Stable ≠ Sustainable: Delta Dynamics Versus the Human Need for Stability

Abstract Arising from the non‐uniform dispersal of sediment and water that build deltaic landscapes, morphological change is a fundamental characteristic of river delta behavior. Thus, sustainable deltas require mobility of their channel networks and attendant shifts in landforms. Both behaviors can...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: P. Passalacqua, L. Giosan, S. Goodbred, I. Overeem
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2021-07-01
Series:Earth's Future
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002121
_version_ 1828359143740669952
author P. Passalacqua
L. Giosan
S. Goodbred
I. Overeem
author_facet P. Passalacqua
L. Giosan
S. Goodbred
I. Overeem
author_sort P. Passalacqua
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Arising from the non‐uniform dispersal of sediment and water that build deltaic landscapes, morphological change is a fundamental characteristic of river delta behavior. Thus, sustainable deltas require mobility of their channel networks and attendant shifts in landforms. Both behaviors can be misrepresented as degradation, particularly in context of the “stability” that is generally necessitated by human infrastructure and economies. Taking the Ganges‐Brahmaputra‐Meghna Delta as an example, contrary to public perception, this delta system appears to be sustainable at a system scale with high sediment delivery and long‐term net gain in land area. However, many areas of the delta exhibit local dynamics and instability at the scale at which households and communities experience environmental change. Such local landscape “instability” is often cited as evidence that the delta is in decline, whereas much of this change simply reflects the morphodynamics typical of an energetic fluvial‐delta system and do not provide an accurate reflection of overall system health. Here we argue that this disparity between unit‐scale sustainability and local morphodynamic change may be typical of deltaic systems with well‐developed distributary networks and strong spatial gradients in sediment supply and transport energy. Such non‐uniformity and the important connections between network sub‐units (i.e., fluvial, tidal, shelf) suggest that delta risk assessments must integrate local dynamics and sub‐unit connections with unit‐scale behaviors. Structure and dynamics of an integrated deltaic network control the dispersal of water, solids, and solutes to the delta sub‐environment and thus the local to unit‐scale sustainability of the system over time.
first_indexed 2024-04-14T03:38:32Z
format Article
id doaj.art-4609e0fbc56640b4a08c13944117bfa3
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2328-4277
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-14T03:38:32Z
publishDate 2021-07-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Earth's Future
spelling doaj.art-4609e0fbc56640b4a08c13944117bfa32022-12-22T02:14:38ZengWileyEarth's Future2328-42772021-07-0197n/an/a10.1029/2021EF002121Stable ≠ Sustainable: Delta Dynamics Versus the Human Need for StabilityP. Passalacqua0L. Giosan1S. Goodbred2I. Overeem3Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering The University of Texas at Austin Austin TX USAGeology & Geophysics Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole MA USADepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences Vanderbilt University Nashville TN USAInstitute of Arctic and Alpine Research University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder CO USAAbstract Arising from the non‐uniform dispersal of sediment and water that build deltaic landscapes, morphological change is a fundamental characteristic of river delta behavior. Thus, sustainable deltas require mobility of their channel networks and attendant shifts in landforms. Both behaviors can be misrepresented as degradation, particularly in context of the “stability” that is generally necessitated by human infrastructure and economies. Taking the Ganges‐Brahmaputra‐Meghna Delta as an example, contrary to public perception, this delta system appears to be sustainable at a system scale with high sediment delivery and long‐term net gain in land area. However, many areas of the delta exhibit local dynamics and instability at the scale at which households and communities experience environmental change. Such local landscape “instability” is often cited as evidence that the delta is in decline, whereas much of this change simply reflects the morphodynamics typical of an energetic fluvial‐delta system and do not provide an accurate reflection of overall system health. Here we argue that this disparity between unit‐scale sustainability and local morphodynamic change may be typical of deltaic systems with well‐developed distributary networks and strong spatial gradients in sediment supply and transport energy. Such non‐uniformity and the important connections between network sub‐units (i.e., fluvial, tidal, shelf) suggest that delta risk assessments must integrate local dynamics and sub‐unit connections with unit‐scale behaviors. Structure and dynamics of an integrated deltaic network control the dispersal of water, solids, and solutes to the delta sub‐environment and thus the local to unit‐scale sustainability of the system over time.https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002121deltasnetworksconnectivityanthropogenic changeremote sensingsustainability
spellingShingle P. Passalacqua
L. Giosan
S. Goodbred
I. Overeem
Stable ≠ Sustainable: Delta Dynamics Versus the Human Need for Stability
Earth's Future
deltas
networks
connectivity
anthropogenic change
remote sensing
sustainability
title Stable ≠ Sustainable: Delta Dynamics Versus the Human Need for Stability
title_full Stable ≠ Sustainable: Delta Dynamics Versus the Human Need for Stability
title_fullStr Stable ≠ Sustainable: Delta Dynamics Versus the Human Need for Stability
title_full_unstemmed Stable ≠ Sustainable: Delta Dynamics Versus the Human Need for Stability
title_short Stable ≠ Sustainable: Delta Dynamics Versus the Human Need for Stability
title_sort stable ≠ sustainable delta dynamics versus the human need for stability
topic deltas
networks
connectivity
anthropogenic change
remote sensing
sustainability
url https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002121
work_keys_str_mv AT ppassalacqua stablesustainabledeltadynamicsversusthehumanneedforstability
AT lgiosan stablesustainabledeltadynamicsversusthehumanneedforstability
AT sgoodbred stablesustainabledeltadynamicsversusthehumanneedforstability
AT iovereem stablesustainabledeltadynamicsversusthehumanneedforstability