Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of

European streams
M. Rinaldi a, *, B. Belletti a, M. Bussettini b, F. Comiti c, B. Golfieri d, B. Lastoria b,
E. Marchese c, L. Nardi a, N. Surian d
a
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Florence, Via S.Marta 3, 50139 Firenze, Italy
b
Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Via Vitaliano Brancati 48, 00144 Roma, Italy
c
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Universita! 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
d
Department of Geosciences, University of Padova, Via Gradenigo 6, 35131 Padova, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Hydromorphological stream assessment has significantly expanded over the last years, but a need has
Received 6 April 2016 emerged from recent reviews for more comprehensive, process-based methods that consider the char-
Received in revised form acter and dynamics of the river with greater accuracy. With this as a focus, a series of hydro-
5 November 2016
morphological tools have been developed and/or further extended in Europe within the context of the
Accepted 16 November 2016
Available online xxx
REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management) project. The aim of this paper is to
present the set of REFORM hydromorphological assessment methods and, based on some examples of
their application, to illustrate and discuss their synergic use, specific features, limitations and strengths.
Keywords:
Hydromorphology
This assessment and monitoring includes three tools: the Morphological Quality Index (MQI), the
River management Morphological Quality Index for monitoring (MQIm), and the Geomorphic Units survey and classification
River restoration System (GUS). These tools constitute the assessment phase of an overall multi-scale, process-based
Water Framework Directive hydromorphological framework developed in REFORM. The MQI is aimed at an assessment, classification
and monitoring of the current morphological state; the MQIm aims at monitoring the tendency of
morphological conditions (enhancement or deterioration); the GUS provides a characterization, classi-
fication and monitoring of geomorphic units.
A series of examples are used to illustrate the potential range of application, including: (i) an
assessment of morphological conditions; (ii) an assessment of the morphological effects of restoration
projects; (iii) an evaluation of the geomorphic impacts of interventions for risk mitigation; and (iv) an
integrated use of MQI and GUS to assess and characterise morphological conditions. Finally, some of the
main features, strengths and peculiarities of the three hydromorphological tools are discussed with the
support of examples of their application.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction integrated management of river ecosystems. Following the intro-

The integration of information on hydrology and fluvial geo-
morphology (termed hydromorphology) aimed at promoting river
management has seen a significant increase over the last years. In
European countries, this process has been accelerated by the
implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD;
European Commission, 2000), which recognises hydromorphology
as an important component in supporting the assessment and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: massimo.rinaldi@unifi.it (M. Rinaldi).
duction of the WFD, numerous methodologies have been proposed
to assess and monitor the hydromorphology of fluvial water bodies,
which vary widely in terms of their concepts, aims, spatial scales,
collected data and therefore their applicability (e.g., Ferna "ndez
et al., 2011; Belletti et al., 2015). Initially, hydromorphological
assessment was seen to be synonymous of a physical habitat survey
(e.g. Platts et al., 1983; Raven et al., 1997), used to rapidly assess the
status of a river (Fryirs, 2015). A series of limitations were identified
in the use of physical habitat assessment methods, including
among others (Fryirs et al., 2008; Belletti et al., 2015): (i) the limited
spatial scale of investigation (i.e. the ‘site’ scale with a fixed length
of a few hundred meters) is usually inadequate to fully

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
0301-4797/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
2 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16
contextualise river condition and to perform an accurate diagnosis
of the causes of alteration; (ii) the use of reference conditions based
on the statistical analysis of empirical data is questionable for
hydromorphology; (iii) the terminology used to describe geomor-
phic units in most habitat surveys is neither comprehensive nor
updated when compared to the present state-of-the-art classifi-
cations in fluvial geomorphology.
In contrast with the physical habitat survey procedures, over the
last few years an evident trend has emerged in increasing the sci-
entific development of geomorphologically based approaches,
methods, and frameworks of geomorphic condition assessment, in
the attempt to understand river functioning and evolution as a
basis for interpreting current conditions (e.g., Brierley and Fryirs,
2005; Ollero et al., 2007, 2011; Rinaldi et al., 2013; Fryirs, 2015;
Gurnell et al., 2016a). Process-based methods can be defined as
those methods that (i) emphasize the consideration of the occur-
rence of expected geomorphic processes (e.g., the continuity of
sediment and wood fluxes, lateral connectivity, bank erosion, and
armouring) rather than just classifying physical habitats and
channel forms; and (ii) include the explicit consideration of tem-
poral changes and dynamics.
The review by Belletti et al. (2015) emphasizes that some of the
previous features could also to some degree be interpreted as being
limitations. For example, physical processes are more difficult to
assess than a simple inventory of existing forms; indicators of
whether processes have taken place or not are thus often generated
from a visual assessment of the occurrence or not of that processes
(observed in the field or based on remotely sensed information) or
else they are indirectly based on the presence of artificial elements
which are inferred to have a significant impact on some processes.
Furthermore, a morphological method is not just a field sampling
methodology, but it requires integration with remote sensing e GIS,
and therefore requires an operator with training and an appro-
priate background knowledge of the underlying geomorphic prin-
ciples. These factors in part explain why, in most EU member states,
a gap still exists between the development of new approaches and
their application and use for the assessment, monitoring and
identification of possible management actions. The implementa-
tion of these approaches is still quite limited, whereas methods not
based on physical processes remain the most widely applied to
assess hydromorphology (Belletti et al., 2015). Therefore, a need
still exists to promote a more comprehensive, process-based
hydromorphological assessment that considers the character and
dynamics of river reaches and how these are affected by present
and past natural and human-induced changes within the catch-
ment as well as within the reach.
In response to this need, new methodologies have been devel-
oped and/or extended within the REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR
effective catchment Management) project (2011e2015), funded by
the European Union's FP7 Programme. Specifically, two comple-
mentary approaches have been proposed for hydromorphological
assessment: (i) an open-ended approach - the REFORM hydro-
morphological framework (Gurnell et al., 2014, 2016b), and (ii) a set
of more specific hydromorphological assessment procedures which
incorporates a set of clearly defined stages and steps e the REFORM
hydromorphological assessment methods.
The objective of this paper is to present the set of REFORM
hydromorphological assessment methods and, based on some ex-
amples of their application, to illustrate and discuss their synergic
use, specific features, limitations and strengths.
2. The overall assessment and monitoring framework
The REFORM hydromorphological analysis (Gurnell et al., 2014,
2016b) is based on previous hierarchical frameworks (e.g., Frissell
Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
et al., 1986; Montgomery and Buffington, 1998; Habersack, 2000;
Brierley and Fryirs, 2005; Rinaldi et al., 2013), but has several
properties that reflect the European context for which it was
developed. The framework is open-ended, i.e. European member
states can incorporate their own data sets, methods and modelling
tools. A multi-scale hierarchical approach provides the spatial
framework, including spatial units at region, catchment, landscape
unit, segment, reach, geomorphic unit, hydraulic unit and river
element scales. The temporal context of the framework is linked to
the key concept of evolutionary trajectory (Brierley et al., 2008;
Dufour and Pie "gay, 2009), emphasising that fluvial systems are
dynamic and follow a complex trajectory of changes with time in
response to a series of driving variables acting at various spatial and
temporal scales. Each river may have specific characteristics
determined by its historical evolution, including climatic variations,
human interventions, and unique sequences of large flood events,
so the interpretation of temporal adjustments in morphology is
essential for assessing current conditions and possible future ad-
justments and scenarios.
A more prescriptive version of the framework was proposed by
Rinaldi et al. (2015a). This version is still flexible and open-ended,
but incorporates a set of specific tools e the REFORM hydro-
morphological assessment methods e with which some of the
components of the overall framework can be assessed. Four stages
are defined, in accordance with existing frameworks with a similar
structure (Brierley and Fryirs, 2005; Rinaldi et al., 2015b), each one
containing a series of procedural steps that support the assessment
of river conditions in a consistent manner. During Stage I (Catch-
ment-wide delineation and spatial characterization of the fluvial
system), the catchment and the river system in their current con-
ditions are delineated, characterised, and analysed. Stage II
(Assessment of temporal changes and current conditions) involves
reconstructing the history and evolutionary trajectories of
morphological changes that have resulted in the current river
conditions. Stage III (Assessment of scenario-based future trends)
identifies possible future scenarios of hydromorphological modifi-
cation. Stage IV (Management) identifies possible hydro-
morphological restoration or management actions.
The three methods illustrated in this paper are mainly a part of
Stage 2 (assessment and monitoring phase), but they can also be
used to support Stages 3 and 4.
3. The Morphological Quality Index (MQI)
The Morphological Quality Index is the key tool of the REFORM
assessment methods. It derives from an original version developed
for application in Italy, described in detail in Rinaldi et al. (2013).
The MQI can be classified as a ‘process-based’ method because it
presents the following features:
(1) It explicitly considers processes which go beyond basic
channel forms, i.e. it includes a series of indicators directly
linked to the functioning of a series of basic processes ex-
pected in natural rivers (e.g., continuity in sediment and
wood fluxes, bank erosion, lateral channel mobility);
(2) The temporal component is explicitly accounted for, i.e.
channel form is not limited to being considered in a static
way, but its adjustments through time are addressed by a
series of specific indicators;
(3) Reference conditions are defined in terms of dynamic pro-
cesses and functions that are expected to normally occur in a
given physical context. This differs substantially from most
current hydromorphological methods which define refer-
ence conditions in terms of a precise channel configuration
or a set of channel characteristics. In fact, reference
 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16 3

