Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evidence that land-use change degrades surface water comes almost entirely from single-jurisdiction studies, which cannot ask whether the same land-system pressure is associated with the same water-quality outcome elsewhere. This study combines 41 years of annual MapBiomas land-cover data for six monitored water-management units (UGRHIs) in São Paulo State, Brazil, with a harmonised land-cover and water-quality panel for 179 European NUTS2 regions (LUCAS, cross-checked against Corine Land Cover for 2018, $$r=0.92$$ ). A within/between panel decomposition shows that within-unit increases in artificial land share are associated with lower nitrate (NO 3 –N) in São Paulo ( β =-0.210 standard deviations per percentage point, mixed-model $$p<0.001$$ ) and essentially unrelated to nitrate in Europe ( β =0.004 , 95% CI $$-0.026$$ to 0.034). The São Paulo estimate is stable across data-handling choices and precipitation adjustment, but it is not significant under cluster-robust or wild-cluster-bootstrap inference with six clusters ( $$p=0.23$$ and 0.43) or under a time-series-preserving permutation test ( $$p=0.30$$ ); it disappears when one unit is omitted, when unit-specific trends are allowed, and when land cover is measured over each station’s upstream drainage area ( β =-0.027 ). Biochemical oxygen demand and total phosphorus show no reliable within-unit differences, turbidity is associated with land use only in an exploratory model and not under few-cluster inference, and lead was excluded because its decline coincides with Brazil’s leaded-gasoline phase-out. The associations therefore differ across these monitored samples at the scale of management units, but their robustness and causes remain uncertain; differences in wastewater treatment are a plausible but untested explanation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tavares et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: