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:
Water and sediment discharge
Ecological and environmental maintenance
Social and economic development
Multifunctional synergy development
Reservoir construction sequence
Considering the mass reservoirs construction, it is important to study the cascade reservoir construction
sequence, which directly affects the water and sediment resource allocation, ecological environment restoration,
and socioeconomic development of the basin. Thus, we constructed an evaluation index system by compre­
hensively considering the basin water and sediment discharge index, basin ecological and environmental
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

The construction of dams alters the natural flow regime in many
basins worldwide (Graf, 1999; Nilsson et al., 2005; Grill et al., 2015),
leading to significant changes in the flow and sediment conditions
(Grant et al., 2012; Bagla, 2014; Dey et al., 2019). The ICOLD WRD
database’s latest version contains information on almost 60,000 “large”
dams (Wang et al., 2022a). Moreover, the construction of hydroelectric
dam is expected to increase in the future (Zarfl et al., 2015), with plans
for at least 3,700 dams with an installed capacity of over 1 MW (Fan
et al., 2022). When two or more reservoirs are involved, different con­
struction sequence of reservoirs can bring different effect to the basin. It
maximum overall benefit to the basin. The cascade reservoir construc­
tion sequence (CRCS) is often controversial for involving water resource
utilisation, ecological environmental protection, and socioeconomic
development, which differ according to regions and stakeholders.
Therefore, the reservoir construction sequence is an important issue in
the future.
Scholars have conducted extensive research to assess the impact of
cascade reservoir on basins and proposed evaluation indices. In terms of
water and sediment discharges, indices for evaluating the impact of
floods are the population exposed to floods (Rentschler et al., 2022),
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.
(Vörösmarty et al., 2010). The sediment discharge ratio (Chen et al.,
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
construction impacts the ecology and environment maintenance of the
basin. Reservoir operation will decrease connectivity (Cote et al., 2009)
and seasonal index (SI) (Ruhi et al., 2022), but will increase the reservoir
storage-runoff ratio (Vörösmarty et al., 1997) and degree of regulation
(DOR) (Kumar et al., 2022). The basin integrity index, fluvial dynamics
index, dam impact index, and dam environmental vulnerability index
are affected by the reservoir (Latrubesse et al., 2017). In addition,
reservoir operation in favour of the social and economic development of
the basin. The socioeconomic cost (Habibi Davijani et al., 2016), eco­
nomic attractiveness, net benefit, and loss reduction (Seliger et al.,
2016) are the primary indices to be considered in reservoir construction.
Reservoir operation contributes to the development of water resource
utilisation (Li et al., 2022), water supply (Eriyagama et al., 2020), and
irrigated area (Nilsson et al., 2005). Generation benefits usually include
electricity generation (Piman et al., 2016) and installed capacity
(Jumani et al., 2022). Thus, reservoir flood control population, TE, DOR,
connectivity, SI, installed capacity, and water supply are well-
established indices for evaluating the impact of reservoirs on basins.
In summary, significant progress has been made in the single-
dimensional evaluation of the reservoir’s impact on basins. However,
it remains a challenge to integrate different indices into an evaluation
model and apply the model to specific cases of reservoir’s impact. For
example, the core concept of “quantity-quality-domain-connectivity-
biology” collaborative protection and restoration was proposed in the
new era (Wang et al., 2021). The health status of rivers consisted of five
subsystems: service, environment, flood control, development and uti­
lisation, and ecological function (Geng et al., 2006). Furthermore, the
water scarcity status and sustainable storage development framework
were analysed from three perspectives (Zeng et al., 2013; Liu and Zhao,
2020; Li et al., 2023). The concept of basin system science was devel­
oped, which comprised three subsystems: water and sediment discharge,
ecology and environmental maintenance, and social and economic
development (Jiang et al., 2020). Further, the ecosystem services were
assessed from the perspectives of nature, society, ecology, economy,
sociocultural (Fang et al., 2021; Kangas et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2023). In
general, multiple aspects of the evaluation object are considered in
previous studies. To this end, we utilized the concept of basin system
science (Jiang et al., 2023) and identified evaluation criteria from basin
water and sediment discharge index (BWSDI), ecological and environ­
mental maintenance index (BEEMI), and social and economic develop­
ment index (BSEDI), which were used to develop the basin
multifunctional synergy development index (BMSDI) evaluation model.
The concept of basin system science used in this paper has the
following characteristics compared to previous studies: (1) it empha­
sizes the water and sediment discharge subsystem delivers water and
sediment for river health; (2) the ecological and environmental main­
tenance subsystem provides suitable biological habitat and influenced
river health; (3) the social and economic development subsystem relies
on healthy rivers and its sound ecological environment.
In conclusion, although there are many studies on the reservoir’s
impact on basins, they lack a comprehensive evaluation index system
and evaluation model for the impact of CRCS on the basin. The BMSDI
evaluation model, as proposed in this paper, exhibits several advantages
over traditional methods: (1) it assessed the impact of CRCS on basin by
comprehensively considering three aspects: the basin water and sedi­
ment discharge, basin ecological and environmental maintenance, and
basin social and economic development; (2) the rationality and reli­
ability of the method were investigated using the reservoirs in the Yel­
low River Basin (YRB1) and Yangtze River Basin (YRB2) as examples; (3)
the main factor influencing the CRCS in YRB1 and YRB2 had been
identified.
2
Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547
2. Methodology
2.1. Evaluation model framework
The BMSDI evaluation model focuses on the basin system, which can
be partitioned into three subsystems (i.e. water and sediment discharge,
ecological and environmental maintenance, and social and economic
development) (Jiang et al., 2020). The water and sediment discharge
subsystem is the backbone network of the basin system. First, it serves as
the main channel for water and sediment transport through the main
and tributary channels, with the main objective of guaranteeing the
safety of the rivers and exerting their flooding and sediment transport
functions. Second, the ecological and environmental maintenance sub­
system includes suitable habitats and hydrological sediment processes
required by biological communities. Moreover, the healthy maintenance
and function of the ecological environment significantly impact the
health of rivers. Finally, the social and economic development subsys­
tem has a direct impact on the river health and the ecological environ­
ment. The river health and the good ecological environment form the
basis for sustainable social and economic development. The combina­
tion of water and sediment discharge, ecological and environmental,
and social and economic indices form the BMSDI (Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)).
The framework of the BMSDI model is shown in Fig. 1.
BMSDI = β1 ⋅f1 + β2 ⋅f2 + β3 ⋅f3 (1)
∑
n1 ∑
n2 n3
∑
f1 = ωi ⋅BWSDIi , f2 = ωi ⋅BEEMIi , f3 = ωi ⋅BSEDIi (2)
i=1 i=1 i=1
where BMSDI is the synergy impact evaluation function of the basin; f1 ,
f2 , and f3 are the evaluation functions of the water and sediment
discharge, social and economic development, and ecological and envi­
ronmental development of the reservoir, respectively; β1 , β2 , and β3 are
their respective weights. From the principle of fairness, we consider
indices in equal importance, β1 =β2 =β3 , BWSDIi , BEEMIi , BSEDIi , and ωi
are the ith evaluation index and its weight, respectively. n1 , n2 , and n3
are the number of evaluation indices.
The calculation of BMSDI model consisted of the following five steps.
Step 1: identify the evaluation indices that are the flood control popu­
lation benefit, and sediment trapping and discharging benefit in the
water and sediment discharge index (BWSDI); the DOR, connectivity,
and SI in the ecological and environmental maintenance index (BEEMI);
and the installed capacity and construction difficulty in the social and
economic development index (BSEDI). Step 2: calculate the evaluation
indices and construct an evaluation index matrix of the CRCS, repre­
sented as [n!, T], where n is the number of reservoirs and T is their
operating time. Step 3: calculate the subsystem index, which is trans­
formed into a matrix, represented as [n!⋅T, 1], normalise the evaluation
index matrix, and apply the game theory (Geng et al., 2016) combina­
tion of the entropy weight method (Zou et al., 2006) and G1 method
(Song et al., 2022) to calculate the BWSDI, BEEMI, and BSEDI. Step 4:
combine BWSDI, BEEMI, and BSEDI to obtain BMSDI. Step 5: determine
the CRCS ranking from the magnitude of the subsystem index and
BMSDI.
2.2. Evaluation index system
2.2.1. BWSDI
(1) Flood control population benefit. This index uses the effective
reservoir storage and flood control population to measure the flood
control population benefit. This index characterises the social benefit of
the reservoir arising from defending the flood control population from
disaster damage caused by floods. The larger the value, the more sig­
nificant the benefit generated by the reservoir.
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
portray the regulation ability of the reservoir.
(2) Connectivity. The index measures reservoir connectivity by using
the ratio of the total squared lengths of river segments separated by the
reservoir, to the squared lengths of rivers in the basin. This index
characterises the reservoir impact on the free flow of water, sediment,
and living organisms in the river system in both temporal and spatial
directions. The larger the value, the more significant the benefit
generated by the reservoir.
∑n
l2i
P4 = ⋅100 (12)
i=1
L2
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
(km), and n is the number of reservoirs. When the first reservoir was
constructed on the river, the connectivity was minimised to 0.5 when
the reservoir was located at position L/2 and maximised to 1 when it was
where P6 is the installed capacity of the basin (ten thousand kW) and
Cpower,i is the installed capacity of the ith reservoir (ten thousand kW). n
is the number of reservoirs.
(2) Construction difficulty. This index uses the average of the nor­
malised values of the dam length, dam height, excavation and filling
volume, and elevation of the reservoir dam as a measure of the reservoir
construction difficulty. This index characterises the difficulty level of the
engineering technology and the construction conditions of the reservoir.
The smaller the value, the more significant the benefit generated by the
reservoirs when they were built in the same year.
DLi + DHi + DEFVi + DLEi
CDi = (17)
4
The reservoirs were ranked from smallest to largest according to CDi ,
and the matrix [R1, …, Ri, …, Rn] was generated. The matrix of each
construction sequence scheme was [N1, …, Ni,…, Nn], where Ri and Ni
are the labels representing the reservoirs with selected values ranging

4
W. Zhao et al.
from 1 to 7, and n = 7.
while Ri = N i
P7,i = n, P7 = sum(P1 , …, Pi )
else P7,i = n − abs(N1 − R1 ), P7 = sum(P1 , …, P)
where CDi is the construction difficulty of the ith reservoir; DLi , DHi and
DLEi are the dam length, dam height and elevation of the ith reservoir
(m); DEFVi is the excavation and filling volume of the ith reservoir (ten
thousand m3); DLi , DHi , DEFVi and DLEi are the normalised data; P7,i is
the construction difficulty score of the ith reservoir; P7 is the construc­
tion difficulty score of the basin; n is the number of reservoirs.
2.3. Index weights
The evaluation index weights were determined based on game the­
ory to achieve fairness in assigning weights. The evaluation index
weights were calculated using L different evaluation methods and the
basic weight vector set of the evaluation index was constructed, repre­
sented as wk = {wk1 , wk2 , ⋅⋅⋅, wkm },(k = 1,2,⋅⋅⋅,L), where m is the number
of evaluation indices. The G1 method was used to determine the sub­
jective weights using the method from a past study (Song et al., 2022)
and the entropy weight method was used to determine the objective
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
combination weights and the weights of each method to obtain the game
theory weights (Geng et al., 2016).
∑
L
w= λ∗k ⋅wTk , k = 1, ⋯, L
k=1
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
weight.
3. Study area and data
3.1. Study area
The study areas were the YRB1 and YRB2, with areas of 0.75 × 106
and 1.81 × 106 km2 and populations of 92 × 106 and 379 × 106 people,
Fig. 2. Study area maps: (a) location of the study area, (b) YRB1, and (c) YRB2.
Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547
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,
respectively. The basins provide abundant water resources, with average
(18)
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
fragile. The YRB2 is rich in biodiversity and an important ecosystem in
China. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the
State Council issued the “Outline of the Development Plan for the
Yangtze River Economic Belt” and the “Outline of the Plan for the
Ecological Protection and High-Quality Development of the Yellow
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
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
have been in operation since 1986, 1968, 1960, and 1999, respectively.
The HSX, QK, and GX are in the preliminary planning stages and are
estimated to be completed in 2030, 2035, and 2025. Among the seven
key reservoirs in the YRB2, the LDL, GYY, WDD, BHT, XLD, XJB, and TG
reservoirs have been in operation since 2013, 2014, 2020, 2021, 2013,
2012, and 2003, respectively. These reservoirs were selected for eval­
uation, creating a spatial river network combining flow paths and res­
ervoirs for the YRB1 and YRB2 (Fig. 2).
3.2. Data sources
Population data was obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics
of China (https://www.stats.gov.cn/). The flood control population of
the reservoir was calculated using Eq. (21).
(19)
CTPt = − 12.94⋅t2 + 52793.06⋅t − 53711079.3, t = 2021, 2022, ⋅⋅⋅, 2040
(20)
CTPt
FCPt = FCP2020 ⋅ , t = 1960, 1961, ⋅⋅⋅, 2040 (21)
CTP2020
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
(ten thousand people).
Runoff and sediment discharge were obtained from measured data
(https://www.yrcc.gov.cn/; https://www.cjw.gov.cn/). We used the
2001–2020 runoff and sediment discharge as the 2021–2040 data.
5
W. Zhao et al.
Reservoir siltation data were measured data (https://www.yrcc.gov.
cn/) and from Hu and Duan (Duan et al., 2010; Hu et al., 2022). The
average multi-year siltation of HSX was 0.572 billion m3 and the multi-
year cumulative siltation was silted in proportion to the annual
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
due to the lack of data. The dam length, height, excavation and filling
volume, elevation, storage capacity, combined storage, and installed
capacity of the reservoir dams were derived from the Yellow River
Network (https://www.yrcc.gov.cn/; https://www.cjw.gov.cn/) and
the International Commission on Dams (https://www.icold-cigb.org/).
The river network data from the HydroSHEDS dataset (https://hyd
rosheds.org/page/overview) and the reach lengths were extracted
from the river network data using Arcgis.
4. Results
4.1. Weight results
The evaluation index weights are listed in Table 1. In the YRB1, G1
method ranked the indices as follows: flood control population benefits
> sediment trapping and discharging benefits > construction difficulty
> installed capacity > DOR > SI > connectivity. For the YRB2, the G1
method ranked the indices as follows: flood control population benefits
> installed capacity > SI > DOR > connectivity > sediment trapping and
discharging benefits > construction difficulty.
4.2. Performance of BWSDI
The BWSDI and BWSDI accumulation are shown in Fig. 3a and
Fig. 3c, respectively. The BWSDI of CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 showed
an increasing trend. The planned BWSDI benefits gradually increased
and exceeded the average benefits. The rankings of BWSDI and BWSDI
accumulation are shown in Fig. 3b and Fig. 3d, respectively. The ranking
showed no obvious relationship with the size of BWSDI. The ranking of
BWSDI accumulation considered the role of time and was influenced by
the ranking of the previous period, thus reflecting the total impact of
CRCS on the basin over time. The final rankings of BWSDI accumulation
in 2040 for the YRB1 and YRB2 were 196 and 303, respectively, which
accounted for the top 4 % and 6 % of the 5040 group scheme rankings.
This indicates that the overall effectiveness of BWSDI for the planned
CRCS is relatively good.
4.3. Performance of BEEMI
The BEEMI and BEEMI accumulation are shown in Fig. 4a and
Fig. 4c, respectively. The BEEMI of CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 showed
a decreasing trend. The planned BEEMI benefits decreased gradually and
were greater than the mean benefits in the YRB1 and less than the mean
benefits in the YRB2. The rankings of BEEMI and BEEMI accumulation
are shown in Fig. 4b and Fig. 4d (the results are the same as those in
Fig. 3). The final rankings of the BEEMI accumulation in 2040 for the
YRB1 and YRB2 were 159 and 3733, respectively, which accounted for
the top 3 % and 74 % of the 5040 group scheme rankings. This indicates
Table 1
Weight of evaluation index.
Basin Weight P1 P2 P3
YRB1 Entropy weight method 0.204 0.125 0.145
G1 method 0.249 0.249 0.086
Game theory method 0.234 0.208 0.106
YRB2 Entropy weight method 0.117 0.108 0.088
G1 method 0.393 0.031 0.101
Game theory method 0.251 0.071 0.095
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.
Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547
that the overall effectiveness of BEEMI for the planned CRCS in the YRB1
is relatively good, whereas it is relatively poor in the YRB2.
4.4. Performance of BSEDI
The BSEDI and BSEDI accumulation are shown in Fig. 5a and Fig. 5c.
The BSEDI of CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 showed an increasing trend.
The planned BSEDI benefits gradually decreased, which were less than
the mean benefits in the YRB1 and greater than the mean benefits in the
YRB2. The rankings of the BSEDI and BSEDI accumulation are shown in
Fig. 5b and Fig. 5d, respectively (the results were the same as those in
Fig. 3). The final rankings of the BSEDI accumulation in 2040 for the
YRB1 and YRB2 were 3642 and 2604, respectively, which accounted for
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
is relatively poor, whereas it is relatively good in the YRB2.
4.5. Performance of BMSDI
The BMSDI and BMSDI accumulation are shown in Fig. 6a and
Fig. 6c. The BMSDI of CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 showed an increasing
trend. The planned BMSDI benefits decreased gradually and were
greater than the mean benefits. The rankings of the BMSDI and BMSDI
accumulations are shown in Fig. 6b and Fig. 6d, respectively (the results
are the same as those in Fig. 3). The final rankings of the BMSDI accu­
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
scheme rankings. This indicates that the overall effectiveness of BMSDI
for the planned CRCS in the YRB1 and YRB2 is relatively good.
Fig. 3 to Fig. 6, the BWSDI of the YRB1 and YRB2 ranked top, and the
difference was small (2 %). Therefore, the main purpoe primary starting
point of the planned CRCS should be to ensure that the BSWDI benefits
are maximised. The BEEMI and BSEDI rankings of the YRB1 and YRB2
differed, with the BEEMI of the YRB1 ranked ahead of the BSEDI and
having the greater benefits. In contrast, in the YRB2, the BSEDI was
ranked ahead of BEEMI and had the greater benefits. The BMSDI of the
YRB1 and YRB2 ranked top, and the difference was small (6 %).
