The Water Framework Directive (WFD), whose basic aim was to create a legal back-ground for water bodies’ protection, undoubtedly affects all economic sectors. Being a specific and distinctly different water user, agriculture will have the greatest share in the implementation of WFD out of all sectors of national economy. This results from its special character (60% of the country area used by agriculture), large volume of water consumed by evapotranspiration, diffuse pollution etc. Implementation of WFD will call for undertaking of many activities to restrict an unfavourable im-pact of agriculture on water resources and water related ecosystems. It is assumed that agriculture should also protect water resources. Accomplishment of this task imposes significant changes in the land use of river basins. Water management can be an essential factor deciding about the sustainable development of rural areas and biological diversity of agricultural landscape. Actions undertaken so far to implement the WFD are mainly limited to the protection of water quality from agricultural pol-lution. It is also necessary to undertake implementation of other aims of WFD. This refers especially to the provision of good hydromorphological status of water bodies, protection of water related eco-systems and effective water use.
Analysis of the national and regional plans shows that the current year, 2006, shall deter-mine the key lines of national and regional development practically till 2015, that means till the time when, under the Water Framework Directive, Poland should have achieved its major objectives. This year shall witness decision making not only on the key objectives, priority strategies and measures undertaken for social and economic development of the country and regions, but also allocation of the main streams of funds from the EU and public funds from national sources. This is a sort of chal-lenge for administration bodies responsible for water management, particularly in respect of pro-gramming water management tasks and their incorporation into documents which are strategic for development on national and regional level. Over 2006–2008 efforts of water management admini-stration bodies should be focused on incorporation of water management issues into the consecutive edition of the National Ecological Policy and environmental protection programmes – at regional level, to be followed by county and community levels. This paper is a part of the broad stream of methodology and pilot work on the implementation of provisions of the Water Framework Directive in Poland. The main body of the paper consists of the summary of work done for the pilot river basin of Upper Narew.
The Netherlands has a long tradition in water management, mainly stemming from the geography of the country. The ‘struggle with water’ has been organised from medieval times by the water boards (waterschappen), which are the oldest democratic institutions in the Netherlands. Nowa-days the water boards, 27 in the whole of the Netherlands, are not only responsible for flood protec-tion and regulation of water levels, but for water quality management and waste water treatment as well. In the years in which the WFD implementation has been underway in the Netherlands, several issues have arisen. Cooperation between all levels of government is key. This requires as clear as possible divisions of competences between the various parties involved. It also takes much time, es-pecially in a process in which many matters have to be invented ‘on the fly’, such as criteria for des-ignating water bodies, ecological standards, and the formulation of MEP and GEP.
The European Water Framework Directive can have enormous consequences for agricul-ture in the Netherlands. In parts of the country agriculture should be taken out of production because the nutrient loads to the surface water system are far too high. This doom scenario is of course unde-sired and a number of source-specific and effect-specific measures are necessary. The fate of nutri-ents in the soil is strongly interrelated with its hydrology. Directly, because nutrients are transported by water and the distribution of the residence time of drainage water is a good measure for the time behaviour of the nutrient loads to the surface water system. Longer residence time in the soil means more of nutrients applied by farmers but also a longer recovery period, after applying source-specific measures. In this paper three promising effect-specific hydrological measures are described buffer strips, retention strips, and controlled drainage.
Permanent grasslands – according to the Water Framework Directive – are typical water related ecosystems so they largely affect water quality, its cycling and balance and therefore deserve protection. They are an element of landscape structure (ecosystem function or service) commonly considered a factor stabilising environmental changes.
Most threats posed to waters in Poland originate from present cropland structure with its definite predominance of arable lands over grasslands. Agriculture should therefore focus on the improvement of land use structure in order to minimise environmental hazards and to guarantee at the same time optimum economic effects. This could be achieved by turning arable lands into grasslands (where justified e.g. on light soils) or at least by maintaining present grassland area (condition in negotiations with the EU) and management that would consider environmental protection.
