grain production bases in China. The YRB1 in China is ecologically
where CDi is the construction difficulty of the ith reservoir; DLi , DHi and fragile. The YRB2 is rich in biodiversity and an important ecosystem in
DLEi are the dam length, dam height and elevation of the ith reservoir China. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the
(m); DEFVi is the excavation and filling volume of the ith reservoir (ten State Council issued the “Outline of the Development Plan for the
thousand m3); DLi , DHi , DEFVi and DLEi are the normalised data; P7,i is Yangtze River Economic Belt” and the “Outline of the Plan for the
the construction difficulty score of the ith reservoir; P7 is the construc­ Ecological Protection and High-Quality Development of the Yellow
tion difficulty score of the basin; n is the number of reservoirs. River Basin” in 2016 and 2021, respectively, occupying an essential
position in the national developing strategy.
The seven key reservoirs on the main stream of the YRB1 and YRB2
2.3. Index weights
were selected as the research objects in Fig. 2b and Fig. 2c. Among the
seven key reservoirs in the YRB1, the LYX, LJX, SMX, and XLD reservoirs
The evaluation index weights were determined based on game the­
have been in operation since 1986, 1968, 1960, and 1999, respectively.
ory to achieve fairness in assigning weights. The evaluation index
The HSX, QK, and GX are in the preliminary planning stages and are
weights were calculated using L different evaluation methods and the
estimated to be completed in 2030, 2035, and 2025. Among the seven
basic weight vector set of the evaluation index was constructed, repre­
key reservoirs in the YRB2, the LDL, GYY, WDD, BHT, XLD, XJB, and TG
sented as wk = {wk1 , wk2 , ⋅⋅⋅, wkm },(k = 1,2,⋅⋅⋅,L), where m is the number
reservoirs have been in operation since 2013, 2014, 2020, 2021, 2013,
of evaluation indices. The G1 method was used to determine the sub­
2012, and 2003, respectively. These reservoirs were selected for eval­
jective weights using the method from a past study (Song et al., 2022)
uation, creating a spatial river network combining flow paths and res­
and the entropy weight method was used to determine the objective
ervoirs for the YRB1 and YRB2 (Fig. 2).
weights, with the calculation steps referring to the literature (Shan et al.,
2012). The optimal weight combination coefficients were solved by
finding the Nash equilibrium and minimising the deviation between the 3.2. Data sources
combination weights and the weights of each method to obtain the game
theory weights (Geng et al., 2016). Population data was obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics
of China (https://www.stats.gov.cn/). The flood control population of
∑
L
the reservoir was calculated using Eq. (21).
w= λ∗k ⋅wTk , k = 1, ⋯, L (19)
k=1 CTPt = − 12.94⋅t2 + 52793.06⋅t − 53711079.3, t = 2021, 2022, ⋅⋅⋅, 2040
(20)
where λk is the line combination coefficient of the L evaluation methods,
λ∗k is the normalised line combination coefficient, ω is the game theory CTPt
weight. FCPt = FCP2020 ⋅ , t = 1960, 1961, ⋅⋅⋅, 2040 (21)
CTP2020

3. Study area and data where CTPt is the total population of the country in year t (ten thousand
people) and FCPt is the flood control population of the reservoir in year t
3.1. Study area (ten thousand people).
Runoff and sediment discharge were obtained from measured data
The study areas were the YRB1 and YRB2, with areas of 0.75 × 106 (https://www.yrcc.gov.cn/; https://www.cjw.gov.cn/). We used the
and 1.81 × 106 km2 and populations of 92 × 106 and 379 × 106 people, 2001–2020 runoff and sediment discharge as the 2021–2040 data.

Fig. 2. Study area maps: (a) location of the study area, (b) YRB1, and (c) YRB2.

5
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

Reservoir siltation data were measured data (https://www.yrcc.gov. that the overall effectiveness of BEEMI for the planned CRCS in the YRB1
cn/) and from Hu and Duan (Duan et al., 2010; Hu et al., 2022). The is relatively good, whereas it is relatively poor in the YRB2.
average multi-year siltation of HSX was 0.572 billion m3 and the multi-
year cumulative siltation was silted in proportion to the annual 4.4. Performance of BSEDI
incoming sediment. The load discharge of LYX, LJX, and all YRB2 res­
ervoirs were calculated using the load discharge rate method as 1.2 t/m3 The BSEDI and BSEDI accumulation are shown in Fig. 5a and Fig. 5c.
due to the lack of data. The dam length, height, excavation and filling The BSEDI of CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 showed an increasing trend.
volume, elevation, storage capacity, combined storage, and installed The planned BSEDI benefits gradually decreased, which were less than
capacity of the reservoir dams were derived from the Yellow River the mean benefits in the YRB1 and greater than the mean benefits in the
Network (https://www.yrcc.gov.cn/; https://www.cjw.gov.cn/) and YRB2. The rankings of the BSEDI and BSEDI accumulation are shown in
the International Commission on Dams (https://www.icold-cigb.org/). Fig. 5b and Fig. 5d, respectively (the results were the same as those in
The river network data from the HydroSHEDS dataset (https://hyd Fig. 3). The final rankings of the BSEDI accumulation in 2040 for the
rosheds.org/page/overview) and the reach lengths were extracted YRB1 and YRB2 were 3642 and 2604, respectively, which accounted for
from the river network data using Arcgis. the top 72 % and 52 % of the 5040 group scheme rankings. This in­
dicates that the overall effectiveness of BSEDI for the CRCS in the YRB1
4. Results is relatively poor, whereas it is relatively good in the YRB2.

4.1. Weight results 4.5. Performance of BMSDI

The evaluation index weights are listed in Table 1. In the YRB1, G1 The BMSDI and BMSDI accumulation are shown in Fig. 6a and
method ranked the indices as follows: flood control population benefits Fig. 6c. The BMSDI of CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 showed an increasing
> sediment trapping and discharging benefits > construction difficulty trend. The planned BMSDI benefits decreased gradually and were
> installed capacity > DOR > SI > connectivity. For the YRB2, the G1 greater than the mean benefits. The rankings of the BMSDI and BMSDI
method ranked the indices as follows: flood control population benefits accumulations are shown in Fig. 6b and Fig. 6d, respectively (the results
> installed capacity > SI > DOR > connectivity > sediment trapping and are the same as those in Fig. 3). The final rankings of the BMSDI accu­
discharging benefits > construction difficulty. mulation in 2040 for the YRB1 and YRB2 were 175 and 447, respec­
tively, which accounted for the top 3 % and 9 % of the 5040 group
4.2. Performance of BWSDI scheme rankings. This indicates that the overall effectiveness of BMSDI
for the planned CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 is relatively good.
The BWSDI and BWSDI accumulation are shown in Fig. 3a and Fig. 3 to Fig. 6, the BWSDI of the YRB1 and YRB2 ranked top, and the
Fig. 3c, respectively. The BWSDI of CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 showed difference was small (2 %). Therefore, the main purpoe primary starting
an increasing trend. The planned BWSDI benefits gradually increased point of the planned CRCS should be to ensure that the BSWDI benefits
and exceeded the average benefits. The rankings of BWSDI and BWSDI are maximised. The BEEMI and BSEDI rankings of the YRB1 and YRB2
accumulation are shown in Fig. 3b and Fig. 3d, respectively. The ranking differed, with the BEEMI of the YRB1 ranked ahead of the BSEDI and
showed no obvious relationship with the size of BWSDI. The ranking of having the greater benefits. In contrast, in the YRB2, the BSEDI was
BWSDI accumulation considered the role of time and was influenced by ranked ahead of BEEMI and had the greater benefits. The BMSDI of the
the ranking of the previous period, thus reflecting the total impact of YRB1 and YRB2 ranked top, and the difference was small (6 %).
CRCS on the basin over time. The final rankings of BWSDI accumulation Therefore, the basin synergy development level can be more compre­
in 2040 for the YRB1 and YRB2 were 196 and 303, respectively, which hensively and accurately assessed by considering the BWSDI, BEEMI,
accounted for the top 4 % and 6 % of the 5040 group scheme rankings. and BSEDI.
This indicates that the overall effectiveness of BWSDI for the planned
CRCS is relatively good. 5. Discussion