Therefore, the basin synergy development level can be more compre­
hensively and accurately assessed by considering the BWSDI, BEEMI,
and BSEDI.
5. Discussion
5.1. Model rationality
The model evaluation results for the five scenarios are shown in
Fig. 7. Scenario 1 (S1) represents existing reservoirs and the construction
sequence is SMX, LJX, LYX, and XLD. Scenario 2 (S2) is the planned
reservoirs, the construction sequence is GX, HSX, and QK. The reservoir
construction sequence in Scenario 3 (S3) is SMX, LJX, LYX, XLD, GX,
HSX, and QK. The reservoir construction sequence in Scenario 4 (S4) is
the first six reservoirs in S5. The reservoir construction sequence in
Scenario 5 (S5) is TG, XJB, XLD, LDL, GYY, WDD, and BHT.
The BWSDI rankings of S1 to S5 were 21, 1, 196, 49, and 303,
P4 P5 P6 P7 Subjective and objective weights
0.218 0.073 0.093 0.142 0.326
0.054 0.086 0.138 0.138 0.674
0.107 0.082 0.124 0.140 0.326*EWM + 0.674* G1M
0.467 0.041 0.081 0.097 0.514
0.056 0.182 0.219 0.017 0.486
0.267 0.110 0.148 0.058 0.514*EWM + 0.486* G1M
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
total number of construction sequence schemes (Fig. 7a). In addition,
the ranking of the planned CRCS was relatively top in the YRB1 and
YRB2. The BEEMI rankings of S1 to S5 were 16, 2, 159, 215, and 3733,
respectively, accounting for the top 67 %, 33 %, 3 %, 30 %, and 74 % of
the total number of construction sequence schemes (Fig. 7b). The BSEDI
rankings of S1 to S5 were 1, 3, 3642, 80, and 2604, accounting for the
top 4 %, 50 %, 72 %, 11 %, and 52 % of the total number of construction
sequence schemes, respectively (Fig. 7c). When evaluating the impacts
of the CRCS from the BWSDI, BEEMI, and BSEDI, the rankings of the
BEEMI and BSEDI showed the most difference while the ranking of the
BWSDI was more stable.
The BMSDI rankings of S1 to S5 were 2, 1, 175, 78, and 477,
respectively, accounting for the top 8 %, 17 %, 3 %, 11 %, and 9 % of the
total number of construction sequence schemes (Fig. 7d). The BMSDI
ranking of the planned CRCS was relatively top in the YRB1 and YRB2.
In conclusion, the BMSDI model provides a good representation for the
impact of the CRCS on basin synergy development.
5.2. Index sensitivity
The absolute value of index sensitivity is shown in Table 2. Sx = abs
(ΔX/X)*100, where X is the BMSDI score of the indices in its original
condition, ΔX is the difference in the BMSDI score between the original
and modified conditions due to a change in the data value of a given
index, and Sx is the percent of change in the BMSDI score due to a
change in the data value of the index. In this study, the average value of
the sensitivity of 5040 scenarios was used as a measurement. We found
that the sensitivity of BMSDI is very small (less than 3). In the YRB1,
reservoir storage was the most sensitive, followed by the seasonal index
and population, and then installed capacity. In the YRB2, the installed
capacity was the most sensitive, followed by the population and reser­
voir storage, and then the seasonal index.
The runoff and sediment discharge of the YRB2 were 14.8 times and
0.4 times those of the YRB1, respectively. Thus, the YRB1 had a lower
runoff and more sediment discharge than the YRB2. Therefore, the in­
crease of reservoir storage in the YRB1 can greatly change the BMSDI
sensitivity. In contrast, the increase of reservoir storage in the YRB2
minor changed the BMSDI sensitivity. The sensitivity of seasonal index
for the YRB1 was significantly greater than that of the YRB2. The
installed capacity and population of the YRB2 were greater than those of
the YRB1, whose sensitivity of the YRB2 is greater than that of the YRB1.
5.3. Spatial anisotropy
The mean benefits and percentages of BWSDI, BEEMI, and BSEDI are
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
YRB2. The difference between BEEMI and BSEDI in the YRB1 was not
large. In contrast, the difference between them in the YRB2 was greater
due to the shorter operation time of the reservoirs. Extending to 2080
while keeping the three-dimensional index values unchanged from
2040, the BEEMI and BSEDI were 27 % and 27 % in the YRB2, respec­
tively. The percentages of BSEDI and BWSDI gradually increased,
whereas that of BEEMI progressively decreased, showing that the ben­
efits of BSEDI and BWSDI increased while that of BEEMI decreased.
The development of the national GDP and reservoir construction
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.