Increasing the contribution of grasslands to cropland structure or at least maintaining their pre-sent status quo would help to achieve compromise between the goals of farmers and environmental protection. Purposeful utilisation of ecosystem services, particularly those of grasslands, allows to maintain more intensive farming without environmental hazard. Limited should be only such activi-ties whose intensity exceeds regenerative or buffering environmental capacity e.g. on grounds par-ticularly subjected to water pollution or those included into Natura 2000 network.
Wetlands play a significant role in agricultural landscape. They are the areas of exception-ally great natural values able to regulate water cycling in river catchments. In many cases they are the basic food source for bred animals.
Large areas of wetlands (c. 4 million ha) have been drained for agricultural purposes in Poland. Nevertheless, there are still numerous natural (or close to natural) wetlands, part of which is protected in nature reserves or national parks.
Having in mind the transformation of agriculture and the need of protecting water resources and natural environment, it is necessary to regulate the principles of utilisation and management of re-claimed wetlands. Water management should be adjusted to the type of an area and to environmental requirements. Regardless of the type and intensity of agricultural use of wetlands one has to aim at limiting rapid outflow of spring thaw and rainfall waters which means the reconstruction and increas-ing of natural retention capacity of the river catchment. It is necessary to provide an appropriate num-ber of water lifting facilities and their proper exploitation in land reclamation objects.
It is as well necessary to create appropriate organizational, legal and financial conditions stimu-lating actions to improve water balance and wetland protection.
Polish water resources depend on precipitations, which are variable in time and space. In dry years the water balance is negative in central parts of Poland but sudden thaws and downfalls may result in periodical water excess and dangerous floods almost in the entire country. The retention capacity of artificial reservoirs in Poland permits to store only 6% of the average annual runoff, which is commonly considered insufficient. Another method to increase retention is soil water con-trol. About fifty percent of soils in Poland consist of light and very light sandy soils with low water capacity. Loams and organogenic soils cover approximately 25% and 8.5% area of the country, re-spectively. Almost half of agricultural lands (48%) have relatively good water conditions, but the rest requires soil water control measures. An increase of the soil water content could be achieved by changes of soil properties, water table control and soil water management. Modernization and recon-struction of drainage and irrigation systems, which were built mainly in the period 1960–1980, is needed.
This paper presents results of object-oriented classification of Landsat ETM+ satellite im-age conducted using eCognition software. The classified image was acquired on 7 May 2000. In this particular study, an area of 423 km2 within the borders of Legionowo Community near Warsaw is considered.
Prior to classification, segmentation of the Landsat ETM+ image is performed using panchro-matic channel, fused multispectral and panchromatic data. The applied methods of classification en-abled the identification of 18 land cover and land use classes. After the classification, generalization and raster to vector conversion, verification and accuracy assessment are performed by means of vis-ual interpretation. Overall accuracy of the classification reached 94.6%. The verification and classifi-cation results are combined to form the final database.
This is followed by comparing the object-oriented with traditional pixel-based classification. The latter is performed using the so-called hybrid classification based on both supervised and unsuper-vised classification approaches. The traditional pixel-based approach identified only 8 classes. Com-parison of the pixel-based classification with the database obtained using the object-oriented ap-proach revealed that the former reached 72% and 61% accuracy, according to the applied method.
The article presents the results of analyses of changes in the number of ponds in the Wys-koć catchment basin carried out in the years 1980–2003 and the characteristics of ponds excavated in that period. Only water reservoirs of an area less than 2 ha were considered. Analyses were based on topographic maps in the scale of 1:10 000 and aerial photographs taken in 1996. The results indicated that the number of filled ponds increased, especially those located in fields and grasslands. However, forest and wetland ponds were the most resistant to the processes of quantitative degradation because not even a single pond was filled during the analysed period. Over 70% newly excavated water bod-ies were made as an effect of exploitation of mineral and peat resources. However, nowadays ponds are more often created as a result of intentional human activities and are used for fish farming, recrea-tion and as water retention reservoirs used in irrigation of small agricultural and gardening areas.
