COSUST-324; NO.

OF PAGES 11

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Environmental flows and water governance: managing

sustainable water uses
Claudia Pahl-Wostl1, Angela Arthington2, Janos Bogardi3, Stuart E Bunn2,
Holger Hoff4, Louis Lebel5, Elena Nikitina6, Margaret Palmer7,
LeRoy N Poff8, Keith Richards9, Maja Schluter10, Roland Schulze11,
Andre St-Hilaire12, Rebecca Tharme13,
Klement Tockner14 and Daniel Tsegai15

8
Human water security is often achieved with little consideration Department of Biology & Graduate Degree Program in Ecology,
of environmental consequences and, even when these are Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523, United States
9
Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2
acknowledged, the trade-offs between human and 3EN, UK
10
environmental water needs are increasing in frequency and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 106 91
amplitude on the increase. The environmental flows concept Stockholm, Sweden
11
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, Private Bag X01,
has continued to evolve in response to these challenges.
3209 Scottsville, South Africa
However, the field is characterized by a limited transferability of 12
INRS & Canadian Rivers Institute, University of Quebec, 490 De la
insights, due to the prevalence of specific case-study analyses Couronne, Quebec, QC G1K 9A9, Canada
13
and a lack of research on the governance of environmental The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 48 Middle Row, Cressbook,
flows. Building on recent advances in environmental flow Derbyshire SK17 8SX, UK
14
Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB),
science, water governance and management, we identify a
Muggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany
clear need for a more systematic approach to the determination 15
Centre for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-
of environmental flow requirements (EFRs) on both the natural Flex-Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany
and social science fronts and, in particular, on the interaction
between social/political and environmental systems. We Corresponding author: Pahl-Wostl, Claudia
([email protected],
suggest a framework that details as to how these advances and
[email protected]) and
interactions can be achieved. The framework supports
scientific analysis and practical implementation of EFRs
involving systematic compilation, sharing and evaluation of Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:xxyy
experiences from different riverine ecosystems and This review comes from a themed issue on Open issue 2013
governance systems around the globe. The concept of
Edited by Rik Leemans and William D Solecki
ecosystem services is introduced into the framework to raise
awareness for the importance of ecosystem functions for the
resilience of social-ecological systems, to support negotiation
of trade-offs and development of strategies for adaptive 1877-3435X/$ see front matter, # 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights
implementation. Experience in implementation of reserved.
environmental flow policies reveals the need for an engaged, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
transdisciplinary research approach where research is closely
linked to implementation initiatives on the ground. We advocate
that this is more effective at building the foundations for
Introduction
sustainable water management.
The past two decades have witnessed increasing global
concern about the need for sustainable water and land
Addresses
1
Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of
management in an era of rapid change, and persistent
Osnabrueck, Barbarastrasse 12, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany water and food insecurity. Human population increase,
2
Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, economic development, climate change and other drivers
Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia alter water resource availability and use, resulting in
3
Global Water System Project, International Project Office, Walter-Flex-
increased risks of extreme low and high flows, drastically
Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany
4
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Telegraphenberg A31, altered flow regimes, threats to water quality and water
14473 Potsdam, Germany demands surpassing renewable supply. Human water
5
Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University, 239 security, when narrowly framed [1], is often achieved
Huay Kaew Road, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand at the expense of the environment under such constraints
6
EcoPolicy Research and Consulting, B. Serpukhovskaya St., 44-19,
115093 Moscow, Russian Federation
[2,3,4], with harmful implications in the long run for
7
National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, University of social-ecological systems in their entirety as a whole.
Maryland, Annapolis, MD 21401, United States There is strong evidence that flow alteration leads to