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
in the YRB1. The results indicate that when the national GDP is at a
lower development level, reservoirs are constructed with pay more
emphasis on the construction sequence for greater BSEDI benefits. In
contrast, when the national GDP increases or is at a higher level,
reservoir construction pays more attention to the construction sequence
for greater BWSDI benefits.
In the YRB1, from 2000 to 2020, the runoff gradually increased, the
sediment discharge gradually decreased, and the BMSDI benefits
showed a minor decreasing trend (Fig. 8a and Fig. 9b). From 2020 to
2040, the increase in runoff, the decrease in sediment discharge, and the
continued construction of reservoirs caused the BMSDI benefits to in­
crease rapidly. In the YRB2, from 2000 to 2020, the runoff gradually
increased, the sediment discharge progressively decreased, and reser­
voirs continued to be constructed (Fig. 8b and Fig. 9c), thus, the BMSDI
benefits increased rapidly. However, from 2020 to 2040, the runoff
gradually increased, the sediment discharge progressively decreased,
and the BMSDI benefits showed a minor decreasing trend. Therefore, the
reservoir construction promotes the basin synergy development and the
BMSDI benefits tend to decrease with continued reservoir operation.
In the YRB1 before 1986, the runoff and sediment discharge were
larger and the BMSDI benefits increased slightly with the reservoir
construction (Fig. 8a and Fig. 9b). From 1986 to 2000, the runoff and
sediment discharge were generally small and the BMSDI benefits
increased more with the continuous reservoir construction. The above
analysis reveals that the reservoir construction promoted the basin
synergy development. When the amount of runoff and sediment
discharge was high, reservoir continue operation caused serious siltation
and the BMSDI benefits increased slowly. When the runoff and sediment
discharge were low, reservoir continue operation caused lighter siltation
and the BMSDI benefits increased more rapidly. In summary, runoff,
sediment discharge, and the reservoir construction affect the BMSDI
9
Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547
benefits.
6. Conclusion
The BMSDI model was constructed based on the BWSDI, BEEMI, and
BSEDI and applied to the YRB1 and YRB2. The main conclusions are as
follows: (1) With the construction of cascade reservoir, the BWSDI,
BSEDI, and BMSDI gradually increased, the BEEMI progressively
decreased. The percentages of BSEDI and BEEMI benefits were smaller
than that of BWSDI and the main goal of reservoir construction was to
ensure that BWSDI benefits are maximised. The CRCS focused more on
BSEDI benefits when the level of national economic development was
low, and more on BWSDI benefits when it was high.
(2) The ranking had no obvious relationship with the evaluation
index value and the accumulation ranking was driven by the accumu­
lation index value over the study period. In the YRB1, the planned
CRCS’s benefits in terms of BEEMI and BWSDI ranked top. Similarly, in
the YRB2, the planned CRCS’s benefits concerning BWSDI and BSEDI
ranked top. In addition, the BMSDI benefits of the planned CRCS ranked
top, providing a comprehensive and accurate evaluation for the level of
basin synergy development.
(3) The sensitivity of reservoir storage, seasonal index, population
and installed capacity gradually decreased in YRB1. The sensitivity of
installed capacity, population, reservoir storage, and seasonal index
slowly diminished in the YRB2. Reservoir capacity and installed ca­
pacity were the main factors influencing the CRCS in the YRB1 and
YRB2, respectively.
(4) The reservoir construction promoted the basin socioeconomic
development. The BMSDI benefits slowly increased due to severe
reservoir siltation when runoff and sediment discharge were high,
conversely, they rapidly increased. The runoff, sediment discharge, and
reservoir construction affect the basin multifunctional synergy
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.
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
Wanjie Zhao: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Donglin Li: Writing – review & editing. Yuanjian Wang: Conceptual­
ization, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision. Enhui
Jiang: Project administration, Supervision. Yanhui Liu: Resources,
Writing – original draft. Jieyu Li: Resources, Writing – original draft.
Qiang Wang: Resources, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the National Key Research and Devel­
opment Program of China (2021YFC3200400); the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (42041004, U2243601, U2243241,
U2243215); the Major Science and Technology Program of the Ministry
of Water Resources of China (SKR-2022021, SKS-2022088); the Special
Basic Research Fund for Central Public Research Institutes (HKY-JBYW-
2022-12); Science and Technology Development Foundation of Yellow
River Institute of Hydraulic Research (HKF202220, HKF202111). The
authors acknowledge the anonymous referees for their valuable
comments.
References
Bagla, P., 2014. India plans the grandest of canal networks. Science 345, 128. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.345.6193.128.
Chen, L., Ge, L., Wang, D., Zhong, W., Zhan, T., Deng, A., 2022. Multi-objective water-
sediment optimal operation of cascade reservoirs in the Yellow River Basin.