The study on water erosion in the catchment basin of the Jeleni Brook was carried out in the years 1995–1999. The catchment of the Jeleni Brook has complex relief, receives frequent pre-cipitations and thus is more threatened by water erosion. Soil cultivation and water from quickly melting snow can also be the factors affecting soil erosion. Waters from the melting snow produce rills of the following dimensions (mean values): width from 11.5 to 13.6 cm, depth – from 6.4 to 7.1 cm and length – from 39 to 112 m. The mean values of soil losses vary from 0.5 to 2.02 t·ha–1.
Erosion caused by intensive storm precipitation occurs less frequently but makes much higher soil losses. One of the registered incidents shows that 51.6 t·ha–1 (4.5 mm of soil layer) can be washed out from the area of 0.66 ha. Combined effect of outwashing and ploughing in lower parts of slopes created new forms of relief such as agricultural terraces (escarps). Agricultural terraces assume the shape of scarps up to 2 m high and of different length (e.g. 150 m) along with the land use border-lines between e.g. forest and field or field and grassland.
Agriculturally used soils within this catchment need protection based mainly on agrotechnical measures or on alteration of land use. Some areas should be afforested.
Changes in capacity of water reservoir Cedzyna during its exploitation since 1972 till 2003 are presented in the paper. Analyses were based on cross sections of the reservoir’s basin from before its fulfillment (1967) and those measured with the echo sounder Ceeducer in 2003. Silting of reser-voir was predicted based on empirical methods. The volume of reservoir was found to decrease by 112.8 thousand m3 during 31 years of its exploitation and reservoir’s life span was assessed at 685 years. An error analysis was additionally made of calculating the surface area of a cross section at varying number of sounding sites. It was found that there was no need to note too many coordinates and depths and for the Cedzyna reservoir the distance between measurement sites up to 16 m was sufficient.
Loads of N-NO3, N-NH4, PO4 and BOD5 carried in surface waters of the upper Dunajec catchment basin (at the section in Krościenko) in the years 1985–1998 are presented in this paper. Water quality of the Biały Dunajec (in Szaflary), Czarny Dunajec (in Ludźmierz) and Dunajec (in Krościenko) was characterised. Annual loads discharged from the area per km2 of the catchment were calculated from mean annual flows (SQ) and concentrations of studied components in river waters. Concentration of N-NO3 in waters of the Biały Dunajec was more than two times higher and that of phosphates – over seven times higher than the respective concentrations in the Czarny Dunajec and Dunajec. Different population density, numerous tourists and low level of water and sewage infra-structure were responsible for these differences.
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have significantly contributed to the conception, project, execution, and interpretation of the results. All such contributors must be listed as co-authors. Other individuals who influenced key aspects of the study should be acknowledged or mentioned as co-workers. The author must ensure that all co-authors have been properly included, have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper, and have agreed to its submission for publication.
When it comes to changes in authorship, it is crucial that authors carefully consider the authorship list and order before the original submission, as changes are generally not considered by the editors of the “Journal of Water and Land Development” once the manuscript has been submitted. According to the journal’s policy, all authors must be listed in the manuscript and entered into the submission system. Any addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors should be made only prior to acceptance and only with the approval of the journal editor. Requests to change authorship must come from the corresponding author, who must provide a valid reason along with written confirmation from all authors, including those being added or removed, stating their agreement with the proposed changes. These requests must be submitted through a designated form (FORM),and those that fail to follow the instructions in the form will not be considered. Only under exceptional circumstances will changes be considered after acceptance. During the evaluation of such requests, publication may be paused. If approved after publication, changes will be documented through a corrigendum. Unauthorized changes to authorship may lead to rejection of the article.
Authors must disclose all sources of funding for their study, as well as the involvement of scientific institutions, associations, and any other entities. They must also disclose any significant conflicts of interest that could influence the outcomes or interpretation of the study.
In the case of applying AI and AI-assisted technologies in the work, the author is obliged to make a proper declaration within the manuscript. This declaration must include the name of the AI tool or service used and the reasons for its use. Importantly, AI cannot be credited as an author of the manuscript. Since texts generated with the use of AI may be fragmentary or incorrect, the author—who remains fully responsible for the entire submitted article—is obliged to carefully review any AI-generated content and make necessary corrections before submission.
Authors reporting original research should provide an accurate and detailed account of the work performed, along with an objective discussion of its significance. All source data must be accurately presented in the manuscript, and sufficient detail and references should be included to allow others to replicate the study. Deliberate falsification or misrepresentation is unethical and will not be tolerated by the editors.
Authors should also be ready to provide the raw data used in their study for editorial review if requested and must retain this data for a reasonable period after publication.
In terms of publication ethics, authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Simultaneous submission of the same paper to multiple journals is considered unethical and is prohibited.
Proper citation is essential; authors must always acknowledge and cite all works that influenced the development of the manuscript and confirm any use of other authors’ work.
If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their responsibility to promptly notify the Editorial Office.
Only original works should be submitted. Authors must ensure that all cited authors and quoted material are properly credited and referenced. Any instances of ghostwriting or guest authorship are considered forms of scientific misconduct and will be addressed accordingly, including notification of relevant authorities. All indications of scientific dishonesty or breaches of ethical standards will be thoroughly documented by the Editorial Office.
Editors’ duties
Editors assess submitted manuscripts solely based on their academic value, including significance, originality, validity of the study, and clarity, as well as their alignment with the journal’s focus. This evaluation is conducted without consideration of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, religion, political beliefs, or affiliations. Editorial decisions regarding publication are independent of governmental policies or any external influences. The Editor-in-Chief of JWLD holds complete authority over the journal’s editorial content and the scheduling of its publication.
Editors refrain from utilising AI or AI-assisted technologies for decisions that require critical analysis or the formulation of substantive opinions. They and the editorial team will keep all information related to a submitted manuscript confidential, only sharing it with the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, relevant editorial advisers, and the publisher as necessary.
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information from a submitted manuscript for personal research purposes without the explicit written permission of the authors. Any privileged information acquired during the manuscript review process will remain confidential and not be exploited for personal gain. In cases where there is a conflict of interest, such as competitive or collaborative relationships with authors, editors will recuse themselves and assign the manuscript to another editorial board member.
All manuscripts under consideration for publication will undergo peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief will determine which manuscripts are published based on the validation of the work, its relevance to researchers and readers, feedback from reviewers, and adherence to legal standards regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with fellow editors or reviewers in this decision-making process.
Additionally, journal editors may seek guidance on submitted papers beyond technical reviews, particularly regarding ethical concerns or issues involving data or materials accessibility. This advisory process typically occurs concurrently with the technical peer-review.
Reviewers’ duties
Peer review plays a crucial role in aiding editors with their decision-making and can also help authors enhance their manuscripts through communications facilitated by the editorial team.
If any reviewer feels unqualified to assess a manuscript or realises they cannot complete the review promptly, they should inform the editor and withdraw from the process.
All manuscripts reviewed must be regarded as confidential and should not be shared or discussed with anyone unless authorised by the editor.
Reviews need to be conducted impartially. Personal criticisms of the author are not acceptable. Reviewers should clearly articulate their opinions and back them up with solid reasoning.
Reviewers are also responsible for identifying relevant works that have not been referenced by the authors. Any claim that a finding, derivation, or argument has been previously noted should include the appropriate citation. Additionally, reviewers should inform the editor if they notice significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript in question and any other published work they are aware of.
