Implementation Strategies
Implementation Strategies
Implementation Strategies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02956-7
Received: 25 April 2021 / Accepted: 31 August 2021 / Published online: 16 September 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021
Abstract
Dams accumulate sediment by interrupting the continuity of rivers, resulting in a loss of
reservoir water storage capacity and decreased productive life. These issues raise a growing
concern about the decreasing benefits of projects. This paper contributes to the implemen‑
tation of sediment transit strategies and operating rules of reservoirs to reduce overflows
and recover the technical–economic viability of sedimented reservoirs by maintaining eco‑
logical flow. The main difficulty lies in the fact that sedimentation of the reservoir lim‑
its the mobility of dredging equipment and blocks the intake. To regain the viability of
the reservoir, the commonly used strategies to manage water resources and reservoir sed‑
imentation were analyzed. To control reservoir sedimentation and restore the generation
capacity, different sediment management strategies were implemented and evaluated at the
entrance, body of the reservoir and intake; these strategies included reduction of the entry
of sediments, restoration of the storage capacity, clearing of the water intake for the tur‑
bines to restore power generation, trash rack cleaning during the power generation process
and modification of the hydroelectric power plant operating rules to optimize the economic
income. The implemented strategies successfully reduced overflows from 88 to 40% in
3 years and stabilized the reservoir storage capacity by balancing the inflow and removal of
sediments. Although the water intake for the turbines was cleaned, accumulation increased
in other areas of the reservoir. Finally, root cause analysis (RCA) was employed, and solu‑
tions were proposed to increase the capacity of the reservoir and reduce overflows to 15%.
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
4400 P. W. Castro, C. A. Mantilla
1 Introduction
Currently, worldwide, there are more than 45,000 large dams (with a reservoir storage
capacity greater than 1,000,000 m3), and it is estimated that there are more than 800,000
smaller capacity dams (Palmieri et al. 2001; Wang and Hu 2009). The accumulation of
sediment in reservoirs produces a loss in freshwater storage capacity at an annual rate
of 1% globally (Huffaker and Hotchkiss 2006; Schleiss et al. 2016; Wang and Hu 2009).
Small dams are usually dismantled when they are filled (Sawaske and Freyberg 2012).
According to Schleiss et al. (2016), if the current trend continues, in the next 60 years,
between 70 and 80% of the storage capacity of reservoirs globally will have been lost
because of sedimentation.
According to Huffaker and Hotchkiss (2006), the large environmental and economic
costs related to storage capacity recovery by new dam project construction is prompting
a paradigm shift toward managing existing projects as renewable resources. This shift
requires sediment control strategies to stabilize reservoir storage capacity by balanc‑
ing sediment inflow and removal rates. Although several authors indicate that there is
increasing concern about this issue in several countries, on a global basis, the trend has
not changed. In fact, until now, the common engineering practice has been to design
and operate reservoirs by anticipating slow filling with sediments, thereby producing a
reservoir with a finite life span. (Palmieri et al. 2001). Eslami et al. (2021) developed a
multicriteria-based decision-making methodology to determine the best implementation
strategy to mitigate the adverse effects of dam construction and maximize economic
benefits.
Shin et al. (2021) developed a model for evaluating the engineering conditions
of small dams using an analytical hierarchy process. Beiranvand and Komasi (2021)
performed numerical analysis to estimate the seepage rate of a dam. Several authors
(Clement and Djebou 2018; Khaba and Griffiths 2017; Zamarron et al. 2017) developed
models for decision-making support considering not only cost but also social and envi‑
ronmental aspects to prioritize dam management activities throughout their productive
lives. These models were applied mainly to dams with billions of cubic meters of vol‑
ume with sedimentation in the reservoir while maintaining a substantial storage volume.
This paper shows the strategies and operating rules implemented for sediment transit to
recover and manage an important dam in the Colombian electrical system, which has a
strategic location and potential for generating 370 GWh per year. The dam was designed
with a storage volume of 5.1 million m 3, but sedimentation caused the loss of reservoir
capacity to values lower than 0.2 million m3.
According to some studies (Kondolf et al. 2014; Morris 2020; Wang and Hu 2009),
the following strategies are used to manage the sedimentation of reservoirs:
• Reduce the amount of sediments entering the reservoir from upstream through
catchment erosion control (its benefits in reducing sediment inflow to reservoirs has
not been clearly demonstrated) or the installation of check dams. Check dams can
reduce sediment flow to a downstream reservoir in two ways. The first method is to
induce debris flow deposition and reduce the rate of hillslope erosion. The second
way is to intercept sediment before it reaches the downstream reservoir. The vol‑
ume of sediment that is trapped is usually trivial, and check dams fill with sediment
quickly, creating a new set of problems, resulting in sediment-filled reservoirs that
are potentially unstable and costly to maintain.
13
Implementation of Strategies for the Management of Dams with… 4401
• Implement sediment flushing, whereby the flow velocities in a reservoir are increased
such that deposited sediments are removed through bottom outlets. Flushing is fre‑
quently used during floods, where high sediment concentrations are discharged during
short periods of time. This system was implemented as a dam in the present study and
was used from 1963 to 2000.
• Sediment bypassing is a method used to manage sediments by preventing them from
entering the reservoir during flooding.
• Sediment dredging, which is used to gradually renovate the storage capacity of the res‑
ervoir, causes less environmental impact than other sediment management alternatives.
It is used mainly in small dams.
Good environmental conditions can be achieved only if appropriate flow and sedi‑
ment regimes and river morphology quality are guaranteed. E-flow, or ecological flow,
is defined as discharge of flow magnitude and frequency that is necessary for a river
system to remain environmentally, socially, and economically healthy. A model holistic
approach for deciding E-flow was presented by Ćosić-Flajsig et al. (2020).
The hydroelectric power plant that is the focus of this study began operations in
1955, and a few years later, the reservoir lost its storage volume due to the accumula‑
tion of sediments from road construction, high deforestation due to agricultural activi‑
ties and soil erosion. Since 1962, it has been necessary to incorporate hydraulic and
mechanical dredging to remove sediments. Sediment dredging and sediment flushing
has conserved the storage volume and generation capacity of the reservoir over the past
53 years. The hydroelectric power plant is located within a national natural park; there‑
fore, major changes to dredging equipment and bottom outlet openings must be author‑
ized by the environmental national authority. In 2001, sediment flushing was forbid‑
den, and subsequently, the sedimentation rate of the reservoir increased considerably.
In 2017, the storage capacity of the reservoir was lost at 94%, and the intake was totally
obstructed, causing overflows at an annual average of 88% and forcing the generation of
the plant to stop for a long time. In 2017, the dredging equipment reached an average
age of 48 years, presenting a decrease in productivity and a projected short life-span.
Figure 1 shows two images: the reservoir with a storage capacity greater than 60% and
the sedimented reservoir.
Fig. 1 Reservoir storage capacity. a Storage volume greater than 60% in 2002, b storage volume less than
10% in 2019
13
4402 P. W. Castro, C. A. Mantilla
The sedimentation of the reservoir limits the mobility of the dredging equipment and
blocks the intake. This paper shows the results of five strategies implemented to restore
the capacity of electricity generation of the sedimented reservoir and to recover the eco‑
nomic viability of the hydroelectric power plant. The solutions can be implemented in
other sedimented reservoirs to recover the storage volume and extend their productive
life.
Since 2001, when sediment flushing was suspended, the generation capacity of the res‑
ervoir has depended only on the removal of sediment by dredging. Under these condi‑
tions, energy generation was conserved without a decrease (overflows less than 15%) for
7 years (2002 to 2008). Since 2009, the generation capacity gradually decreased (over‑
flow increase) until 2017 when the intake was completely blocked by sediment. In 2017,
overflows were 88%, and the loss of storage capacity of the reservoir was 94%. (Fig. 2).
The loss of reservoir volume causes sediment transported by the river to be deposited
in the intake, which makes it difficult to operate the hydraulic power plant in times of
flooding. Mubeen et al. (2021) proposed a methodology to determine the most suitable
intervention for flood risk reduction.
Sediment removal was affected by different factors, such as the deterioration of
dredging equipment and external factors, such as weather conditions, logistics and the
skill of maintenance and operation staff, which caused the low utilization of dredging
equipment (weighted average of less than 30%, Fig. 3) and reservoir sedimentation. The
utilization of dredging equipment can be expressed by Eq. 1 (Dredging equipment utili‑
zation rate).
Fig. 2 Overflows versus reservoir storage capacity: curve E1-reservoir with storage volume greater than
60%; curve E2-sedimented reservoir
13
Implementation of Strategies for the Management of Dams with… 4403
Hours worked
Utilization rate(U) = × 100 (1)
Total available hours
The main goals are to reduce the overflows to 15% and restore the electricity generation
capacity of the reservoir. These goals require sediment control strategies that stabilize and
increase the reservoir storage capacity by balancing sediment inflow and removal rates by
dredging without considering the use of flushing.