J. Hydrol. 609, 127744 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127744.
Cote, D., Kehler, D.G., Bourne, C., Wiersma, Y.F., 2009. A new measure of longitudinal
connectivity for stream networks. Landsc. Ecol. 24, 101–113. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10980-008-9283-y.
Dey, M., Krishnaswamy, J., Morisaka, T., Kelkar, N., 2019. Interacting effects of vessel
noise and shallow river depth elevate metabolic stress in Ganges river dolphins. Sci.
Rep. 9, 15426. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51664-1.
Duan, G., Guo, B., He, S., 2010. Comprehensive effect of Heishanxia Reservoir on the
Ningmeng River section of the Yellow River. Yellow River. 35, 145–147. https://doi.
org/10.3969/j.issn. 1000-1379, 2010.09.062.
Eriyagama, N., Smakhtin, V., Udamulla, L., 2020. How much artificial surface storage is
acceptable in a river basin and where should it be located: A review. Earth Sci. Rev.
208, 103294 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103294.
Fan, P., Cho, M.S., Lin, Z., Ouyang, Z., Qi, J., Chen, J., Moran, E.F., 2022. Recently
constructed hydropower dams were associated with reduced economic production,
population, and greenness in nearby areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119 https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.2108038119 e2108038119.
Fang, L., Wang, L., Chen, W., Sun, J., Cao, Q., Wang, S., Wang, L., 2021. Identifying the
impacts of natural and human factors on ecosystem service in the Yangtze and
Yellow River Basins. J. Clean. Prod. 314, 127995 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.127995.
11
Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547
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.
Geng, L., Liu, H., Zhong, H., Liu, C., 2006. Indicators and crteria for evaluation of healthy
rivers. J. Hydraul. Eng. 37, 253–258. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0559-
9350.2006.03.001.
Graf, W.L., 1999. Dam nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large-
scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resour. Res. 35, 1305–1311. https://doi.org/
10.1029/1999 WR900016.
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.,
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.
Habibi Davijani, M., Banihabib, M.E., Nadjafzadeh Anvar, A., Hashemi, S.R., 2016.
Multi-objective optimization model for the allocation of water resources in arid
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
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.
slxb. 20200573.
Jiang, E., Qu, B., Jia, J., Liu, C., Wang, Y., Li, D., Li, J., 2023. Study on the coordination
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.
Jumani, S., Deitch, M.J., Valle, D., Machado, S., Lecours, V., Kaplan, D.,
Krishnaswamy, J., Howard, J., 2022. A new index to quantify longitudinal river
fragmentation: Conservation and management implications. Ecol. Ind. 136, 108680
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108680.
Kangas, K., Brown, G., Kivinen, M., Tolvanen, A., Tuulentie, S., Karhu, J., Markovaara-
Koivisto, M., Eilu, P., Tarvainen, O., Similä, J., Juutinen, A., 2022. Land use
synergies and conflicts identification in the framework of compatibility analyses and
spatial assessment of ecological, socio-cultural and economic values. J. Environ.
Manage. 316, 115174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115174.
Kumar, H., Hwang, J., Devineni, N., Sankarasubramanian, A., 2022. Dynamic flow
alteration index for complex river networks with cascading reservoir systems.
e2021WR030491 Water Resour. Res. 58. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030491.
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
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.,
Endejan, M., Frenken, K., Magome, J., Nilsson, C., Robertson, J.C., Rödel, R.,
Sindorf, N., Wisser, D., 2011. High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and
dams for sustainable river-flow management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 494–502.
https://doi.org/10.1890/100125.
Li, D., Zuo, Q., Zhang, Z., 2022. A new assessment method of sustainable water resources
utilization considering fairness-efficiency-security: A case study of 31 provinces and
cities in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 81, 103839 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2022.103839.
Li, D., Zuo, Q., Jiang, L., Wu, Q., 2023. An integrated analysis framework for water
resources sustainability considering fairness and decoupling based on the water
resources ecological footprint model: A case study of Xinjiang, China. J. Cleaner
Product. 383, 135466 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135466.
Liu, J., Zhao, D., 2020. Three-dimensional water scarcity assessment by considering
water quantity, water quality, and environmental flow requirements: Review and
prospect. Chin. Sci. Bull. 65, 4251–4261. https://doi.org/10.1360/TB-2020-0918.
Nilsson, C., Reidy, C.A., Dynesius, M., Revenga, C., 2005. Fragmentation and flow
regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308, 405–408. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science. 1107887.
Piman, T., Cochrane, T.A., Arias, M.E., 2016. Effect of proposed large dams on water
flows and hydropower production in the Sekong, Sesan and Srepok rivers of the
Mekong Basin. River Res. Appl. 32, 2095–2108. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3045.