Reviewers must refrain from using AI to make decisions that require critical thinking or to form substantive opinions regarding the manuscript.
Any privileged information or insights gained during the peer review process must remain confidential and should not be exploited for personal gain. Reviewers should avoid evaluating manuscripts where there exist conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or any other relationships with the authors, organizations, or institutions involved.
Editors treat any misconduct by reviewers with seriousness and will address any claims of confidentiality breaches.
Publishers’ duties
In instances of alleged or confirmed scientific misconduct, fraudulent publications, or plagiarism, the publisher will work closely with the editors to address the issue and amend the article in question. This may involve the swift publication of an erratum, a clarification, or, in the most serious cases, retraction of the affected work. Furthermore, alongside the editors, the publisher will take responsible measures to identify and prevent the publication of papers involving research misconduct, and will never condone or knowingly permit such misconduct to occur.
The publisher is dedicated to the ongoing availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by collaborating with organisations and maintaining a digital archive.
Sometimes after an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change. This change will be made after careful consideration by the journal’s editorial team to make sure if there are grounds for these changes.
Aside from cases where a minor error is concerned, any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notice, which will be permanently linked to the original article. These changes can be in the form of a Correction notice, an Expression of Concern, a Retraction, and in rare circumstances, a Removal.
The purpose of linking post-publication notices to the original article is to provide transparency around any changes and to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record. Note that all post-publication notices are free to access from the point of publication.
Authors should notify us as soon as possible if they find errors in their published article, especially errors that could affect the interpretation of data or reliability of information presented. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure consensus has been reached between all listed co-authors prior to requesting any corrections to an article.
If, after reading the guidance, you believe a correction is necessary for your article, please contact the Editorial Office journal@itp.edu.pl.
Correction notice
A Correction notice will be issued when it is necessary to correct an error or omission, where the interpretation of the article may be impacted but the scholarly integrity or original findings remains intact.
A correction notice, where possible, should always be written and approved by all authors of the original article.
Please note that correction requests may be subject to full review, and if queries are raised, you may be expected to supply further information before the correction is approved.
Major and minor errors could be distinguished. For correction notices, major errors or omissions are considered changes that impact the interpretation of the article, but the overall scholarly integrity remains intact. Minor errors are considered errors or omissions that do not impact the reliability of, or the readers’ understanding of, the interpretation of the article.
Major errors are always accompanied by a separate correction notice. The correction notice should provide clear details of the error and the changes that have been made to the published version. Under these circumstances, Editorial team will:
Minor errors may not be accompanied by a separate correction notice. instead, a footnote will be added to the article detailing to the reader that the article has been corrected.
Concerns regarding the integrity of a published article should be raised via email to the Editorial Office journal@itp.edu.pl.
Retractions
A Retraction will be issued where a major error (e.g., in the methods or analysis) invalidates the conclusions in the article, or where it appears research or publication misconduct has taken place (e.g., research without required ethical approvals, fabricated data, manipulated images, plagiarism, duplicate publication, etc.).
The decision will follow a full investigation by the journal’s editorial team. Authors and institutions may request a retraction of their articles if they believe their reasons meet the criteria for retraction.
Retractions are issued to correct the scholarly record and should not be interpreted as punishments for the authors.
The COPE guidance can be found here https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing.
Retraction will be considered in cases where:
Where the decision has been taken to retract an article, Editorial team will:
Article removal
An Article Removal will be issued in rare circumstances where the problems cannot be addressed through a Retraction or Correction notice. Editorial team will consider removal of a published article in very limited circumstances where:
In the case of an article being removed from “Journal of Water and Land Development” website, a removal notice will be issued in its place.
Expressions of concern
In some cases, an Expression of Concern may be considered where concerns of a serious nature have been raised (e.g., research or publication misconduct), but where the outcome of the investigation is inconclusive or where due to various complexities, the investigation will not be completed for a considerable time. This could be due to ongoing institutional investigations or other circumstances outside of the journal’s control.