conditions for the MQI are river reaches in dynamic equi-
librium, where the river is performing those morphological
functions that are expected for a specific morphological ty-
pology and valley setting (i.e. confined vs. unconfined), and
where artificial elements and interventions are absent or do
not significantly affect the river dynamics at the catchment
and reach scale.
According to the multi-scale hierarchical framework, the MQI
spatial scale of application is the reach (i.e. a section of river along
which driving variables and boundary conditions are sufficiently
uniform, commonly a few kilometres in length). This is recognised
as the most appropriate and meaningful scale for assessing
hydromorphology (Brierley and Fryirs, 2005; Gurnell et al., 2014,
2016b). Four steps are suggested for the delineation procedure
(Rinaldi et al., 2013, 2015c): (i) general setting and identification of
landscape (or physiographic) units and segments; (ii) definition of
confinement typologies; (iii) identification of morphological type;
(iv) consideration of other elements for reach delineation. During
the delineation of channel morphology (step 3), a first simple level
of classification is carried out based on the river channel planform
character (number of threads and planform pattern) in the context
of the valley setting (confinement). This basic river typology (BRT:
Rinaldi et al., 2015d) defines seven river types using readily avail-
able information, mainly remotely sensed imagery. Following the
initial delineation of the river reaches, additional information on
reach properties and indicators is collected and an extended river
typology comprising 22 river types may then be defined (Rinaldi
et al., 2015d).
The MQI includes a set of twenty-eight indicators (Table 1),
divided into the following three components:
(1) Geomorphological functionality evaluates whether or not
the processes and related forms responsible for the correct
functioning of the river are prevented or altered by artificial
elements or by channel adjustments.
(2) Artificiality assesses the presence and frequency of artifi-
ciality (artificial elements, pressures, interventions, man-
agement activities) independently of the effects of these
artificial elements on channel forms and processes.
(3) Channel adjustments assess relatively recent morphological
changes (i.e. over about the last 100 years) that are indicative
of a systematic instability related to human factors.
Data collection is based on an integration of remote sensing, GIS
analysis, and field survey, and should be carried out by operators
with sufficient background and training in fluvial geomorphology.
The evaluation is based on a scoring system. Scores and classes
were defined and subsequently improved based on the results of a
testing phase (Rinaldi et al., 2013). Three classes are generally
defined for each indicator (except for a limited number with two
classes or more than three classes): (A) undisturbed conditions or
negligible alterations; (B) intermediate alterations; (C) very altered
conditions. For each indicator, we started by defining reference
conditions for that indicator, corresponding to the absence or
negligible presence of alterations (class A), a value of 0 being
assigned to this class.
A total score is computed as the sum of scores across all com-
ponents and aspects. The Morphological Quality Index is then
defined as
MQI ¼ 1 " Stot=Smax (1)

Table 1
Morphological Quality Index (MQI): synthesis of indicators and assessed parameters (modified from Rinaldi et al., 2015b). In italics are those indicators that have been modified
or integrated compared to the original version of Rinaldi et al. (2013). For a full description of each indicator, see Rinaldi et al. (2015c, 2016).

Indicators Assessed parameters

Geomorphological functionality
F1 e Longitudinal continuity in sediment and wood flux
F2 e Presence of a modern floodplain
F3 e Hillslopeeriver corridor connectivity
F4 e Processes of bank retreat
F5 e Presence of a potentially erodible corridor
F6 e Bed configurationevalley slope
F7 e Planform pattern
F8 e Presence of typical fluvial forms in the floodplain
F9 e Variability of the cross section
F10 e Structure of the channel bed
F11 e Presence of in-channel large wood
F12 e Width of functional vegetation
F13 e Linear extension of functional vegetation
Artificiality
A1 e Upstream alteration of flows
A2 e Upstream alteration of sediment discharges
A3 e Alteration of flows in the reach
A4 e Alteration of sediment discharge in the reach
A5 e Crossing structures
A6 e Bank protections
A7 e Artificial levees
A8 e Artificial changes of river course
A9 e Other bed stabilization structures
A10 e Sediment removal
A11 e Wood removal
A12 e Vegetation management
Channel adjustments
CA1 e Adjustments in channel pattern
CA2 e Adjustments in channel width
CA3 e Bed-level adjustments
Presence of crossing structures altering sediment and wood continuity
Width and longitudinal length of a modern floodplain
Presence and length of elements of disconnection on river sides
Presence/absence of retreating banks
Width and longitudinal length of an erodible corridor
Identification of bed configuration and comparison with expected bed configuration based on valley slope
Percentage of the reach length with alteration of planform pattern
Presence/absence of fluvial forms in the alluvial plain
Percentage of the reach length with alteration of the natural heterogeneity of cross section
Presence/absence of alterations of bed sediment
Presence/absence of large wood
Mean width of functional vegetation in the fluvial corridor
Longitudinal length of functional vegetation along the banks
Amount of changes in discharge caused by interventions upstream
Presence, type, and position (drainage area) of relevant structures responsible for bedload interception
(dams, check-dams, weirs)
Amount of changes in discharge within the reach
Type and density of structures intercepting bedload along the reach
Spatial density of crossing structures
Length of protected banks
Length and distance from the channel of artificial levees
Percentage of the reach length with artificial modifications of the river course
Presence, spatial density and typology of other bed-stabilizing structures and revetments
Existence of past and/or recent sediment mining activity
Existence and relative intensity of in-channel wood removal
Existence and relative intensity of riparian vegetation cuts or aquatic vegetation removal
Changes in channel pattern from 1930s to 1960s based on changes in sinuosity, braiding, and
anastomosing indices
Changes in channel width from 1930s to 1960s
Bed-level changes over the last 100 years

Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
4 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16
where Stot is the sum of the scores, and Smax is the maximum
score that could be reached when all appropriate indicators are in
class C. The index is therefore directly proportional to the quality of
the reach and inversely to the alterations, varying from 0 (mini-
mum quality) to 1 (maximum quality), allowing the investigation of
the full range of morphological conditions.
According to this structure, reference conditions (i.e., class A for
each indicator, corresponding to MQI ¼ 1) are identified with the
following: (i) the full functionality of geomorphic processes along
the reach; (ii) the absence or negligible presence of artificial ele-
ments along the reach and to some extent (in terms of flow and
sediment fluxes) in the catchment; and (iii) the absence of signif-
icant channel adjustments (configuration, width, bed elevation)
over a temporal frame of about 100 years.
The level of the operator's professional background is an
essential factor which may cause a bias in the use of the scoring
system, given that a good knowledge of fluvial geomorphic con-
cepts is required for the application of the MQI.
The MQI assessment includes those hydrological aspects which
have significant effects on geomorphological processes, whereas
the overall changes in the hydrological regime can be analysed
separately by specific indices of hydrological alteration, such as for
example the IARI (Indice di Alterazione del Regime Idrologico:
ISPRA, 2009), or the IAHRIS (Indices de Alteracio "n Hidrolo"gica en
RIoS: Martinez Santa-Maria and Ferna "ndez Yuste, 2010). These
indices are based on some or all of the Indicators of Hydrological
Alteration (IHA) proposed by Richter et al. (1996) and Poff (1996).
In order to reduce operator bias, the set of rules is described in a
clear and consistent manner in the user's guidebook (Rinaldi et al.,
2015c, 2016), which should facilitate reproducibility by different
operators (Kondolf, 1995). In addition, we introduced the possibility
of expressing a degree of confidence in the answers (Rinaldi et al.,
2013).
The MQI was originally developed for application in Italy, i.e. to
cover the full range of physical conditions, morphological types,
degree of artificial alterations and amount of channel adjustments
occurring in this country. The original version was tested (Rinaldi
et al., 2013) and then applied to a large number of river reaches
in Italy, since the index was defined as the standard hydro-
morphological assessment method for the WFD classification and
monitoring (MATTM, 2010), and was, therefore, used in the first
cycle of River Basin Management Plans. During the REFORM proj-
ect, the method was extended and tested on a number of European
streams (Nardi et al., 2015), which were under-represented or
indeed totally unrepresented in the Italian context. Therefore, the
indicators and scores are the same as the original MQI, in order to
ensure data comparability when applied to different European
countries, but with some modification or integration on aspects
which previously had not been completely covered. For example,
lowland rivers with very low energy and an anabranching (anas-
tomosing) morphology were under-represented in the original
version. In Table 1, the indicators that have been integrated or
partially modified compared to the original MQI version (Rinaldi
et al., 2013) are indicated (in italics), whereas for a full descrip-
tion of each indicator, we refer to Rinaldi et al. (2015c; 2016). For
example, the indicator A1 (upstream alteration of flows) includes
alterations of flows lower than channel-forming discharge which
may have significant effects on channel morphology, such as water
regulation by dams (i.e. the release of a relatively constant
discharge, higher than natural flow). This case is particularly
common in rivers characterised by a Mediterranean hydrological
regime (i.e. high flow variability and low-water level during the
summer) where this alteration may have a geomorphological
impact on channel geometry and dynamics (Johnson, 1994;
Magdaleno and Fernandez-Yuste, 2013; Garo "fano-Go "mez et al.,
Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
2013; Petts and Gurnell, 2013).
Concerning costs and feasibility for the application of the
method, quantification of the time required for the application of
the MQI is not straightforward as it depends on a series of factors,
mainly: (i) the competence, training level, and experience of the
operator; (ii) the availability of data and other information (e.g., the
existence of a map layer of interventions and management prac-
tices will significantly reduce the time). The time required for an
application to a single reach also depends on the number of reaches
of the same segment or river being assessed. Application to various
reaches will generally optimise the work and reduce the unit time
required for each reach.
4. The Morphological Quality Index for monitoring (MQIm)
The MQI was mainly designed to assess the overall current
morphological condition of a stream reach, reflecting alterations
over a relatively long time scale (i.e. about the last 100 years).
Therefore, the MQI may not be suitable for monitoring short-term
changes of channel conditions, in particular if such changes refer
to a short period of time or if changes occur in small portions of the
reach. However, the tendency of a river reach (i.e. whether the
quality is deteriorating or improving) is an important input for a
monitoring program in the prediction of the potential adverse or
beneficial effects of a single intervention. To address this limitation
of MQI, a different tool, named Morphological Quality Index for
monitoring (MQIm), was specifically designed to take into account
small changes (e.g. relative to small portions of a reach) and short
time scales (i.e. a few years). Therefore, MQIm is particularly suit-
able for the environmental impact assessment of interventions,
including flood mitigation, restoration actions, or any other type of
interventions affecting morphological processes. Furthermore, the
use of mathematical functions e although simple e can facilitate
the inclusion of the MQIm indicators in decision support tools for
river assessment (e.g., Laghans et al., 2013; Reichert et al., 2013).
Some of the main differences and integrations between MQI and
MQIm are the following: (i) the MQI is the tool for the evaluation,
classification, and monitoring of the morphological state (i.e., good,
poor), whereas the MQIm is a specific tool to evaluate the tendency
of morphological conditions (enhancement or deterioration); (ii)
the MQI scores are based on discrete classes, whereas the scores of
several MQIm indicators (i.e. F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F9, F12, F13, A2, A4,
A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A12) are based on continuous mathematical
functions; as a consequence, MQIm is more sensitive to changes
occurring at a temporal scale of just a few years. A series of
mathematical functions have been defined on the basis of the
following criteria (Fig. 1):
(1) Linear “upper” and “lower” interpolating functions are first
defined, based on the histogram of discrete classes used for
the MQI.
(2) The MQIm function is obtained by a series of segments
equidistant from the upper and lower interpolating func-
tions. Concerning the last discrete class (on the right side of
Fig. 1), a segment parallel to the lower interpolating function
is assumed.
Similarly to the MQI, the Morphological Quality Index for
monitoring (MQIm) is defined as:
MQIm ¼ 1 " Stot=Smax (2)
where Stot is the sum of the scores, and Smax is the maximum
score that could be reached when all indicators assume the
maximum possible score.
 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16
Fig. 1. Procedure for the definition of the mathematical functions of a MQIm indicator
deriving from the discrete classes of the same MQI indicator.
The MQI and MQIm evaluate morphological quality on a
different temporal scale, therefore they can be considered as
complementary rather than alternative tools. The MQIm provides
an indication on the trend of morphological quality in the short
term. For this purpose, the value of MQIm related to a single situ-
ation is not meaningful, while it is necessary to calculate the dif-
ference of the index between two assessments since this will
indicate a tendency to an enhancement or deterioration of the
morphological quality.
5. The Geomorphic Units survey and classification System
(GUS)
The spatial scales of geomorphic units and smaller hydraulic
units and river elements are the most appropriate for assessing
physical habitats. Geomorphic units (e.g., riffles and pools) consti-
tute distinct habitats for aquatic fauna and flora, and may provide
temporary habitat requirements (refugia from disturbance or pre-
dation, spawning). Procedures to assess physical habitat need to be
ecologically and geomorphologically meaningful, so that ecologi-
cally relevant scales and physical variables must be placed into a
geomorphological characterization template (Brierley et al., 2013).
Because geomorphic units constitute the physical basis for habitat
units, a characterization of the assemblage of geomorphic units will
provide information about the existing range of habitats occurring
in a given reach.
In response to such needs, a new specific system for the survey
and classification of geomorphic units (GUS) in streams and rivers
was developed in the context of REFORM (Rinaldi et al., 2015f).
Geomorphic units are organized in the three following spatial
scales: (i) macro-unit: assemblage of units of the same type (e.g.
aquatic portions, sediment, vegetation); (ii) unit: basic spatial unit
(i.e. the geomorphic unit), corresponding to spatial features having
distinct morphological characters and significant size (e.g. a riffle, a
bar, an island); and (iii) sub-unit: corresponding to patches of
relatively homogeneous characteristics in terms of vegetation,
sediment and/or flow conditions located within a unit.
Methods for the survey and characterization include: (i) remote
sensing - GIS analysis; (ii) field survey. It is preferable to combine
remote sensing and field survey methods, but in some cases it may
Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
5
only be possible to use one of these methods, depending on the
selected level of characterization, the size of the river, and the
resolution of the available remotely sensed data and imagery.
The geomorphic units can be surveyed at different levels of
detail as follows:
(1) Broad level: a general characterization of macro-units, i.e.
presence/absence, areal extent and/or percentage cover. The
broad level characterization is entirely based on remotely
sensed data sources, analysed by a GIS.
(2) Basic level: a complete delineation and first level of charac-
terization of all geomorphic units, i.e. presence/absence,
number, area/length. This is mainly carried out by field
survey.
(3) Detailed level: (i) provides more detailed information and
data for units (and some macro-units) on genetic processes,
morphological, hydrological, vegetation and sediment
properties; (ii) describes macro-units and unit sub-types
(when applicable); (iii) characterises sub-units.
The survey protocol is described in detail in the user's guide-
book (Rinaldi et al., 2015f), and has been tested in several rivers
(Cecina, Santerno, Ahr/Aurino) located in Central and Northern
Italy, covering a relevant range in terms of different channel
morphologies.
The GUS does not aim to provide an assessment of the quality
status of geomorphic units or a reach. It can, however, support the
overall morphological analysis of a given reach. In particular, it can
be useful (i) as a characterization tool of the reach morphology; and
(ii) as a monitoring tool, in order to detect small scale (temporal and
spatial) morphological changes induced by human interventions or
restoration actions.
To this purpose, two indices have been developed, aiming to
synthetically describe the spatial heterogeneity of a given reach in
terms of geomorphic units, using data collected at the basic level
(presence and number of units or macro-units) (see Rinaldi et al.,
2015f). The Geomorphic Units Richness Index (GUSI-R) evaluates
how many types of geomorphic units and macro-units (e.g. bar,
island, riffle, secondary channel) are observed within a given reach,
and is obtained by dividing the sum of all unit types with the
maximum number of possible units. The Geomorphic Units Density
Index (GUSI-D) calculates the total number of geomorphic units
(independently by type) within the reach per unit length. It is also
possible to calculate a series of sub-indices expressing the richness
and density of geomorphic units for the bankfull channel and the
floodplain, respectively.
The system is also aimed at allowing the establishment of links
between hydromorphological conditions at reach scale, character-
istic geomorphic units, and related biological conditions.
6. Applications
In this section, a series of examples is reported to illustrate the
potential range of applications of the three assessment tools. They
include: (i) an assessment of morphological conditions; (ii) an
assessment of the morphological effects of a restoration project;
(iii) an evaluation of the geomorphic impacts of risk mitigation
interventions; and (iv) the integrated use of MQI and GUS to assess
morphological conditions and characterise geomorphic units.
6.1. Assessing morphological conditions
A first application consists of an assessment of the morpholog-
ical status by the MQI. It refers to a case of intense hydro-
morphological alteration related to a strong physical degradation
6 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16

(i.e., bed incision). The Panaro River is located in the northern
Apennines (Northern Italy, Fig. 2A); it is a right tributary of the Po
River and features a length of about 148 km and a catchment area of
1783 km2. The reach of application (length of about 2 km) is un-
confined, located along the apex of an alluvial fan (“high plain”
landscape unit, Fig. 2), having a mean bed slope of 0.007, and a
mean channel width of 96 m. The Panaro River has experienced
dramatic channel adjustments since the beginning of the 20th
century, caused by widespread gravel exploitation and other hu-
man interventions (upstream check dams and weirs in the

Fig. 2. Application of MQI to the Panaro River. A. Catchment and landscape units. 1: Mountainous Unit; 2: Hilly Unit; 3: High Plain; 4: Low Plain; 5: analysed reach. B. Aerial photo of
1954 of the reach, showing a braided pattern. C. Current conditions (2011). D. Detail of the channel morphology showing widespread bank instability and terraces due to bed
incision. E. Detail showing bedrock outcropping (clay).

Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16
upstream reaches) reducing sediment supply. The reach is charac-
terised by deep bed incision (>6 m) and extraordinary channel
narrowing (Fig. 2) (Gumiero et al., 2015). As a consequence, the
indicators of channel adjustments (CA1, CA2 and CA3) attain the
maximum scores (Table 2). Channel adjustments have also caused a
series of alterations to the functionality, such as the absence of a
modern floodplain (F2) which became a terrace due to bed incision,
and the alteration of bed substrate with widespread bedrock
outcropping (F10) (Fig. 2). Additional critical points include the
presence of transversal structures intercepting or reducing the
bedload upstream and along the reach. Another is the alteration of
the channel pattern and cross-section variability (F7 and F9,
respectively) compared to the reaches located immediately up-
stream and downstream, as a consequence of intense bed incision.
The final result is MQI ¼ 0.40, therefore the reach is classified as
poor.
6.2. Assessing the effects of restoration projects
The Ahr/Aurino River is one of the examples of how the MQI and
MQIm can be applied to assess the effects of river restoration
projects on morphological conditions carried out in the context of
the REFORM project (Nardi et al., 2015; Rinaldi et al., 2015e).
This river has a catchment area of 629 km2 and is located in
South Tyrol, Eastern Italian Alps. The river segment analysed lies in
the lower and wider valley where the channel features mostly
partly confined conditions (Fig. 3). Along this segment, significant
bed incision occurred during the second half of the twentieth
century due to gravel extraction (Campana et al., 2014), leading to a
morphological and hydrological discontinuity between the channel
and the floodplain, the latter now a terrace flooded only by events
with recurrence intervals >30e50 years. Bed incision has also
caused a lowering of the water table, limiting the growth and dy-
namics of riparian forest dominated by grey alder (Alnus incana) but
certainly favouring conditions for agriculture and bed armouring.
Table 2
Assessment of MQI indicators for the Panaro River (class “A” indicates negligible
alterations, “B” intermediate alterations, “C” very altered conditions). MQI class: P.
Poor.
Indicators
F1 e Longitudinal continuity in sediment and wood flux
F2 e Presence of a modern floodplain
F4 e Processes of bank retreat
F5 e Presence of a potentially erodible corridor
F7 e Planform pattern
F9 e Variability of the cross-section
F10 e Structure of the channel bed
F11 e Presence of in-channel large wood
F12 e Width of functional vegetation
F13 e Linear extension of functional vegetation
A1 e Upstream alteration of flows
A2 e Upstream alteration of sediment discharges
A3 e Alteration of flows in the reach
A4 e Alteration of sediment discharge in the reach
A5 e Crossing structures
A6 e Bank protections
A7 e Artificial levees
A8 e Artificial changes of river course
A9 e Other bed stabilization structures
A10 e Sediment removal
A11 e Wood removal
A12 e Vegetation management
CA1 e Adjustments in channel pattern
CA2 e Adjustments in channel width
CA3 e Bed-level adjustments
MQI
MQI Class
Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
7
In 2003, a river restoration program began with the purpose of
improving the ecological functionality of the river. The restoration
project consisted mainly of the removal of river bank protections,
channel widening, raising of the riverbed by introducing the sedi-
ments taken from the banks, and creation of islands (Campana
et al., 2014). The restored reach is located near the village of Gais,
and it is partly confined, meandering in pattern, about 1100 m in
length, and with an average slope of 0.1% (Figs. 3B and 3C).
The morphological conditions before the restoration were
assessed (in reaches not subject to the rehabilitation works, using
the space-for-time assumption, Campana et al., 2014) to be mod-
erate (MQI ¼ 0.54), as a result of a discontinuous and narrow
floodplain and riparian vegetation, lack of riverbank processes and
variability of the cross sections, as well as an altered bed structure
and absence of large wood in the channel. Artificialities were also
present before the restoration, with the most severe being the
removal of sediments from the channel (A10 is in class C). The
current morphological quality of the restored reach resulted
instead as being good (MQI ¼ 0.73). In fact, the restoration mea-
sures improved the functionality of the reach by promoting bank
erosion processes and the development of morphological features
(bars and islands), by decreasing planform pattern alteration (F7)
because of new point bar formation, and by favouring the vari-
ability of the cross sections and the natural heterogeneity of the
natural bed structures.
Channel adjustment indicators were not considered because the
changes were not related to river instability but to changes caused
directly by human interventions (note that possible positive effects
of restoration activities are already taken into account through the
improved functionality and the reduction of artificial elements).
The MQIm was also assessed (Rinaldi et al., 2015e), and it
changed from 0.67, before restoration, to 0.79, after restoration,
confirming a positive trend in the morphological quality of the
reach. The effects of the restoration can be observed by comparing
the classes and scores of the MQI and MQIm indicators (Table 3).
6.3. Evaluating the impacts of risk mitigation scenarios
The Tagliamento River is used as an example of the application
of MQI and MQIm for a comparative analysis of the morphological
impacts of different flood mitigation scenarios.
Classes The Tagliamento River (172 km in length) drains from the
C eastern Alps into the Adriatic Sea (catchment area of 2580 km2),
C and is considered a “reference system” in the Alpine region because
C of its large, near-natural river corridor, impacted by limited human
B activities, and with only a few artificial structures (Ward et al., 1999;
C
C
Tockner et al., 2003). The study reach (length of about 5200 m) is
C2 located in the “high plain” landscape unit (Fig. 4A). The reach is
A unconfined, being characterised by a wide floodplain (width of
B about 2500 m) limited by Pleistocene terraces. The river displays a
B
braided morphology (Fig. 4), with a mean channel width of 822 m, a
A
B2 mean slope of 0.003, and a predominantly gravel bed.
A The aim of this application was to evaluate current conditions
B (scenario 0), and to assess the effects of the following three
B different management scenarios: (i) scenario 1: removal of two
B
A
groynes within the reach; (ii) scenario 2: intervention of sediment
A removal within the reach; (iii) scenario 3: construction of a dam
A upstream.
C The reach in its current conditions (scenario 0) presents a high
B
morphological state (MQI ¼ 0.85) (Table 4). The geomorphological
A
C functionality is well preserved and only two MQI indicators show
C moderate alterations (i.e. class B). The potentially erodible corridor
C2 (F5) is limited by the presence of the groynes that were constructed
0.40 between the 1920s and 1950s. The groynes are only in direct con-
P
tact with the channel margins along the left bank, whereas those on
8 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16

Fig. 3. Application of MQI and MQIm to the Ahr/Aurino River. A. Catchment and landscape units. 1: Mountain Unit; 2. Analysed reach. B: Aerial photo (2000) of the pre-restored
reach; C: Aerial photo of the restored reach (Province of Bolzano, Orthophoto, 2011). 1: channel boundaries; 2: reach boundaries.

the right side are now located within the floodplain, which is
largely occupied by cultivated fields and grasslands, reducing the
width of the functional vegetation (F12) (Fig. 4C).
A significant presence of check dams partially alters the sedi-
ment flux from the upstream catchment (A2 indicator). Some bank
protections (A6 indicator) are present along the reach, while large
wood is partially removed (A11 indicator). Sediment mining was
also carried out in the channel between the 1960s and 1990s (A10
indicator) and intense channel narrowing was measured after the
mid 1950s (CA2 in class C). Narrowing was coupled with limited
channel incision until the beginning of the 1990s, but later on
aggradation was observed (Ziliani and Surian, 2012). At present,
there is a good hydrological and morphological connectivity be-
tween the channel and floodplain.
The first management scenario (i.e. scenario 1) consists of the
partial removal of two groynes located in the floodplain near the
upstream portion of the reach for a total length of about 930 m
(Fig. 4C). One is located just outside the study reach, but its partial
removal is of importance because it would have a direct effect on
the reach morphology. In addition, another groyne (130 m long)
would be removed in the central portion of the study reach. The
aim of the intervention is to enlarge the potentially erodible
corridor and to improve the conditions of the so-called “morpho-
dynamic corridor” (Rinaldi et al., 2015b). The morphological

Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16 9

Fig. 4. Application of MQI and MQIm to the Tagliamento River. A. Catchment and landscape units. 1: Alpine; 2. Pre-Alpine; 3. Intermontane Plain; 4. High Alluvial Plain; 5. Low
Alluvial Plain; 6. Analysed reach. B. The braided morphology of the study reach (flow from left to right). C. Aerial photograph (2012) of the study reach. 1. Reach boundaries; 2.
Floodplain limits; 3. Bank protections and groynes; 4. Groynes that would be removed according to scenario 1; 5. Location of sediment removal according to scenario 2.

condition of the study reach would be positively affected by the and consequently the MQIm would show a slight increase from
intervention. The MQI would increase slightly, from 0.85 to 0.86, as 0.916 to 0.917.
a consequence of the modification of the indicator F5 (Table 4). The The second management scenario (i.e. scenario 2) consists of the
corresponding MQIm indicator would decrease from 1.37 to 1.22, removal of about 200,000 m3 of gravel from a large bar, with the

Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
10 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16

Table 3
Assessment of MQI and MQIm indicators for the preepost restoration comparison in the Ahr/Aurino River (changes of indicators' class and/or MQIm scores are in italics). MQI
class: G. Good; M. Moderate.