Ran, L., Lu, X.X., Xin, Z., Yang, X., 2013. Cumulative sediment trapping by reservoirs in
large river basins: A case study of the Yellow River basin. Global Planet. Change 100,
308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.11.001.
W. Zhao et al.
Rentschler, J., Salhab, M., Jafino, B.A., 2022. Flood exposure and poverty in 188
countries. Nat. Commun. 13, 3527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30727-4.
Ruhi, A., Hwang, J., Devineni, N., Mukhopadhyay, S., Kumar, H., Comte, L., Worland, S.,
Sankarasubramanian, A., 2022. How does flow alteration propagate across a large,
highly regulated basin? Dam attributes, network context, and implications for
biodiversity. Earth’s. e2021EF002490 Future. 10. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2021EF002490.
Seliger, C., Scheikl, S., Schmutz, S., Schinegger, R., Fleck, S., Neubarth, J., Walder, C.,
Muhar, S., 2016. Hy: Con: a strategic tool for balancing hydropower development
and conservation needs. River Res. Appl. 32, 1438–1449. https://doi.org/10.1002/
rra.2985.
Shan, C., Dong, Z., Fan, K., Yang, J., Liu, C., Fang, Q., 2012. Application of combination
weighting method to weight calculation in river health evaluation. J. Hohai Univ.
(Nat. Sci.) 40, 622–628. https://doi.org/10.3876/j.issn.1000-1980.2012.06.005.
Song, L., Zhang, J., Du, J., Jian, Y., Shen, J., Li, H., 2022. Resilience assessment of the
safety operation of the water conservancy projects based on combined weighting and
cloud model. Water Resour. Protect. https://doi.org/10.3880/j.issn.1004-
6933.2023.02.025.
Tan, G., Chen, P., Deng, J., Xu, Q., Tang, R., Feng, Z., Yi, R., 2019. Review and
improvement of conventional models for reservoir sediment trapping efficiency.
Heliyon. 5, e02458.
Volpi, E., Di Lazzaro, M., Bertola, M., Viglione, A., Fiori, A., 2018. Reservoir effects on
flood peak discharge at the catchment scale. Water Resour. Res. 54, 9623–9636.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023866.
Vörösmarty, C.J., Keshav, P.S., Balázs, M.F., Copeland, A.H., Holden, J., John, M.,
John, A.L., 1997. The storage and aging of continental runoff in large reservoir
systems of the world. Ambio 26, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/4314590.
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., Davies, P.M., 2010. Global
threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555–561.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature 09440.
12
Ecological Indicators 158 (2024) 111547
Wang, Y., Tang, F., Jiang, E., Wang, X., Zhao, J., 2022b. Optimizing hydropower
generation and sediment transport in Yellow River basin via cooperative game
theory. J. Hydrol. 614, 128581 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128581.
Wang, J., Walter, B.A., Yao, F., Song, C., Ding, M., Maroof, A.S., Zhu, J., Fan, C.,
McAlister, J.M., Sikder, S., Sheng, Y., Allen, G.H., Crétaux, J.F., Wada, Y., 2022a.
GeoDAR: georeferenced global dams and reservoirs dataset for bridging attributes
and geolocations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 14, 1869–1899. https://doi.org/10.5194/
essd-14-1869-2022.
Wang, H., Wang, J., Hu, P., 2021. New connotation of water resources protection:
“quantity-quality-domain-connectivity-biology” coordinated protection and
restoration. Water Resour. Protect. 37, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3880/j.issn.1004-
6933.2021.02.001.
Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A.E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L., Tockner, K., 2015. A global boom in
hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci. 77, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00027-014-0377-0.
Zeng, Z., Liu, J., Savenije, H.H.G., 2013. A simple approach to assess water scarcity
integrating water quantity and quality. Ecol. Ind. 34, 441–449. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.06.012.
Zhang, S., Xia, J., Li, T., 2018. Study on flood-season sediment delivery ratio of the
Xiaolangdi reservoir. Yellow River. 40, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-
1379.2018.01.002.
Zhou, X., Huang, X., Zhao, H., Ma, K., 2020. Development of a revised method for
indicators of hydrologic alteration for analyzing the cumulative impacts of cascading
reservoirs on flow regime. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 24, 4091–4107. https://doi.org/
10.5194/hess-24-4091-2020.
Zhu, S., Li, D., Feng, H., Zhang, N., 2023. The influencing factors and mechanisms for
urban flood resilience in China: From the perspective of social-economic-natural
complex ecosystem. Ecol. Ind. 147, 109959 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2023.109959.
Zou, Z., Yun, Y., Sun, J., 2006. Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating
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.