When the investigation has been completed, a Retraction or Correction notice may follow the Expression of Concern alongside the original article. All will remain part of the permanent publication record.
Expressions of Concern notices will be considered in cases where:
The Expression of Concern will be linked back to the published article it relates to.
EDITORIAL PROCEDURE
Preliminary evaluation
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editors to ensure they meet the requirements and editorial policy of the “Journal of Water and Land Development” (JWLD). Submissions that are incomplete or not formatted according to the journal’s guidelines will be returned to the authors with recommendations for correction. Upon successful registration on the editorial platform, authors will receive a reference number for their manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor reviews every submission and assigns it a priority status, resulting in one of the following decisions: (a) the manuscript is forwarded directly for peer review; (b) the manuscript is returned to the authors with suggestions for revising the presentation of data; or (c) the manuscript is rejected. If the authors revise the manuscript adequately, it will be sent to at least two independent reviewers. This preliminary evaluation phase typically takes 1 week.
Authorship statement
As part of the submission process through the editorial platform, authors must confirm the originality of their work, validate the listed authorship, agree to copyright transfer, and accept the terms of the peer review process.
Conflict of interest
Authors are required to disclose any financial or personal relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest at the time of submission. This information is treated confidentially during the review process and does not influence editorial decisions. Similarly, reviewers and editors must disclose to the Editor-in-Chief any relationships that could be perceived as conflicts of interest in relation to a manuscript under review.
Review process
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to independent experts for peer review. The Editorial Office retains the right to select appropriate reviewers. Typically, reviewers return their feedback within 3–4 weeks of submission. Authors are expected to address and respond to all reviewer comments thoroughly.
The objective of the peer review is to provide a qualified evaluation of the manuscript’s scientific quality. Reviewers offer constructive feedback to help authors improve their work and enhance its suitability for publication. While confidential remarks to the editors are considered, comments intended to improve the manuscript should also be shared with the authors.
It is important to note that review times can vary depending on factors such as the availability and responsiveness of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions needed.
Acceptance
The review process at JWLD follows a double-blind model, ensuring that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Manuscripts are accepted for publication only after receiving favourable recommendations from independent reviewers. Reviewers are asked to complete a standardised "Reviewer’s Questionnaire" and provide a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication.
If there is a significant difference of opinion among reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief may: (a) share all reviews among the reviewers for additional insight, (b) seek further opinions from additional reviewers, or (c) carefully weigh all feedback and make a balanced final decision. To support this process, reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed justifications for their recommendations. Reviews that clearly outline both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript are especially valuable.
If a revised manuscript is submitted or if authors believe their arguments were misunderstood during review, reviewers may be asked for further comments. However, the Editorial Office is cautious about repeated reviewer contact to avoid undue pressure and will assess the necessity and relevance of any follow-up requests.
In the case of rejection, authors have the right to appeal if they believe the reviewers have misunderstood or overlooked key aspects of the manuscript. Editors will then evaluate whether the appeal justifies reconsideration.
Common reasons for rejection
Manuscripts may be rejected outright—without being sent for peer review—if they are of insufficient quality. Common reasons for rejection include:
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
The ownership and management of the “Journal of Water and Land Development” (JWLD) belong to the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences – National Research Institute (https://www.itp.edu.pl/) and Polish Academy of Sciences (https://pan.pl/).
Editor-in-Chief – Professor Dr Hab. Mohamed Hazem KALAJI
Managing Editor – PhD, DSc, Associate Professor Adam BRYSIEWICZ
Guidance from COPE ( https://publicationethics.org/ ):
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
Sharing of information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.7
How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1
Text recycling guidelines for editors
URL: http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines
A short guide to ethical editing for new editors
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.8
Guidelines for managing the relationships between society owned journals, their society, and publishers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.2
Retraction guidelines
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
Journal of Water and Land Development List of reviewers 2024