4.3. Performance of BEEMI 5.1. Model rationality

The BEEMI and BEEMI accumulation are shown in Fig. 4a and The model evaluation results for the five scenarios are shown in
Fig. 4c, respectively. The BEEMI of CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 showed Fig. 7. Scenario 1 (S1) represents existing reservoirs and the construction
a decreasing trend. The planned BEEMI benefits decreased gradually and sequence is SMX, LJX, LYX, and XLD. Scenario 2 (S2) is the planned
were greater than the mean benefits in the YRB1 and less than the mean reservoirs, the construction sequence is GX, HSX, and QK. The reservoir
benefits in the YRB2. The rankings of BEEMI and BEEMI accumulation construction sequence in Scenario 3 (S3) is SMX, LJX, LYX, XLD, GX,
are shown in Fig. 4b and Fig. 4d (the results are the same as those in HSX, and QK. The reservoir construction sequence in Scenario 4 (S4) is
Fig. 3). The final rankings of the BEEMI accumulation in 2040 for the the first six reservoirs in S5. The reservoir construction sequence in
YRB1 and YRB2 were 159 and 3733, respectively, which accounted for Scenario 5 (S5) is TG, XJB, XLD, LDL, GYY, WDD, and BHT.
the top 3 % and 74 % of the 5040 group scheme rankings. This indicates The BWSDI rankings of S1 to S5 were 21, 1, 196, 49, and 303,

Table 1
Weight of evaluation index.
Basin Weight P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 Subjective and objective weights

YRB1 Entropy weight method 0.204 0.125 0.145 0.218 0.073 0.093 0.142 0.326
G1 method 0.249 0.249 0.086 0.054 0.086 0.138 0.138 0.674
Game theory method 0.234 0.208 0.106 0.107 0.082 0.124 0.140 0.326*EWM + 0.674* G1M
YRB2 Entropy weight method 0.117 0.108 0.088 0.467 0.041 0.081 0.097 0.514
G1 method 0.393 0.031 0.101 0.056 0.182 0.219 0.017 0.486
Game theory method 0.251 0.071 0.095 0.267 0.110 0.148 0.058 0.514*EWM + 0.486* G1M

Note, P1: flood control population benefits, P2: sediment trapping and discharging benefits, P3: degree of regulation, P5: seasonal index, P6: installed capacity, P7:
construction difficulty.

6
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

Fig. 3. BWSDI and ranking: (a) BWSDI, (b) ranking of BWSDI, (c) BWSDI accumulation, and (d) ranking of BWSDI accumulation. Note: Yellow is the YRB1 and blue
is the YRB2. The shading in the figure represents the range. The upper boundary is the maximum benefits and the lower boundary is the minimum benefits. The solid
line represents the benefit of planned CRCS. The dotted line represents the mean benefits, which is the BWSDI average value of the 5040 group CRCS schemes. The
ranking of BWSDI is the ranking of the planned CRCS in the 5040 group schemes each year. The ranking of BWSDI accumulation is the ranking of the planned CRCS
in the 5040 group schemes each year. The smaller the ranking, the better. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)