Indicators Pre-restoration Post-restoration

MQI MQIm MQI MQIm

F1 e Longitudinal continuity in sediment and wood flux A 0 A 0

F2 e Presence of a modern floodplain C 4.40 C 4.40
F4 e Processes of bank retreat C 3.50 B 2.50
F5 e Presence of a potentially erodible corridor B 2.50 B 2.50
F7 e Planform pattern B 3.55 A 1.20
F9 e Variability of the cross-section B 2.50 B 2.50
F10 e Structure of the channel bed C1 6.50 A 0
F11 e Presence of in-channel large wood C 3.50 A 0
F12 e Width of functional vegetation C 2.14 C 2.52
F13 e Linear extension of functional vegetation C 5.78 B 5.73
A1 e Upstream alteration of flows A 0 A 0
A2 e Upstream alteration of sediment discharges B1 4.50 B1 4.50
A3 e Alteration of flows in the reach A 0 A 0
A4 e Alteration of sediment discharge in the reach A 0 A 0
A5 e Crossing structures B 2.00 A 0
A6 e Bank protections B 4.50 A 0
A7 e Artificial levees A 0 A 0
A8 e Artificial changes of river course A 0 A 0
A9 e Other bed stabilization structures B 3.31 B 3.00
A10 e Sediment removal C 7.50 C 4.50
A11 e Wood removal B 3.50 B 3.50
A12 e Vegetation management B 3.50 B 3.50
Final score of MQI and MQIm 0.54 0.67 0.73 0.79
MQI class M G

Table 4
Assessment of MQI and MQIm indicators for the current conditions and three management scenarios of risk mitigation for a reach of the Tagliamento River (changes of
indicators' class and/or MQIm scores compared to scenario 0 are in italics). MQI class: H. High; G. Good.

Indicators Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

MQI MQIm MQI MQIm MQI MQIm MQI MQIm

F1 e Longitudinal continuity in sediment and wood A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0

F2 e Presence of a modern floodplain A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
F4 e Processes of bank retreat A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
F5 e Presence of a potentially erodible corridor B 1.37 A 1.22 B 1.37 B 1.37
F7 e Planform pattern A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
F9 e Variability of the cross-section A 0 A 0 B 3.26 A 0
F10 e Structure of the channel bed A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
F11 e Presence of in-channel large wood A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
F12 e Width of functional vegetation B 1.13 B 1.13 B 1.15 B 1.13
F13 e Linear extension of functional vegetation A 0.89 A 0.89 A 0.89 A 0.89
A1 e Upstream alteration of flows A 0 A 0 A 0 B 4.50
A2 e Upstream alteration of sediment discharges B1 1.21 B1 1.21 B1 1.21 C1 12
A3 e Alteration of flows in the reach A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
A4 e Alteration of sediment discharge in the reach A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
A5 e Crossing structures A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
A6 e Bank protections B 3.42 B 3.42 B 3.42 B 3.42
A7 e Artificial levees A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
A8 e Artificial changes of river course A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
A9 e Other bed stabilization structures A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0
A10 e Sediment removal B1 4.50 B1 4.50 C 7.50 B1 4.50
A11 e Wood removal B 3.50 B 3.50 B 3.50 B 3.50
A12 e Vegetation management A 0 A 0 A 1.75 A 0
CA1 e Adjustments in channel pattern A e A e A e A e
CA2 e Adjustments in channel width C e C e C e C e
CA3 e Bed-level adjustments A e A e B e A e
Final score of MQI and MQIm 0.85 0.916 0.86 0.917 0.79 0.874 0.78 0.836
MQI class H H G G

aim of reducing the flood risk through channel dredging and re-
sectioning (Fig. 4C). The morphological condition of the study
reach would be negatively affected by the intervention according to
both the MQI and the MQIm. The MQI would decrease from 0.85 to
0.79 and correspondingly the morphological quality class would
shift from “high” to “good” (Table 4). The strongest impact would
consist of the sediment removal, as shown by the A10 indicator
which would vary from class B1 to class C. The intervention would
also modify the cross-section configuration (F9 indicator) and
would involve the management of functional vegetation (A12 in-
dicator), due to the removal of one island (Fig. 4C). The MQIm
would also show a similar trend, with a decrease from 0.916 to
0.874 (Table 4). The alteration of the cross-section configuration
(F9) and sediment removal (A10) would have the most severe

Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16
impacts. In addition, the application of the MQIm allows the
identification of an impact not detected by the MQI. The width of
the functional vegetation would decrease from 787 m to 781 m
after the intervention, and this would result in a slight change of
the indicator F12 (from 1.13 to 1.15) (Table 4).
In contrast to the previous scenarios, the intervention hypoth-
esized in scenario 3 would be carried out in the upstream catch-
ment, and would consist of the construction of a flood retention
dam at the Pinzano gorge, about 4.5 km upstream from the study
reach (Fig. 4A) to mitigate flood risk in the lower river segments.
Similarly to scenario 2, the morphological condition of the study
reach would be negatively affected by the intervention according to
both the MQI and the MQIm. The MQI would decrease from 0.85 to
0.78 and correspondingly the morphological quality class would
shift from “high” to “good” (Table 4). The main impact would
consist of the strong alteration of sediment flux coming from the
upstream catchment and the relative indicator (A2) would vary
from class B1 to class C1, whereas the indicator F1, which concerns
the longitudinal continuity in sediment and wood flux within the
reach, would not be affected by the dam. Water discharges with
high recurrence interval (i.e. recurrence interval >10 years) would
also be significantly altered by the construction of the dam and,
consequently, the A1 indicator would shift from class A to class B.
The MQIm would also show a similar trend, with a decrease from
0.916 to 0.836 (Table 4). Both A2 and A1 would show significant
alterations, from 1.21 to 12, and from 0 to 4.50, respectively
(Table 4).
6.4. Combined use of MQI and GUS
The example refers to a reach of the Cecina River (catchment
area of about 900 km2), located in Tuscany, Central Italy (Fig. 5). A
complete delineation and characterization of the catchment and of
the river network was part of the application of the REFORM hi-
erarchical framework (Blamauer et al., 2014).
The application refers to an unconfined reach which flows
within a relatively narrow floodplain in the middle - lower
portion of the river (Fig. 5A). The channel is classified as sinuous
(Fig. 5B), with alternate bars and a gravel bed, mean slope of
about 0.003 and mean width of about 50 m. The main elements of
alteration are: (i) the presence of some weirs upstream (A2 in
class B1); (ii) intense sediment mining in the past, in turn
responsible for some significant channel adjustments (moderate
narrowing and incision, with CA2 and CA3 both in class B); (iii)
some localized artificial elements in the reach (bridge, sills).
Notwithstanding such alterations, the river is characterised by a
high lateral mobility, a variability of channel planform and cross-
sections as a consequence of a diversity of geomorphic units
(Fig. 5C), the presence of a modern floodplain (even though nar-
row and discontinuous) and of a potential erodible corridor, the
presence of a corridor of spontaneous vegetation and absence of
levees. The final result is MQI ¼ 0.79 (i.e. ‘good’ morphological
conditions) (Table 5).
The GUS broad level was applied to the entire reach length
(6.5 km), whereas the basic level was applied to two sub-reaches
(about 1.5 km length). The survey of geomorphic units was car-
ried out by remote sensing of high resolution images (<30 cm),
followed by a field survey. Fig. 6 shows an example of the output of
the survey and classification of geomorphic units at the basic level.
The typical assemblage of geomorphic units characterising the
channel morphology (sinuous with alternate bars) comprises rif-
fles, pools, glides, lateral bars (with occasional braiding), highly
sinuous low-flow channel, secondary channels, modern floodplain,
and recent terraces.
Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
11
7. Discussion
In this section we discuss some of the main features and pecu-
liarities of the hydromorphological assessment tools developed
within the project REFORM, supported by the examples both of the
application reported in the previous section and of the increased
number of applications throughout Europe since the first devel-
opment of the MQI (Rinaldi et al., 2013). For a more comprehensive
discussion about the limitations, strengths, and applicability of the
MQI, we refer to Rinaldi et al. (2013).
Although stream hydromorphological assessment and moni-
toring is considered only as a supporting element by the WFD, its
importance is increasing progressively. A first important reason is
that biological indicators used to assess the status of river water
bodies still suffer from a series of limitations and, more impor-
tantly, they are often not sensitive to hydromorphological pressures
(Friberg, 2014). Recent research recommends using the hydro-
morphological method directly for ecological class assessment,
circumventing the use of biological indicators as describers of
hydromorphological degradation (Mosselman et al., 2015). Hydro-
morphology should be used as a quality element in its own right in
the WFD status assessment, as biological quality elements cannot
differentiate with sufficient precision between different degrees of
hydromorphological degradation.
A second reason for the increasing importance of hydro-
morphology is that a sound assessment is required to identify
possible management or restoration actions aimed at preserving or
improving environmental conditions, given that hydro-
morphological pressures constitute, in most cases, the main cause
of degradation (Rinaldi et al., 2015b).
A recent comprehensive review on hydromorphological
assessment methods (Belletti et al., 2015) has identified the limited
consideration of physical processes as being the main gap, sug-
gesting the use of more comprehensive, process-based, hydro-
morphological assessment methods. The MQI has the
characteristics of a process-based assessment method. This does
not necessarily imply that geomorphic processes are quantified,
given that a rigorous evaluation of geomorphological processes
would imply measurements at different times of process rates (e.g.,
bank erosion or deposition) or the use of quantitative modelling or
analyses (e.g., to assess alterations in sediment transport). Such
analyses are beyond the scope of an assessment method to be used
by public agencies for a large number of reaches (Rinaldi et al.,
2013). For such scope, the evaluation is in most cases based on an
assessment (GIS or field-based) of the occurrence or the alteration
of active processes and/or associated forms. On the other hand,
channel adjustment indicators provide an estimation of the overall
change related to human interventions that occurred during the
temporal frame of investigation (i.e. about the last 100 years). A
more accurate investigation on the evolutionary trajectory may be
necessary for making predictions on possible future trends, and for
selecting management actions (Rinaldi et al., 2015b; Ziliani and
Surian, 2016).
According to the REFORM hydromorphological framework
(Gurnell et al., 2014, 2016b), the spatial scale of application of the
MQI is the reach (i.e. a relatively homogeneous portion of the river
with a length to the order of some km), which is recognised as the
most appropriate and meaningful scale for assessing hydro-
morphology. This differs significantly from the spatial scale of
investigation used in physical habitat assessment methods (i.e. the
‘site’ scale with a fixed length of a few hundred m), which may not
be sufficient to fully contextualise current river conditions or to
perform an accurate diagnosis and interpretation of the causes of
any morphological alteration.
Recognition that rivers evolve through time and that current
12 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16