The sediment balance in a reservoir can be modeled with the mass conservation equation,
where sediment inflow is equal to the sediments removed plus the sediments accumulated.
The sediment balance can be expressed as Eq. 2 (Sediment balance).
Sinflow = SDredge + STurbine + SOverflows + SAccumulated (2)
where S is the sediment mass.
The sustainable management of the dam aims to stabilize or increase the storage capac‑
ity of the reservoir by balancing sediment inflow and removal rates. Removing sediments
through the turbines and overflowing the sediments depends on flow rates, and considering
that flushing is not allowed, it is necessary to increase the removal of sediments by dredg‑
ing to achieve the objective.
To reduce overflows and restore the reservoir’s generating capacity, the following strategies
for dredging and water resource management are implemented:
1. Reduce the entry of sediments to the reservoir. A dragline bucket dredger builds a trench
underwater to retain and remove coarse-grained sediments, stones, and debris, which
are then discharged into a bypass tunnel.
13
4404 P. W. Castro, C. A. Mantilla
2. Restore the storage capacity of the reservoir using the hydraulic-dredging sediment-
removal system.
3. Clear the water intake for the turbines to restore electricity generation by using mechani‑
cal dredging at great depths via a Clamshell Dredger and grab bucket overhead crane.
4. Implement trash rack cleaning during the power generation process.
5. Modify the hydroelectric power plant operating rules for optimal electricity genera‑
tion. The hydroelectric power-generating capacity of the dam has decreased with the
sedimentation of the reservoir, and it is not possible to sustain power generation for
long periods of time. To optimize the income of the company, trash rack cleaning is
implemented during low power generation loads during night hours to maintain a low
energy cost, and generation at high loads during daytime hours with a high energy cost
is implemented (Fig. 4).
Figure 5 shows the reservoir scheme with the location of the dredging equipment
according to the proposed sediment management strategies.
3.2 Sediment Inflow
According to Anand et al. (2021), several authors have analyzed the sediment transport
rates and the estimation of the flow intensity at which sediment movement begins. They
concluded that slope is not a determining factor for the sediment transport rate because the
angle of internal friction is 39°.
Bathymetries of the reservoir (Fig. 6) and water quality analysis (upstream, in the reser‑
voir and downstream) were performed (2018 to 2020) to determine the correlation between
liquid and solid flows and changes in the storage capacity and to balance the annual sedi‑
ment in the reservoir. According to Zhang (2019), a variety of methods were used to assess
water quality. The water quality index (WQI) considers general water quality factors, such
as DO, pH, temperature, and total dissolved solids (TDS).
To evaluate the water quality parameters, variables were analyzed in the field and
laboratory:
• Field variables included pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, turbid‑
ity, sedimentable solids (Imhoff cone), and color.
13
Implementation of Strategies for the Management of Dams with… 4405
Fig. 5 Strategic location of dredging equipment: zone 1-entrance to the reservoir; zone 2-reservoir; zone
3- intake Where a dragline bucket dredger consists of a bucket that is moved by a cable suspended between
a mast and a fixed point on the banks of the river to build a transverse underwater ditch with a width of 6 m
at the bottom and a depth of 18 m; a cutter suction dredger is a unit designed to pump materials such as
mud and sand from the bottom of rivers or reservoirs and drive them through a pipe as a mixture of solids
and water to the discharge area; a clamshell dredger is an excavating machine used to move large amounts
of soil or sediment using a clamshell bucket; and a grab bucket overhead crane is a piece of equipment that
travels by monorail over the intake to extract sediments at great depths
13
4406 P. W. Castro, C. A. Mantilla
dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOC), hydrogen sulfide, and fecal and
total coliforms.
13
Implementation of Strategies for the Management of Dams with… 4407
To define E-flows, Ćosić-Flajsig et al. (2020) proposed a procedure with the following four
main stages: (1) morphological characterization of the river system, (2) hydrological and
sediment regime study, (3) ecological behavior of the altered flow regime and selection
of target species, and (4) comparison and selection of possible E-flows. To guarantee ade‑
quate environmental conditions necessary for the river system to remain environmentally,
socially, and economically healthy, an E-flow or ecological flow of 11 m3/s was defined by
environmental experts; this ecological flow is mandatory.
At the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018, a strategy of high-depth mechanical dredg‑
ing was implemented in the intake with a clamshell dredger and grab bucket overhead
crane, which added to the operation of the dragline bucket dredger and cutter suction
dredger, managed to stabilize the sediment balance in the reservoir and reduce overflows
from 88 to 40% (Figs. 8 and 9), thereby increasing electricity generation and decreasing the
demand for new water projects or the consumption of fossil fuels.
The historical records of inflow in the reservoir revealed that the E-flow of 11 m3/s
corresponds to 13% to 17% of the total inflow, with an average inflow of 15%. The goal of
reducing overflows was maintained until the overflows were equal to the ecological flow,
i.e., an average annual flow of 15%.
This strategy required reducing the electricity generation of the hydroelectric power
plant (less than 15% of the capacity) during 46% of the year (Fig. 10) for trash rack clean‑
ing, which made it difficult to achieve an overflow reduction of 15%.
In the past, when the reservoir had a storage capacity greater than 30%, the over‑
flows were less than 20%; most of the year, the hydroelectric power plant generated
13
4408 P. W. Castro, C. A. Mantilla
between 90 and 100% of its capacity, and only 20% of the year, the hydroelectric
power plant operated at low power (less than 15% capacity) for trash rack cleaning.
This condition is denoted as E1.
The loss of 94% of the reservoir’s storage capacity (without a sediment transit strat‑
egy) required operating at low load during 75% of the year, and it was not possible to
reach an hourly generation above 30%. This condition is denoted as E2.
After implementing the sediment transit strategies, the need to operate the plant at
low load was reduced from 75 to 46%, and the hydroelectric plant generated between
90 and 100% of its capacity during 5% of the year; however, the loss of the reservoir
storage capacity remained at 93%. This condition is denoted as E3.
The sedimentation of the reservoir caused continuous obstruction of the intake due
to the sediments transported by the river. This situation made it difficult to generate
electricity at full load for long periods of time, even with the intake 100% clear, as
shown in Fig. 11.
13
Implementation of Strategies for the Management of Dams with… 4409
4.1 Sediment Dredging
The maximum amount of sediments to be removed per year was approved by the national
environmental authority. To estimate the required utilization of dredging equipment to
remove these sediments, equations that consider the effect of each piece of equipment on
the restoration of storage capacity and restoration of electricity generation without exceed‑
ing the annual dredging limit are developed (Eq. 3 (Removed sediment)).
SR = (E ∗ h)Dragline bucket dredger + (E ∗ h)Cutter suction dredger
(3)
+ (E ∗ h)Clamshell Dredger + (E ∗ h)Grab bucket overhead crane
• The grab bucket overhead crane operates only during hours of lower energy sales;
therefore, the maximum available operation time is 8 h per day.
• Dragline bucket dredgers operate upstream of the reservoir only on day shifts; person‑
nel are present 40% of the time compared to that of dredgers.
• The cutter suction dredger and clamshell dredger have the same time available to oper‑
ate.
The hours of operation of each piece of equipment were determined, and knowing the
weight of each piece of equipment in the removal of sediments, the weighted average utili‑
zation of reservoir dredging was calculated (Eq. 4 (Hours of average operation required)).
hWeighted average = (W ∗ h) Dragline bucket dredger + (W ∗ h)Cutter suction dredger
(4)
+ (W ∗ h)Clamshell Dredger + (W ∗ h)Grab bucket overhead crane
where W is the participation of each piece of equipment in the global balance of removed
sediments.
The environmental management plan of the reservoir states that the largest sedi‑
ment volume to be extracted is 1,092,000 m 3 per year. Considering this restriction,
the participation (W) is determined as the dredging capacity of each of the pieces of
equipment over the capacity of all of the equipment. To achieve the extraction of the
13
4410 P. W. Castro, C. A. Mantilla
required sediments, sensitivity analysis was performed considering the following oper‑
ating restrictions of each of the cutter suction dredger and clamshell dredger equipment
operated between 14 and 18 h per day, the dragline bucket dredger operated between
4 and 6 h per day and the grab bucket overhead crane operated between 6 and 8 h per
day. Only in the scenario in which all the equipment operates at the greatest possible
number of hours per day is the dredging objective achieved; for all other cases, the
dredged sediments are less than the allowed limit.
According to Eq. 1, by dividing these weighted average hours over the hours of the
year, a weighted average utilization of 48% is required for the dredging equipment.
Table 1 shows the values for each of the pieces of equipment.
Between 2018 and 2020, there was a decrease in overflows and an increase in the
utilization of dredging equipment (Fig. 12), with a weighted average utilization of
29%.