respectively, accounting for the top 88 %, 17 %, 4 %, 7 %, and 6 % of the reservoir storage was the most sensitive, followed by the seasonal index
total number of construction sequence schemes (Fig. 7a). In addition, and population, and then installed capacity. In the YRB2, the installed
the ranking of the planned CRCS was relatively top in the YRB1 and capacity was the most sensitive, followed by the population and reser­
YRB2. The BEEMI rankings of S1 to S5 were 16, 2, 159, 215, and 3733, voir storage, and then the seasonal index.
respectively, accounting for the top 67 %, 33 %, 3 %, 30 %, and 74 % of The runoff and sediment discharge of the YRB2 were 14.8 times and
the total number of construction sequence schemes (Fig. 7b). The BSEDI 0.4 times those of the YRB1, respectively. Thus, the YRB1 had a lower
rankings of S1 to S5 were 1, 3, 3642, 80, and 2604, accounting for the runoff and more sediment discharge than the YRB2. Therefore, the in­
top 4 %, 50 %, 72 %, 11 %, and 52 % of the total number of construction crease of reservoir storage in the YRB1 can greatly change the BMSDI
sequence schemes, respectively (Fig. 7c). When evaluating the impacts sensitivity. In contrast, the increase of reservoir storage in the YRB2
of the CRCS from the BWSDI, BEEMI, and BSEDI, the rankings of the minor changed the BMSDI sensitivity. The sensitivity of seasonal index
BEEMI and BSEDI showed the most difference while the ranking of the for the YRB1 was significantly greater than that of the YRB2. The
BWSDI was more stable. installed capacity and population of the YRB2 were greater than those of
The BMSDI rankings of S1 to S5 were 2, 1, 175, 78, and 477, the YRB1, whose sensitivity of the YRB2 is greater than that of the YRB1.
respectively, accounting for the top 8 %, 17 %, 3 %, 11 %, and 9 % of the
total number of construction sequence schemes (Fig. 7d). The BMSDI 5.3. Spatial anisotropy
ranking of the planned CRCS was relatively top in the YRB1 and YRB2.
In conclusion, the BMSDI model provides a good representation for the The mean benefits and percentages of BWSDI, BEEMI, and BSEDI are
impact of the CRCS on basin synergy development. shown in Fig. 8. The percentages of BEEMI and BSEDI were smaller than
that of BWSDI and the CRCS focused more on BWSDI in the YRB1 and
5.2. Index sensitivity YRB2. The difference between BEEMI and BSEDI in the YRB1 was not
large. In contrast, the difference between them in the YRB2 was greater
The absolute value of index sensitivity is shown in Table 2. Sx = abs due to the shorter operation time of the reservoirs. Extending to 2080
(ΔX/X)*100, where X is the BMSDI score of the indices in its original while keeping the three-dimensional index values unchanged from
condition, ΔX is the difference in the BMSDI score between the original 2040, the BEEMI and BSEDI were 27 % and 27 % in the YRB2, respec­
and modified conditions due to a change in the data value of a given tively. The percentages of BSEDI and BWSDI gradually increased,
index, and Sx is the percent of change in the BMSDI score due to a whereas that of BEEMI progressively decreased, showing that the ben­
change in the data value of the index. In this study, the average value of efits of BSEDI and BWSDI increased while that of BEEMI decreased.
the sensitivity of 5040 scenarios was used as a measurement. We found The development of the national GDP and reservoir construction
that the sensitivity of BMSDI is very small (less than 3). In the YRB1, sequence are shown in Fig. 9a. As shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9a, the

7
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

Fig. 4. BEEMI and ranking: (a) BEEMI, (b) ranking of BEEMI, (c) BEEMI accumulation, and (d) ranking of BEEMI accumulation. Note: the description of the figure is
the same as described in Fig. 3 but for BEEMI.

Fig. 5. BSEDI and ranking: (a) BSEDI, (b) ranking of BSEDI, (c) BSEDI accumulation, and (d) ranking of BSEDI accumulation. Note: the description of the figure is the
same as described in Fig. 3 but for BSEDI.

8
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

Fig. 6. BMSDI and ranking: (a) BMSDI, (b) ranking of BMSDI, (c) BMSDI accumulation, and (d) ranking of BMSDI accumulation. Note: the description of the figure is
the same as described in Fig. 3 but for BMSDI.