Fig. 5. Application of MQI and MQIm to the Cecina River. A. Catchment and landscape units. 1: Mountain Unit; 2. Hilly Unit; 3. Coastal Plain; 4. Analysed reach. B. Aerial photo dated
2006 of part of the reach highlighting the typical sinuous morphology with alternate bars. C. Detail of the reach showing the morphological variability and the presence of retreating
banks (on the back).

river morphology is one of the possible conditions within an
evolutionary trajectory has important implications for the concept
of ‘reference conditions’. This implies that the use of a specific
morphological pattern (e.g., meandering, braided) as a reference
condition is avoided, given that this is extremely difficult to define
in fluvial systems with a long history of human impact. Reference
conditions for the MQI correspond to the case where the river
performs those morphological functions expected for a specific
morphological typology, where artificial elements and in-
terventions do not significantly affect the current river dynamics,
and human factors were not the cause of significant recent channel
adjustments (i.e. about the last 100 years) indicative of a systematic
instability.
One of the main features of the MQI is the twofold method of
accounting for artificial elements, i.e. either in the functionality and
artificiality indicators. This method attempts to make an overall
and comprehensive evaluation of river conditions, therefore pro-
moting an understanding of pressure e response (i.e. cause e ef-
fect) conditions that can support the identification of possible
management actions. In fact, the same type of pressure may result
in different responses for different rivers. For this reason, the arti-
ficiality indicators identify the potential elements of alteration,
whereas the functionality and channel adjustment indicators
assess the geomorphic responses (effects) to these disturbances,
including past off-site impacts and adjustments. This synergic use
of the different components of the assessment and their mutual
feedbacks promotes a sound understanding of the river conditions
and causes of alteration, which can be used to select the appro-
priate management actions. The application of the MQI to the
Panaro River illustrates this feature well. The dramatic bed incision
that occurred along the investigated reach caused the loss of some
important geomorphic functionality, such as the disconnection
with the adjacent floodplain (which became a terrace), and the
dramatic change of substrate (from a gravel bed to the outcropping
of the underlying Pleistocene bedrock) that caused the loss both of
gravel bars and of the typical bed configurations of a gravel-bed
river, with the associated habitats. The artificiality indicators
enabled the assessment that the main causes of such an alteration
can be ascribed to the intensive sediment mining from the
1960se1980s, combined with the installation of a small dam,

Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16 13

Table 5 channel pattern and width caused a loss of gravel bed area and
Assessment of MQI indicators for the Cecina River. MQI class: G. Good. associated physical habitats on one side, but also produced an in-
Indicators Classes crease of functional vegetation on the other side (indicators F12 and
F1 e Longitudinal continuity in sediment and wood flux A
F13).
F2 e Presence of a modern floodplain B1 As previously noted, the application of a method for the
F4 e Processes of bank retreat A assessment of hydromorphological quality is extremely useful for
F5 e Presence of a potentially erodible corridor A analysing critical management problems and causes of alteration,
F7 e Planform pattern A
and eventually for identifying unaltered processes and forms that
F9 e Variability of the cross-section A
F10 e Structure of the channel bed B need to be preserved. The MQI structure provides a rational
F11 e Presence of in-channel large wood A framework that is useful for identifying and prioritizing manage-
F12 e Width of functional vegetation B ment strategies and restoration actions. A first obvious prioritiza-
F13 e Linear extension of functional vegetation B
tion rule consists of preserving current conditions for those
A1 e Upstream alteration of flows A
A2 e Upstream alteration of sediment discharges B1
indicators which are in class A and considering some possible ac-
A3 e Alteration of flows in the reach A tions for improving those indicators lying in classes B and C (Rinaldi
A4 e Alteration of sediment discharge in the reach A et al., 2013). For example, the application to the Panaro River refers
A5 e Crossing structures B to a reach with a strong alteration of functionality, but relatively
A6 e Bank protections A
few artificial elements: the main problems are related to the past
A7 e Artificial levees A
A8 e Artificial changes of river course A reduction of sediment availability (because of gravel mining), pre-
A9 e Other bed stabilization structures B sent alteration by interception of bedload, and consequent severe
A10 e Sediment removal B incision. Therefore possible actions should be oriented towards
A11 e Wood removal B promoting a recovery of sediment supply and longitudinal conti-
A12 e Vegetation management A
CA1 e Adjustments in channel pattern A
nuity. Differently, in the case of a channelized reach, possible sce-
CA2 e Adjustments in channel width B narios of intervention should consider the reduction of some of the
CA3 e Bed-level adjustments B artificial elements in order to recover some of the morphological
MQI 0.79 functionality. This preliminary identification must then be included
MQI class G
in a broader context, analysing other aspects such as sensitivity,

Fig. 6. Example of the application of the GUS (Basic level) to a sub-reach of the Cecina River (see Fig. 6): map of the types of geomorphic units in one of the sub-reaches. C/S. Base
flow/Secondary channels. CF. Riffle. CP. Pool. EC. Mid-channel bar. EA. Bank-attached bar. EAh. Bank-attached high bar. ED. Dry channel. EK. Unvegetated bank. VI. Island. VB. Bench.
FF. Modern floodplain. FT. Recent terrace.

several weirs and check dams on the tributaries and on the main
river upstream from the investigated reach, with a consequent
drastic reduction of sediment flux. Adjustments in channel pattern
and width along the Panaro River were also dramatic. However,
channel adjustments may not be completely negative for river
conditions, as in some cases they may promote a benefit for some
other components of the evaluation. For example, adjustments in
morphological potential, and the integration with other goals and
constraints (Rinaldi et al., 2015b).
The MQI and MQIm are also tools that can specifically be used to
evaluate the effects of restoration interventions. The application to
the Ahr/Aurino River, as well as a series of other applications con-
ducted during the REFORM project on other restoration projects
(Nardi et al., 2015; Rinaldi et al., 2015e), show how the indices

Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
14 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16
respond to the effects of restoration interventions, and are able to
adequately investigate the factors influencing the degree of
improvement, such as the initial (pre-restoration) morphological
conditions, channel morphology, the length of the restored portion
in relation to the reach length, and on the type of intervention.
On the other hand, the two indices can also be conveniently
used to make a comparative analysis of project scenarios and their
impacts on morphological quality. The example of the Tagliamento
River clearly shows this type of application, where the scenario of
groynes removal aimed at increasing the width of the potentially
erodible corridor results in being the best option for morphological
quality. As previously discussed, a complete evaluation of flood risk
mitigation interventions needs to be integrated with an evaluation
of the impacts of such measures on the channel dynamics, e.g. by
using specific tools for this purpose developed in the IDRAIM
methodology (Rinaldi et al., 2015b). The results of the applications
of MQI and MQIm show that both indices detect the modifications
of the morphological conditions caused by hypothesized in-
terventions. However, MQIm resulted in being more sensitive in the
identification of all kinds of alterations, even of a low magnitude,
because MQIm indicators are based on continuous functions, while
MQI indicators are attributed to 3 or more discrete classes, each
consisting of a large range of values.
Geomorphic units are linked to the reach scale, given that pro-
cesses of water flow and sediment transport that control the
geomorphic units are influenced by factors acting at reach scale (e.g.,
slope, substrate, and valley setting). Reaches of the same morpho-
logical type usually exhibit similar assemblages of geomorphic
units. As a consequence, physical habitat characteristics and asso-
ciated biotic conditions are strongly influenced by physical factors
acting at reach scale, which in turn are constrained by regional- and
catchment-scale features (e.g. landscape units, ecoregion) (Brierley
et al., 2013). In combination with the MQI assessment, the GUS al-
lows for a detailed characterization at a hierarchically lower spatial
scale, i.e. the geomorphic units scale, providing the opportunity to
identify the reference assemblage of geomorphic units character-
ising a reach, and therefore facilitating the assessment of morpho-
logical alterations at the reach scale. Conversely, a single application
of the GUS is not suitable as an assessment tool, i.e. to evaluate the
morphological quality status of a stream reach. It is important that
the outputs of the GUS are interpreted in combination with the
results of the MQI and MQIm, as shown in the application to the
Cecina River, and including them within the reach scale morpho-
logical context. For example, an increase in the abundance and di-
versity of geomorphic units in a given reach is not necessarily
related to an improvement of morphological conditions but may be
associated with the presence of artificial structures (e.g., weirs). On
the contrary, a low diversity of geomorphic units can be the result of
the ‘natural’ simple geomorphic structure of a particular stream
type. Therefore, the survey of geomorphic units at the site-scale
must be combined with a MQI assessment at reach-scale to better
interpret the significance and relevance of the diversity of
geomorphic units. Some examples include:
(1) Reach-scale morphological assessment (MQI) results in very
good status. This means that geomorphic processes are un-
altered or scarcely altered, and the geomorphic units at site-
scale represent the typical assemblage that could be ex-
pected for this river type under current conditions.
(2) Reach-scale morphological assessment results in a very poor
status. This implies that geomorphic processes are intensely
altered, and the geomorphic units at site-scale do not
represent the typical assemblage that could be expected for
such a river in undisturbed conditions.
Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
(3) A repeated application of GUS reveals an increase in abun-
dance and/or diversity of geomorphic units. If the MQIm also
tends to increase, an increase of geomorphic units is likely,
due to enhanced morphological processes. On the contrary,
an increase of geomorphic units associated with a decrease
in MQIm may be the result of additional artificial elements
within the reach.
Finally, concerning the application of the assessment tools pre-
sented in this paper, some of them (i.e. MQI) have already been
tested and applied to a large number of river reaches in Italy (Rinaldi
et al., 2013), whereas the extended European version developed
during the REFORM project (Rinaldi et al., 2015c) has been tested on
a limited number of case studies, representative, however, of a
relatively wide range of situations of Europe. More tests would
certainly be useful for further improving and extending these tools.
We believe that the overall structure and the underlying con-
cepts of the MQI assessment and the GUS characterization are
robust and sufficiently general to be applied to a wide range of river
conditions. However, the description of indicators and classes is not
necessarily exhaustive, and the methods could be better adapted to
specific situations and conditions which are not sufficiently
covered. This may be achieved by maintaining the same set of in-
dicators and scoring system, in order to allow for comparability of
results across Europe.
8. Final remarks
Hydromorphological assessment is increasingly recognised as
being fundamental for classifying and monitoring the ecological
status of streams, and for supporting the identification of possible
and sustainable management actions. Hydromorphological
assessment needs to be process-based and to provide an overall
evaluation of river conditions (i.e. pressure e response).
A series of hydromorphological tools further developed within
the REFORM project provide the opportunity to carry out a synergic
assessment and monitoring of river conditions.
The Morphological Quality Index (MQI) can effectively provide
an assessment of the overall conditions in terms of the morpho-
logical quality of each investigated river reach. The structure and
indicators promote a sound understanding of river conditions and
the causes of alterations. It can be used to assess the effects of
restoration projects, as well as to evaluate the impacts of other
management actions and interventions.
The MQIm is specifically suitable for monitoring and for the
evaluation of the impacts of small scale interventions. Its structure
and indicators are the same as for the MQI, but it requires more
effort to measure the spatial extent or density of artificial elements
and their morphological impacts.
The GUS is mainly used as a qualitative characterization tool that
can integrate the MQI assessment to provide an in-depth, small-
scale evaluation of stream conditions. It can also be used to assess
the impacts of interventions by both ex ante and ex post compara-
tive analysis.
Finally, concerning further development, the original version of
these tools has been tested and extended at European level,
although some improvements may be needed to cover specific
situations. These hydromorphological tools could be updated
continuously by new findings and emerging technologies that can
provide the opportunity to enhance the application of such an
approach.
Acknowledgements
The work leading to this paper has received funding from the
 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16
European Union's FP7 programme under Grant Agreement No.
282656 (REFORM). The classification procedure was developed
within the context of deliverable D6.2 of the REFORM programme,
therefore, all partners who contributed to the development of this
deliverable also contributed to some extent to the methodology
described in this paper.
References
Belletti, B., Rinaldi, M., Gurnell, A.M., Buijse, A.D., Mosselman, E., 2015. A review of
assessment methods for river hydromorphology. Environ. Earth Sci. 73,
2079e2100.
Blamauer, B., Belletti, B., García De Jalo "n, D., Gonz" alez Del Ta "nago, M.,
Grabowski, R.C., Gurnell, A.M., Habersack, H., Klo €sch, M., Marcinkowski, P.,
Martínez-Fern" andez, V., Nardi, L., Okruszko, T., Rinaldi, M., 2014. Catchment
Case Studies: Full Applications of the Hierarchical Multi-scale Framework.
Deliverable 2.1, Part 3, of REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment
Management), a Collaborative project (large-scale integrating project) funded
by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme under
Grant Agreement 282656.
Brierley, G.J., Fryirs, K.A., 2005. Geomorphology and River Management: Applica-
tions of the River Style Framework. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, p. 398.
Brierley, G.J., Fryirs, K.A., Boulton, A., Cullum, C., 2008. Working with change: the
importance of evolutionary perspectives in framing the trajectory of river
adjustment. In: Brierley, G., Fryirs, K.A. (Eds.), River Futures: an Integrative
Scientific Approach to River Repair. Society for Ecological Restoration Interna-
tional, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 65e84.
Brierley, G.J., Fryirs, K., Cullum, C., Tadaki, M., Huang, H.Q., Blue, B., 2013. Reading
the landscape: integrating the theory and practice of geomorphology to
develop place-based understandings of river systems. Prog. Phys. Geog 37,
601e621.
Campana, D., Marchese, E., Theule, J.I., Comiti, F., 2014. Channel degradation and
restoration of an Alpine river and related morphological changes. Geo-
morphology 221, 230e241.
Dufour, S., Pie "gay, H., 2009. From the myth of a lost paradise to targeted river
restoration: forget natural references and focus on human benefits. River Res.
Appl. 25, 568e581.
European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community
action in the field of water policy. Off. J. L 327, 73, 22/12/2000, Brussels,
Belgium.
Ferna"ndez, D., Barquin, J., Raven, P.J., 2011. A review of river habitat characterisation
methods: indices vs. characterisation protocols. Limnetica 30, 217e234.
Friberg, N., 2014. Impacts and indicators of change in lotic ecosystems. WIREs Water
1, 513e531.
Frissell, C.A., Liss, W.J., Warren, C.E., Hurley, M.D., 1986. A hierarchical framework for
stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ.
Manag. 10, 199e214.
Fryirs, K.A., 2015. Developing and using geomorphic condition assessments for river
rehabilitation planning, implementation and monitoring. WIREs Water 2,
649e667.
Fryirs, K.A., Arthington, A., Grove, J., 2008. Principles of river condition assessment.
In: Brierley, G., Fryirs, K.A. (Eds.), River Futures: an Integrative Scientific
Approach to River Repair. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Island
Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 100e124.