The last year with overflows less than 10% was 2008 (Fig. 9), when a reservoir volume
of 29% was estimated (0.66 million m 3). Therefore, the objective is to recover the stor‑
age capacity of the reservoir to 29%. The current volume is 7% (0.15 million m3 ), two
years is needed to restore the reservoir volume to 29%, and using the aforementioned
method, it is necessary to increase the minimum weighted average utilization to 36%.
The strategy of sediment transit and water resource management that was imple‑
mented allowed us to reduce overflows; however, since the storage capacity of the
13
Implementation of Strategies for the Management of Dams with… 4411
The RCA of low sediment extraction was carried out through the logical tree methodol‑
ogy using the Proact ® tool, from which the base causes and impacts were determined
with the following negative impact percentages: 29.70% because of aging of the cutter
suction dredger (58 years) and impossibility of operating the trash rack cleaner with the
hydroelectric power station operating and poor predictive and preventive maintenance
program, 3.70% because of insufficient staff, 2.40% because of electrical circuit faults
and 2.0% because of floods.
Solutions were proposed to mitigate or eliminate the causes and increase the removal
of sediments to reduce the discharges to 15%. The proposed solutions range from equip‑
ment modernization, maintenance and operation management, resource management,
staff skills development, and monitoring and control.
• Modernize the cutter suction dredger to allow it to move through a sedimented reser‑
voir.
• Modernize the trash rack cleaner to operate during the energy generation process.
• Develop failure mode and effect analysis (AMFE).
• Implement predictive and preventive maintenance plans aimed at eliminating or mit‑
igating the consequences of failure modes.
• Prepare a materials inventory (stock of materials) with quantities, locations, maxi‑
mums and minimums and reorder points.
• Implement indicators of reliability, availability, mean time between failures (MTBF),
and mean time to repair (MTTF).
• Evaluate the person-hour requirement to achieve the required utilization.
• Assess the specific competencies of the maintenance and operation staff.
• Perform a life cycle cost (LCC) analysis of dredging assets.
LCC analysis is a technique that assesses the viability of the operational continuity
of existing assets or the need for renewal for selecting the best economic and socially
responsible decision for companies, and it considers economic, technical, environmen‑
tal, physical safety and occupational health and safety principles (Ferreira and Santos
2012; Kambanou 2020; Kim et al. 2015). The cutter suction dredger has a weight of
60% during the removal of sediments; for this reason, its modernization should be one
of the main focuses.
5 Conclusions
A sedimented dam was recovered, and its productive life cycle continues by applying water
resource management and sediment transit strategies through dredging. The implemented
strategies reduced overflows from 88 to 40% in 3 years; however, due to the sedimentation
13
4412 P. W. Castro, C. A. Mantilla
of the reservoir, it has been necessary to operate the hydroelectric power plant at low loads
during 46% of the year, which implies a decrease in the overflows to 20% in the best of the
cases. Strategies were proposed to reduce discharges to 15% and to increase the storage
capacity of the reservoir to 29%. The results of the proposed solutions will be discussed in
a future paper.
Abbreviations AMFE: Faolure mode and effect analysis; BOD: Biochemical oxygen demand; DO: Dis‑
solved oxygen; E: Dredgind capacity (m3/h); E1: Storage capacity greater than 30%; E2: Storage capacity
less than 6% (without sediment transit strategy); E3: Storage capacity less than 6% (with sediment transit
strategy); Eflow: Ecological flow; h: Dredgind (h/year); LCC: Life cycle cost analysis; MTBF: Mean time
between failures; MTTF: Mean time to repair; RCA: Root cause analysis; SAccumulated: Accumulated sedi‑
ment mass; Sinflow: Inflow sediment mass; SOverflows: Overflows sediment mass; SR: Sediments removed (m3/
year); STurbine: Turbine sediment mass; TDS: Total dissolved solids; TOC: Total organic carbon; U: Utili‑
zation rate; W: Participation of each equipment in the global balance of sediments removed; WQI: Water
Quality Index
Author Contributions PWCF and CAMV contributed to the study concept and design. Material preparation,
data collection and analysis were performed by PWCF. CAMV has made analysis and validation of data.
The first draft of the manuscript was written by PWCF. CAMV commented on previous versions of the
manuscript. PWCF and CAMV read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Data Availability Data and material are available upon request to the corresponding author.
Declarations
Consent to Participate Not applicable.
References
Anand A, Beg M, Kumar N (2021) Experimental studies and analysis on mobilization of the cohesionless
sediments through alluvial channel: a review. Civil Eng J 7(5):915–936. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-
2021-03091700
Beiranvand B, Komasi M (2021) An Investigation on performance of the cut off wall and numerical analy‑
sis of seepage and pore water pressure of Eyvashan earth dam. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civil Eng
45:1723–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-021-00613-y
Clement D, Djebou S (2018) Assessment of sediment inflow to a reservoir using the SWAT model under
undammed conditions: A case study for the Somerville reservoir, Texas, USA. Int Soil Water Conser
Res 6:222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.03.003
Ćosić-Flajsig G, Vučković I, Karleuša B (2020) An innovative holistic approach to an e-flow assessment
model. Civil Eng J 6(11):2188–2202. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091611
Duque O, Posada L (2011) Simulación hidráulica de confluencias y difluencias, aplicación al rio Leo en el
Urabá antioqueño, Colombia. Quinto Simposio Regional sobre Hidráulica de ríos. Santiago del estero,
Argentina
Eslami V, Ashofteh PS, Golfam P, Loáiciga HA (2021) Multi-criteria decision-making approach for envi‑
ronmental impact assessment to reduce the adverse effects of dams. Water Resour Manage. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11269-021-02932-1
13
Implementation of Strategies for the Management of Dams with… 4413
Ferreira A, Santos J (2012) LCCA system for pavement management: sensitivity analysis to the discount
rate. Procedia Social Behav Sci 53:1174–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.966
Huffaker R, Hotchkiss R (2006) Economic dynamics of reservoir sedimentation management: optimal con‑
trol with singularly perturbed equations of motion. J Econ Dyn Control 30(12):2553–2575. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jedc.2005.08.003
Jimenez O, Farias HD, Rodriguez C (2005) Procesos de sedimentación en embalses en ambientes tropicales.
Estudios de casos en costa rica y república dominicana. Ingenieria Del Agua 12(3):1–16. https://doi.
org/10.4995/ia.2005.2561
Kambanou ML (2020) Life cycle costing: understanding how it is practised and its relationship to life cycle
management—a case study. Sustainability 12(8):32–52. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083252
Khaba L, Griffiths JA (2017) Calculation of reservoir capacity loss due to sediment deposition in the Muela
reservoir, Northern Lesotho. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5:130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.
2017.05.005
Kim C, Lee E, Harvey JT, Fong A, Lott R (2015) Automated sequence selection and cost calculation for
maintenance and rehabilitation in highway life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Int J Transp Sci Technol
4(1):61–76. https://doi.org/10.1260/2046-0430.4.1.61
Kondolf GM, Gao Y, Annandale GW, Morris GL, Jiang E, Zhang J, Cao Y, Carling P, Fu K, Guo O, Hotchkiss
R, Peteuil C, Sumi T, Wang H, Wang Z, Wei Z, Wu B, Wu C, Yang CT (2014) Sustainable sediment
management in reservoirs and regulated rivers: experiences from five continents. Earth’s Future 2:256–
280. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000184
Morris GL (2020) Classification of management alternatives to combat reservoir sedimentation. Water
12(3):861. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030861
Mubeen A, Ruangpan L, Vojinovic Z, Sanchez A, Plavšić J (2021) Planning and suitability assessment
of large-scale nature-based solutions for flood-risk reduction. Water Resour Manage 35:3063–3081.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02848-w
Palmieri A, Shah F, Dinar A (2001) Economics of reservoir sedimentation and sustainable management of
dams. J Environ Manage 61(2):149–163. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0392
Sawaske SR, Freyberg DL (2012) A comparison of past small dam removals in highly sediment-impacted
systems in the US. Geomorphology 151:50–58
Schleiss AJ, Franca MJ, Juez C, De Cesare G (2016) Reservoir sedimentation. J Hydraul Res 54(6):595–
614. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2016.1225320
Shin EC, Kim DH, Lee JK, Kang JK (2021) Assessment of the engineering conditions of small dams using
the analytical hierarchy process. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civil Eng 45:1297–1305. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40996-020-00456-z
Wang Z, Hu C (2009) Strategies for managing reservoir sedimentation. Int J Sedim Res 24(2):369–384.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6279(10)60011-X
Zamarron I, Yepes V, Moreno-Jimenez JM (2017) A systematic review of application of multi-criteria deci‑
sion analysis for aging-dam management. J Clean Prod 147:217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2017.01.092
Zhang L (2019) Big data, knowledge mapping for sustainable development a water quality index case study.
Emerg Sci J 3(4):249–254. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2019-01187
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13