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

2 Open issue 2013

ecological change in rivers around the world, from obser- resources and capacity in water management and allo-
vational [5,6] and modelling [7] studies. cation institutions [1720]. Defining the desirable
environmental state of water bodies in the context of
The concept of environmental flows continues to evolve all other benefits and services derived from the available
in response to these challenges, emphasizing aquatic and water resources is a societal decision. Hence, develop-
riparian ecosystems as legitimate water users within an ment and implementation of EFRs should, from the
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) con- outset, include the perceptions of a wide range of stake-
text (e.g. [8]). Environmental flows are defined as the holders on possible trade-offs and synergies [20], which
quantity, timing and quality of water flows required to sustain must be informed by the best available scientific knowl-
freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods edge. Given the complexity and relative uncertainty
and well-being that depend on these ecosystems [9]. How much inherent in the relations amongst water demands, land
water to (re-)allocate to environmental flows and how to uses, hydrological variability, biodiversity and aquatic
balance this with other water demands may be contro- ecosystem services, the governance systems that manage
versial issues. environmental flows must be adaptive, flexible and
capable of learning from experience and responding to
Implementing the environmental flows concept requires unexpected developments.
dialogue amongst scientists, policy-makers, water man-
agers and users, and local populations, about sustainable We provide here an overview of the state of the art in
water usage that balances priorities amongst competing EFR assessment, implementation and governance, and
demands. Early static approaches aimed to define either identify the principal knowledge gaps. The review con-
minimum or average flows to support key fish species or cludes with a strong argument for the need to develop a
maintain instream habitat (sometimes revealingly widely applicable, integrative, conceptual and analytical
termed compensation flows); but these are now viewed framework, and an associated classification system for
as too simplistic to support complex flow-dependent EFRs, based on eco-hydrological, as well as socio-
ecosystem functions [10,11]. By contrast, it is now widely economic, governance and management characteristics.
recognized that significant daily, flood-period, seasonal
and inter-annual variations of long-term flow patterns are
required to sustain ecosystem integrity (e.g. [1215]). Hydro-ecological assessment of
Environmental flow requirements (EFRs) thus must vary environmental flow requirements (EFRs)
in space and time to sustain the desired future ecosystem How to determine EFRs at (sub) basin scale
state, as agreed upon amongst stakeholders, together with Tharme [10] reviewed over 200 different methods used to
the bundles of services these ecosystems supply for estimate how much water to retain in a river after new
human benefit. Rules are needed to determine EFRs, developments, or to mitigate the detrimental effects of
which in their turn are coordinated with other types of flow alteration attributable to human use of freshwater
basin-wide water and land uses and management prac- systems. The methods used to assess EFRs have devel-
tices. More comprehensive, interdisciplinary method- oped over time from simple hydrological rule-of-thumb
ologies have therefore been developed and applied to methods largely aimed at preserving the habitats of
establish environmental flow needs in individual river commercially important fish species, to more holistic
basins around the world. frameworks that encompass many more species, habitats
and ecosystem processes (both aquatic and riparian in
The diversity of approaches to set EFRs in various some frameworks). Sometimes methods also assess social
drainage basins has undoubtedly fostered innovation as and economic consequences, but usually they do not.
well as a rapid evolution of methods appropriately tailored
to local contexts [10]. In part, this diversity reflects the Simple and more qualitative hydrological methods pro-
variable possibilities in different locations. In some, EFRs vide quick results with limited resources, but usually with
can be allocated upfront to sustain both aquatic and low resolution and low levels of confidence they will meet
riparian ecosystems; alternatively, appropriate EFRs desired environmental outcomes. Flow standards are
can be provided by technical intervention such as revision typically calculated using fixed percentages of the flow
of reservoir operating rules [16]; in others, neither is [21,22]. These simplistic, incomplete, and primarily static
possible. Experience with implementing EFRs in differ- approaches ignore the complexity and variability inherent
ent eco-hydrological, socio-economic and governance in the natural system, and are rarely based on empirical
contexts has shown that the main impediments to suc- research [13,23,24]. Therefore, several methods have
cessful implementation is related to social factors rather been developed which are more comprehensive and
than lack of knowledge about ecological processes. This typically tailored to local needs (e.g. the recruitment
includes limited involvement or support of stakeholders, box method [14]). The Downstream Response to
of appropriate governance structures and of political will, Imposed Flow Transformation (DRIFT) procedure from
the presence of conflicts of interest, and insufficient South Africa [25,26] is at this point in time one of few