Garo" fano-Go "mez, V., Martínez-Capel, F., Bertoldi, W., Gurnell, A., Estornell, J.,
Segura-Beltra "n, F., 2013. Six decades of changes in the riparian corridor of a
Mediterranean river: a synthetic analysis based on historical data sources.
Ecohydrology 6, 536e553.
Gumiero, B., Rinaldi, M., Belletti, B., Lenzi, D., Puppi, G., 2015. Riparian vegetation as
indicator of channel adjustments and environmental conditions: the case of the
Panaro River (Northern Italy). Aquat. Sci. 77, 563e582.
Gurnell, A.M., Belletti, B., Bizzi, S., Blamauer, B., Braca, G., Buijse, T., Bussettini, M.,
Camenen, B., Comiti, F., Demarchi, L., García de Jalo " n, D., Gonza "lez del
Ta "nago, M., Grabowski, R.C., Gunn, I.D.M., Habersack, H., Hendriks, D.,
Henshaw, A., Klo €sch, M., Lastoria, B., Latapie, A., Marcinkowski, P., Martínez-
Ferna "ndez, V., Mosselman, E., Mountford, J.O., Nardi, L., Okruszko, T.,
O'Hare, M.T., Palma, M., Percopo, C., Rinaldi, M., Surian, N., Weissteiner, C.,
Ziliani, L., 2014. A Hierarchical Multi-scale Framework and Indicators of Hydro-
Morphological Processes and Forms. Deliverable 2.1, a report in four parts of
REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment management), a collabora-
tive project (large-scale integrating project) funded by the European commis-
sion within the 7th framework programme under grant agreement 282656.
http://www.reformrivers.eu/results/deliverables.
Gurnell, A.M., Rinaldi, M., Buijse, A.D., Brierley, G., Pie "gay, H., 2016a. Hydro-
morphological frameworks: emerging trajectories. Aquat. Sci. 78, 135e138.
Gurnell, A.M., Belletti, B., Bizzi, S., Blamauer, B., Braca, G., Buijse, A.D., Bussettini, M.,
Camenen, B., Comiti, F., Demarchi, L., Garcia De Jalon, D., Gonzalez Del
Tanago, M., Grabowski, R.C., Gunn, I.D.M., Habersack, H., Hendriks, D.,
Henshaw, A., Klo €sch, M., Lastoria, B., Latapie, A., Marcinkowski, P., Martinez-
Fernandez, V., Mosselman, E., Mountford, J.O., Nardi, L., Okruszko, T.,
O'Hare, M.T., Palma, M., Percopo, C., Rinaldi, M., Surian, N., van de Bund, W.,
Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
15
Weissteiner, C., Ziliani, L., 2016b. A multi-scale hierarchical framework for
developing understanding of river behaviour. Aquat. Sci. 78, 1e16.
Habersack, H.M., 2000. The river-scaling concept (RSC): a basis for ecological as-
sessments. Hydrobiologia 422, 49e60.
ISPRA, 2009. Implementazione della Direttiva 2000/60/CE - Analisi e valutazione
degli aspetti idromorfologici. Versione 1.1. Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e
la Ricerca Ambientale, Roma, p. 85.
Johnson, W.C., 1994. Woodland expansion in the Platte River, Nebraska, patterns
and causes. Ecol. Monogr. 64, 45e84.
Kondolf, G.M., 1995. Geomorphological stream classification in aquatic habitat
restoration: uses and limitations. Aquat. Conserv. 5, 127e141.
Laghans, S.D., Lienert, J., Schuwirth, N., Reichert, P., 2013. How to make river as-
sessments comparable: a demonstration for hydromorphology. Ecol. Indic. 32,
264e275.
Magdaleno, F., Fernandez-Yuste, J.A., 2013. Evolution of the riparian forest corridor
in a large Mediterranean river system. Riparian Ecol. Conserv. 1, 36e45.
Martinez Santa-Maria, C., Ferna "ndez Yuste, J.A., 2010. IAHRIS 2.2. Indicators of
Hydrologic Alteration in Rivers. Methodological Reference Manual & User's
Manual. http://www.ecogesfor.org/IAHRIS_es.html.
Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare (MATTM), 2010.
Decreto n# 260 e Criteri tecnici per la classificazione dello stato dei corpi idrici
superficiali (Technical criteria for surface water bodies status classification).
Montgomery, D.R., Buffington, J.M., 1998. Channel processes, classification and
response potential. In: Naiman, R.J., Bilby, R.E. (Eds.), River Ecology and Man-
agement. Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, pp. 13e42.
Mosselman, E., Angelopoulos, N., Belletti, B., Brouwer, R., Gurnell, A.M., Friberg, N.,
Kail, J., Reichert, P., Geerling, G., 2015. Guidance and Decision Support for Cost-
Effective River and Floodplain Restoration and its Benefits, p. 26. Deliverable 6.3
of REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management), a Collab-
orative project (large-scale integrating project) funded by the European Com-
mission within the 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreement
282656.
Nardi, L., Rinaldi, M., Belletti, B., Comiti, F., Golfieri, B., Marchese, E., Surian, N.,
Brabec, K., Giełczewski, M., Hellsten, S., Kaufman, S., Marcinkowski, P., Muhar, S.,
Okruszko, T., Paillex, A., Poppe, M., R€ a€apysj€
arvi, J., Schirmer, M.,
Stelmaszczyk, M., 2015. Application of the Morphological Quality Index (MQI)
to european case studies. In: D7.5 Conference Proceedings 'Novel Approaches to
Assess and Rehabilitate Modified Rivers', 30 June - 2 July 2015, Wageningen
(The Netherlands), pp. 143e149.
Ollero, O.A., Ballarín, F.D., Díaz, B.E., Mora, M.D., Sa "nchez, F.M., Acín, N.V.,
Echeverría, A.M.T., Granado, G.D., Ibisate, G.A., Sa "nchez, G.L., S"anchez, G.N.,
2007. Un indice hydrogeomorfologico (IHG) para la evaluacion del estado
ecologico de sistemas fluviales. Geographicalia 52, 113e141.
Ollero, A., Ibisate, A., Gonzalo, L.E., Acín, V., Ballarín, D., Díaz, E., Domenech, S.,
Gimeno, M., Granado, D., Horacio, J., Mora, D., S" anchez, M., 2011. The IHG index
for hydromorphological quality assessment of rivers and streams: updated
version. Limnetica 30, 255e262.
Petts, G.E., Gurnell, A.M., 2013. Hydrogeomorphic effects of reservoirs, dams and
diversions. In: Shroder, J., James, L.A., Harden, C.P., Clague, J.J. (Eds.), Treatise on
Geomorphology, vol. 13. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 96e114.
Platts, W.S., Megahan, W.F., Minshall, G.W., 1983. Methods for Evaluating Stream,
Riparian, and Biotic Conditions. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Poff, N.L., 1996. A hydrogeography of unregulated streams in the United States and
an examination of scale-dependence in some hydrological descriptors. Freshw.
Biol. 36, 71e91.
Raven, P.J., Fox, P., Everard, M., Holmes, N.T.H., Dawson, F.H., 1997. River habitat
survey: a new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality.
Freshwater Quality: defining the Indefinable? In: Raven, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H.,
Charrier, P., Dawson, F.H., Naura, M., Boon, P.J. (2002) Towards a harmonized
approach for hydromorphological assessment of rivers in Europe: a qualitative
comparison of three survey methods Aquat. Conserv. 12, 405e424.
Reichert, P., Schuwirth, N., Laghans, S., 2013. Constructing, evaluating and visual-
izing values and utility functions for decision support. Environ. Modell. Softw.
46, 283e291.
Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Powell, J., Braun, D.P., 1996. A method for assessing
hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1163e1174.
Rinaldi, M., Surian, N., Comiti, F., Bussettini, M., 2013. A method for the assessment
and analysis of the hydromorphological condition of Italian streams: the
Morphological Quality Index (MQI). Geomorphology 180e181, 96e108.
Rinaldi, M., Gurnell, A.M., Belletti, B., Berga Cano, M.I., Bizzi, S., Bussettini, M.,
Gonzalez Del Tanago, M., Grabowski, R., Habersack, H., Klo € sch, M., Magdaleno
Mas, F., Mosselman, E., Toro Velasco, M., Vezza, P., 2015a. Final Report on
Methods, Models, Tools to Assess the Hydromorphology of Rivers, p. 113.
Deliverable 6.2, Part 1, of REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment
Management), a Collaborative project (large-scale integrating project) funded
by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme under
Grant Agreement 282656.
Rinaldi, M., Surian, N., Comiti, F., Bussettini, M., 2015b. A methodological framework
for hydromorphological assessment, analysis and monitoring (IDRAIM) aimed
at promoting integrated river management. Geomorphology 251, 122e136.
Rinaldi, M., Surian, N., Comiti, F., Bussettini, M., Belletti, B., Nardi, L., Lastoria, B.,
Golfieri, B., 2015c. Guidebook for the Evaluation of Stream Morphological
Conditions by the Morphological Quality Index (MQI), p. 161. Deliverable 6.2,
Part 3, of REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management), a
16 M. Rinaldi et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e16
Collaborative project (large-scale integrating project) funded by the European
Commission within the 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreement
282656.
Rinaldi, M., Gurnell, A.M., Gonzalez Del Tanago, M., Bussettini, M., Hendriks, D.,
2015d. Classification of river morphology and hydrology to support manage-
ment and restoration. Aquat. Sci. 78, 17e33.
Rinaldi, M., Nardi, L., Belletti, B., Bizzi, S., Brabec, K., Comiti, F., Demarchi, L.,
Giełczewski, M., Golfieri, B., Habersack, H., Hellsten, S., Kaufman, S., Klo€sch, M.,
Marchese, E., Marcinkowski, P., Muhar, S., Okruszko, T., Paillex, A., Poppe, M.,
R€aa
€pysja
€rvi, J., Seppo, H., Schirmer, M., Stelmaszczyk, M., Surian, N., Van de
Bund, W., 2015e. Final Report on Methods, Models, Tools to Assess the
Hydromorphology of Rivers. Deliverable 6.2, Part 5, of REFORM (REstoring
rivers FOR effective catchment Management), a Collaborative project (large-
scale integrating project) funded by the European Commission within the 7th
Framework Programme under Grant Agreement 282656.
Rinaldi, M., Belletti, B., Comiti, F., Nardi, L., Bussettini, M., Mao, L., Gurnell, A.M.,
2015f. The Geomorphic Units Survey and Classification System (GUS), p. 131.
Deliverable 6.2, Part 4, of REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment
Management), a Collaborative project (large-scale integrating project) funded
́ ́
Please cite this article in press as: Rinaldi, M., et al., New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams,
Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme under
Grant Agreement 282656.
Rinaldi, M., Bussettini, M., Surian, N., Comiti, F., Gurnell, A.M., 2016. Guidebook for
the Evaluation of Stream Morphological Conditions by the Morphological
Quality Index (MQI). Version 2. Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca
Ambientale. http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/manuali-e-linee-
guida/guidebook-for-the-evaluation-of-stream.
Tockner, K., Ward, J.V., Arscott, D.B., Edwards, P.J., Kollmann, J., Gurnell, A.M.,
Petts, G.E., Maiolini, B., 2003. The Tagliamento River: a model ecosystem of
European importance. Aquat. Sci. 65, 239e253.
Ward, J.V., Tockner, K., Edwards, P.J., Kollman, J., Bretschko, G., Gurnell, A.M.,
Petts, G.E., Rossaro, B., 1999. A reference river in the Alps: the fiume Taglia-
mento. Regul. River 15, 63e75.
Ziliani, L., Surian, N., 2012. Evolutionary trajectory of channel morphology and
controlling factors in a large gravel-bed river. Geomorphology 173e174,
104e117.
Ziliani, L., Surian, N., 2016. Reconstructing temporal changes and prediction of
channel evolution in a large Alpine river: the Tagliamento river, Italy. Aquat. Sci.
78, 83e94.