percentage of BWSDI (BSEDI) in the YRB2 was higher (lower) than that benefits.
in the YRB1. The results indicate that when the national GDP is at a
lower development level, reservoirs are constructed with pay more 6. Conclusion
emphasis on the construction sequence for greater BSEDI benefits. In
contrast, when the national GDP increases or is at a higher level, The BMSDI model was constructed based on the BWSDI, BEEMI, and
reservoir construction pays more attention to the construction sequence BSEDI and applied to the YRB1 and YRB2. The main conclusions are as
for greater BWSDI benefits. follows: (1) With the construction of cascade reservoir, the BWSDI,
In the YRB1, from 2000 to 2020, the runoff gradually increased, the BSEDI, and BMSDI gradually increased, the BEEMI progressively
sediment discharge gradually decreased, and the BMSDI benefits decreased. The percentages of BSEDI and BEEMI benefits were smaller
showed a minor decreasing trend (Fig. 8a and Fig. 9b). From 2020 to than that of BWSDI and the main goal of reservoir construction was to
2040, the increase in runoff, the decrease in sediment discharge, and the ensure that BWSDI benefits are maximised. The CRCS focused more on
continued construction of reservoirs caused the BMSDI benefits to in­ BSEDI benefits when the level of national economic development was
crease rapidly. In the YRB2, from 2000 to 2020, the runoff gradually low, and more on BWSDI benefits when it was high.
increased, the sediment discharge progressively decreased, and reser­ (2) The ranking had no obvious relationship with the evaluation
voirs continued to be constructed (Fig. 8b and Fig. 9c), thus, the BMSDI index value and the accumulation ranking was driven by the accumu­
benefits increased rapidly. However, from 2020 to 2040, the runoff lation index value over the study period. In the YRB1, the planned
gradually increased, the sediment discharge progressively decreased, CRCS’s benefits in terms of BEEMI and BWSDI ranked top. Similarly, in
and the BMSDI benefits showed a minor decreasing trend. Therefore, the the YRB2, the planned CRCS’s benefits concerning BWSDI and BSEDI
reservoir construction promotes the basin synergy development and the ranked top. In addition, the BMSDI benefits of the planned CRCS ranked
BMSDI benefits tend to decrease with continued reservoir operation. top, providing a comprehensive and accurate evaluation for the level of
In the YRB1 before 1986, the runoff and sediment discharge were basin synergy development.
larger and the BMSDI benefits increased slightly with the reservoir (3) The sensitivity of reservoir storage, seasonal index, population
construction (Fig. 8a and Fig. 9b). From 1986 to 2000, the runoff and and installed capacity gradually decreased in YRB1. The sensitivity of
sediment discharge were generally small and the BMSDI benefits installed capacity, population, reservoir storage, and seasonal index
increased more with the continuous reservoir construction. The above slowly diminished in the YRB2. Reservoir capacity and installed ca­
analysis reveals that the reservoir construction promoted the basin pacity were the main factors influencing the CRCS in the YRB1 and
synergy development. When the amount of runoff and sediment YRB2, respectively.
discharge was high, reservoir continue operation caused serious siltation (4) The reservoir construction promoted the basin socioeconomic
and the BMSDI benefits increased slowly. When the runoff and sediment development. The BMSDI benefits slowly increased due to severe
discharge were low, reservoir continue operation caused lighter siltation reservoir siltation when runoff and sediment discharge were high,
and the BMSDI benefits increased more rapidly. In summary, runoff, conversely, they rapidly increased. The runoff, sediment discharge, and
sediment discharge, and the reservoir construction affect the BMSDI reservoir construction affect the basin multifunctional synergy

9
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

Fig. 7. Model rationality verification: ranking of (a) BWSDI accumulation, (b) BEEMI accumulation, (c) BSEDI accumulation, and (d) BMSDI accumulation. Note:
The coordinate axis represents the proportion of planned construction sequence schemes within the set of all construction sequence schemes, %. The first digit in the
brackets indicates the ranking of the planned construction sequence, and the second digit represents the number of construction sequence schemes.

development.
Table 2
This study had some limitations. The BMSDI model in the BWSDI,
Index sensitivity.
BEEMI, and BSEDI included only selected parts. However, there are
Indicator Population Reservoir Installed Seasonal many other evaluation indices. Therefore, more indices need to be
variability storage capacity index
considered in the future (Zhou et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022b).
YRB1 10 % 0.1738 2.3278 0.0192 0.2313 Moreover, the BMSDI model only considered the construction sequence
− 10 % 0.1341 0.8850 0.0233 0.2409
of key reservoirs on the mainstream. More reservoirs should be
YRB2 10 % 0.3595 0.2253 0.2697 0.0005
− 10 % 0.2298 0.2415 0.8037 0.0008
considered in future studies (Grill et al., 2015; Eriyagama et al., 2020) to
explore the reservoir construction sequence on the mainstream and
Note: 10% is a 10% increase in the value of the index, − 10% is a 10% decrease in tributaries. In addition, the BMSDI model was only validated on the
the value of the index.
mainstream cascade reservoir in the YRB1 and YRB2 and should be
applied to explore other basins in the future.

Fig. 8. Percentages and mean values of BWSDI, BEEMI, BSEDI, and BMSDI: (a) YRB1, (b) YRB2.

10
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

Fig. 9. (a) State GDP vs. reservoir operating time, (b) runoff vs. sediment discharge of YRB1, (c) runoff vs. sediment discharge of YRB2.

CRediT authorship contribution statement Geng, F., Dong, Z., Xu, W., 2016. River health assessment of upper and middle reaches of
Heilongjiang River based on cloud model. Water Resources Protection. 32, 131–135.
https://doi.org/10.3880/j.issn.1004-6933.2016.06.021.
Wanjie Zhao: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Geng, L., Liu, H., Zhong, H., Liu, C., 2006. Indicators and crteria for evaluation of healthy
Donglin Li: Writing – review & editing. Yuanjian Wang: Conceptual­ rivers. J. Hydraul. Eng. 37, 253–258. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0559-
ization, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision. Enhui 9350.2006.03.001.
Graf, W.L., 1999. Dam nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large-
Jiang: Project administration, Supervision. Yanhui Liu: Resources, scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resour. Res. 35, 1305–1311. https://doi.org/
Writing – original draft. Jieyu Li: Resources, Writing – original draft. 10.1029/1999 WR900016.
Qiang Wang: Resources, Writing – original draft. Grant, E.H.C., Lynch, H.J., Muneepeerakul, R., Arunachalam, M., Rodríguez-Iturbe, I.,
Fagan, W.F., 2012. Interbasin water transfer, riverine connectivity, and spatial
controls on fish biodiversity. PLoS One 7, e34170.
Grill, G., Lehner, B., Lumsdon, A.E., MacDonald, G.K., Zarfl, C., Reidy Liermann, C.,
Declaration of competing interest 2015. An index-based framework for assessing patterns and trends in river
fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales. Environ. Res.
Lett. 10, 015001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/015001.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Habibi Davijani, M., Banihabib, M.E., Nadjafzadeh Anvar, A., Hashemi, S.R., 2016.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Multi-objective optimization model for the allocation of water resources in arid
the work reported in this paper. regions based on the maximization of socioeconomic efficiency. Water Resour.
Manag. 30, 927–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1200-y.
Hu, C., Zhang, Z., An, X., Gao, J., 2022. Water-sediment balance and regulation of the
Data availability Yellow River, first ed. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 200–306.
Jiang, E., Wang, Y., Tian, S., Li, J., Xu, L., Zhang, X., 2020. Exploration of watershed
system science. J. Hydraul. Eng. 51, 1026–1037. https://doi.org/10.13243/j.cnki.
Data will be made available on request.
slxb. 20200573.
Jiang, E., Qu, B., Jia, J., Liu, C., Wang, Y., Li, D., Li, J., 2023. Study on the coordination
Acknowledgements of flow and sediment transport, ecological environment, and crop production in the
Lower Yellow River since 2000. River. 2, 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/
rvr2.61.
This research was funded by the National Key Research and Devel­ Jumani, S., Deitch, M.J., Valle, D., Machado, S., Lecours, V., Kaplan, D.,
opment Program of China (2021YFC3200400); the National Natural Krishnaswamy, J., Howard, J., 2022. A new index to quantify longitudinal river
fragmentation: Conservation and management implications. Ecol. Ind. 136, 108680
Science Foundation of China (42041004, U2243601, U2243241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108680.
U2243215); the Major Science and Technology Program of the Ministry Kangas, K., Brown, G., Kivinen, M., Tolvanen, A., Tuulentie, S., Karhu, J., Markovaara-
of Water Resources of China (SKR-2022021, SKS-2022088); the Special Koivisto, M., Eilu, P., Tarvainen, O., Similä, J., Juutinen, A., 2022. Land use
synergies and conflicts identification in the framework of compatibility analyses and
Basic Research Fund for Central Public Research Institutes (HKY-JBYW- spatial assessment of ecological, socio-cultural and economic values. J. Environ.
2022-12); Science and Technology Development Foundation of Yellow Manage. 316, 115174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115174.
River Institute of Hydraulic Research (HKF202220, HKF202111). The Kumar, H., Hwang, J., Devineni, N., Sankarasubramanian, A., 2022. Dynamic flow
alteration index for complex river networks with cascading reservoir systems.
authors acknowledge the anonymous referees for their valuable
e2021WR030491 Water Resour. Res. 58. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030491.
comments. Latrubesse, E.M., Arima, E.Y., Dunne, T., Park, E., Baker, V.R., d’Horta, F.M., Wight, C.,
Wittmann, F., Zuanon, J., Baker, P.A., Ribas, C.C., Norgaard, R.B., Filizola, N.,
Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Stevaux, J.C., 2017. Damming the rivers of the Amazon
References basin. Nature 546, 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22333.
Lehner, B., Liermann, C.R., Revenga, C., Vörösmarty, C., Fekete, B., Crouzet, P., Döll, P.,
Bagla, P., 2014. India plans the grandest of canal networks. Science 345, 128. https:// Endejan, M., Frenken, K., Magome, J., Nilsson, C., Robertson, J.C., Rödel, R.,
doi.org/10.1126/science.345.6193.128. Sindorf, N., Wisser, D., 2011. High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and
Chen, L., Ge, L., Wang, D., Zhong, W., Zhan, T., Deng, A., 2022. Multi-objective water- dams for sustainable river-flow management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 494–502.
sediment optimal operation of cascade reservoirs in the Yellow River Basin. https://doi.org/10.1890/100125.
J. Hydrol. 609, 127744 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127744. Li, D., Zuo, Q., Zhang, Z., 2022. A new assessment method of sustainable water resources
Cote, D., Kehler, D.G., Bourne, C., Wiersma, Y.F., 2009. A new measure of longitudinal utilization considering fairness-efficiency-security: A case study of 31 provinces and
connectivity for stream networks. Landsc. Ecol. 24, 101–113. https://doi.org/ cities in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 81, 103839 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1007/s10980-008-9283-y. scs.2022.103839.
Dey, M., Krishnaswamy, J., Morisaka, T., Kelkar, N., 2019. Interacting effects of vessel Li, D., Zuo, Q., Jiang, L., Wu, Q., 2023. An integrated analysis framework for water
noise and shallow river depth elevate metabolic stress in Ganges river dolphins. Sci. resources sustainability considering fairness and decoupling based on the water
Rep. 9, 15426. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51664-1. resources ecological footprint model: A case study of Xinjiang, China. J. Cleaner
Duan, G., Guo, B., He, S., 2010. Comprehensive effect of Heishanxia Reservoir on the Product. 383, 135466 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135466.
Ningmeng River section of the Yellow River. Yellow River. 35, 145–147. https://doi. Liu, J., Zhao, D., 2020. Three-dimensional water scarcity assessment by considering
org/10.3969/j.issn. 1000-1379, 2010.09.062. water quantity, water quality, and environmental flow requirements: Review and
Eriyagama, N., Smakhtin, V., Udamulla, L., 2020. How much artificial surface storage is prospect. Chin. Sci. Bull. 65, 4251–4261. https://doi.org/10.1360/TB-2020-0918.
acceptable in a river basin and where should it be located: A review. Earth Sci. Rev. Nilsson, C., Reidy, C.A., Dynesius, M., Revenga, C., 2005. Fragmentation and flow
208, 103294 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103294. regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308, 405–408. https://doi.org/
Fan, P., Cho, M.S., Lin, Z., Ouyang, Z., Qi, J., Chen, J., Moran, E.F., 2022. Recently 10.1126/science. 1107887.
constructed hydropower dams were associated with reduced economic production, Piman, T., Cochrane, T.A., Arias, M.E., 2016. Effect of proposed large dams on water
population, and greenness in nearby areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119 https://doi. flows and hydropower production in the Sekong, Sesan and Srepok rivers of the
org/10.1073/pnas.2108038119 e2108038119. Mekong Basin. River Res. Appl. 32, 2095–2108. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3045.
Fang, L., Wang, L., Chen, W., Sun, J., Cao, Q., Wang, S., Wang, L., 2021. Identifying the Ran, L., Lu, X.X., Xin, Z., Yang, X., 2013. Cumulative sediment trapping by reservoirs in
impacts of natural and human factors on ecosystem service in the Yangtze and large river basins: A case study of the Yellow River basin. Global Planet. Change 100,
Yellow River Basins. J. Clean. Prod. 314, 127995 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.11.001.
jclepro.2021.127995.

11
W. Zhao et al. Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547

Rentschler, J., Salhab, M., Jafino, B.A., 2022. Flood exposure and poverty in 188 Wang, Y., Tang, F., Jiang, E., Wang, X., Zhao, J., 2022b. Optimizing hydropower
countries. Nat. Commun. 13, 3527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30727-4. generation and sediment transport in Yellow River basin via cooperative game
Ruhi, A., Hwang, J., Devineni, N., Mukhopadhyay, S., Kumar, H., Comte, L., Worland, S., theory. J. Hydrol. 614, 128581 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128581.
Sankarasubramanian, A., 2022. How does flow alteration propagate across a large, Wang, J., Walter, B.A., Yao, F., Song, C., Ding, M., Maroof, A.S., Zhu, J., Fan, C.,
highly regulated basin? Dam attributes, network context, and implications for McAlister, J.M., Sikder, S., Sheng, Y., Allen, G.H., Crétaux, J.F., Wada, Y., 2022a.
biodiversity. Earth’s. e2021EF002490 Future. 10. https://doi.org/10.1029/ GeoDAR: georeferenced global dams and reservoirs dataset for bridging attributes
2021EF002490. and geolocations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 14, 1869–1899. https://doi.org/10.5194/
Seliger, C., Scheikl, S., Schmutz, S., Schinegger, R., Fleck, S., Neubarth, J., Walder, C., essd-14-1869-2022.
Muhar, S., 2016. Hy: Con: a strategic tool for balancing hydropower development Wang, H., Wang, J., Hu, P., 2021. New connotation of water resources protection:
and conservation needs. River Res. Appl. 32, 1438–1449. https://doi.org/10.1002/ “quantity-quality-domain-connectivity-biology” coordinated protection and
rra.2985. restoration. Water Resour. Protect. 37, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3880/j.issn.1004-
Shan, C., Dong, Z., Fan, K., Yang, J., Liu, C., Fang, Q., 2012. Application of combination 6933.2021.02.001.
weighting method to weight calculation in river health evaluation. J. Hohai Univ. Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A.E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L., Tockner, K., 2015. A global boom in
(Nat. Sci.) 40, 622–628. https://doi.org/10.3876/j.issn.1000-1980.2012.06.005. hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci. 77, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Song, L., Zhang, J., Du, J., Jian, Y., Shen, J., Li, H., 2022. Resilience assessment of the s00027-014-0377-0.
safety operation of the water conservancy projects based on combined weighting and Zeng, Z., Liu, J., Savenije, H.H.G., 2013. A simple approach to assess water scarcity
cloud model. Water Resour. Protect. https://doi.org/10.3880/j.issn.1004- integrating water quantity and quality. Ecol. Ind. 34, 441–449. https://doi.org/
6933.2023.02.025. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.06.012.
Tan, G., Chen, P., Deng, J., Xu, Q., Tang, R., Feng, Z., Yi, R., 2019. Review and Zhang, S., Xia, J., Li, T., 2018. Study on flood-season sediment delivery ratio of the
improvement of conventional models for reservoir sediment trapping efficiency. Xiaolangdi reservoir. Yellow River. 40, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-
Heliyon. 5, e02458. 1379.2018.01.002.
Volpi, E., Di Lazzaro, M., Bertola, M., Viglione, A., Fiori, A., 2018. Reservoir effects on Zhou, X., Huang, X., Zhao, H., Ma, K., 2020. Development of a revised method for
flood peak discharge at the catchment scale. Water Resour. Res. 54, 9623–9636. indicators of hydrologic alteration for analyzing the cumulative impacts of cascading
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023866. reservoirs on flow regime. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 24, 4091–4107. https://doi.org/
Vörösmarty, C.J., Keshav, P.S., Balázs, M.F., Copeland, A.H., Holden, J., John, M., 10.5194/hess-24-4091-2020.
John, A.L., 1997. The storage and aging of continental runoff in large reservoir Zhu, S., Li, D., Feng, H., Zhang, N., 2023. The influencing factors and mechanisms for
systems of the world. Ambio 26, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/4314590. urban flood resilience in China: From the perspective of social-economic-natural
Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., complex ecosystem. Ecol. Ind. 147, 109959 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Glidden, S., Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Liermann, C.R., Davies, P.M., 2010. Global ecolind.2023.109959.
threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555–561. Zou, Z., Yun, Y., Sun, J., 2006. Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature 09440. indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. J. Environ. Sci.
18, 1020–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60032-6.

12