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111 www.sciencedirect.com

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

Environmental flows and water governance Pahl-Wostl et al. 3

methods that explicitly consider societal consequences of implemented. The ELOHA framework acknowledged
flow alteration as part of the assessment [10]. the need for socially determined ecological endpoints,
but the social process of how this is accomplished has yet
Given the resource intensity of current state-of-the art to be developed [32]. We make an important contribution
interdisciplinary methods, Poff et al. [27] argue that a in this paper to close this gap (section Towards an
river-by-river or project-specific assessment of EFRs integrative framework).
cannot occur at the pace needed to provide timely global
coverage. They accordingly propose a regional frame- The role of global water assessments in addressing
work, termed the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Altera- EFRs
tion (ELOHA), approach (similar to the well- Global water (scarcity) assessments complement regional
established regionalization methods in hydrology) allow- analyses by capturing large-scale developments and global
ing EFR determinations to be rigorously scaled up. The trends [4]. Such assessments typically calculate water
framework builds on the notion that river ecological availabilities and water demands at pixel (usually 0.5
processes and patterns are predominantly shaped by a degree) or subcatchment scale, and then aggregate these
few key flow variables. The different combinations of values to basins, countries or regions [4,3335]. So far,
these variables across biogeographic and climatic gradi- EFRs have been handled in a very simplistic manner in
ents generate classes of stream and river types (e.g. global water assessments, or not at all. The WaterGap
snowmelt, arid-land types) that exhibit similar ecological model, for example, has been used to assess EFRs by
conditions and likely responses to flow regime change, classifying rivers according to the natural variability of their
thus they can be treated as management units. Estab- flow regimes [22]. The assumption in this approach is that
lished flow-ecology relationships can then be used to aquatic ecosystems in basins with relatively stable flow
predict ecological responses to particular types of flow regimes will be less resilient and hence require higher
alterations (e.g. reduced minima, modified timing of minimum flows. WaterGap uses the Q90 (the flow equalled
peaks), and therefore guide how flow regimes need to or exceeded 90% of the time) as a low flow measure to
be managed to achieve societally desired ecological end- represent mean annual EFRs, but not intra-annual varia-
points. In the absence of detailed ecological information, bility. The H08 model has been used to assess monthly
alteration of key hydrological parameters beyond that EFRs [36], also classifying basins according to their hydro-
observed for a particular class of river type can be used logical conditions (their dryness/wetness and flow varia-
as an initial indication of likely flow stress [27]. This bility). The rules for classifying basins are based on case
framework was developed in part because existing studies from dry lands and densely populated regions.
empirical data from the literature are inconsistently Total global EFRs according to this study are of the order
reported and inadequate for establishing general, trans- of 30% of total runoff. In a basin-scale analysis of global
ferable quantitative relationships between flow alteration water scarcity, Hoekstra et al. [37] incorporate a presump-
and ecological response [5]. The ELOHA framework was tive environmental flow standard, based on the Sustain-
designed to allow flexibility in its application to a particu- ability Boundary approach [38]. This assumes that
lar situation depending on scientific capacity, availability alteration (augmentation or depletion) beyond 20% in a
of suitable hydrological records, background ecological rivers natural flow regime increases the risk of moderate to
understanding and data, types and degrees of hydrological major changes to ecosystem services and health.
alteration (e.g. by dams, groundwater abstraction or land-
use change) and governance structure. It is now being Most of these approaches are pragmatic and not based on
implemented in various forms by several state agencies ecological theory or informed analyses, due to the lack of
and stakeholder groups in the U.S.A [28] and is being globally consistent information, in terms of flow and water
tested in Spain [29], China [30], Australia [31], and South use, the flow requirements of aquatic ecosystems, and the
America (e.g. Colombia and Mexico, Tharme 2013, socio-economic conditions and vulnerabilities to water
personal communication). Each trial has produced inno- scarcity.
vations around the original ELOHA framework, in-
cluding the addition of a module to incorporate
indigenous values [32]. Regional-scale ELOHA studies Summary of limitations of current approaches and major
in Australia are guiding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan knowledge gaps
and water resource management in northern Australia and
south-east Queensland. In summary, ELOHA offers an  Prevalence of case specific approaches in the field of
ecological science based and empirically testable frame- environmental flow assessments, with the consequence
work using existing eco-hydrological knowledge and that the majority of EFR determinations and results are
hydrologic modelling tools to develop regional flow man- not readily transferable.
agement guidelines for ecological sustainability [27].  Lack of consistent information on flow regime, water
However, an important (critical) missing element is the use and the state of aquatic ecosystems in basins that
societal context in which such EFRs are developed and vary with respect to their socio-environmental context.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

4 Open issue 2013

 Use of simplistic hydrological analyses to include EFRs certain omissions for example, on deficiencies in
in global water assessments and models due to absence policies themselves.
of broadly applicable more sophisticated methods and
data. Unfortunately, systematic comparative research on water
 Limited robust, mechanistic understanding of the governance systems is not only largely absent in the field
relationships between flow modifications and impacts of analysing EFR policies [40]. Idealized design prin-
on ecosystem structure, functioning and related ciples based on institutional and technological panaceas
services due to lack of data and difficulty to unravel have been applied to water issues without long-term
effects of flow alteration from other stressors such as monitoring of their performance and effectiveness, and
land-use changes. without revision and critical reflection on practice [41
 Lack of a widely accepted classification scheme for eco- 43]. We are still some distance from having an adequate
hydro-climatic and socio-economic types of river basins knowledge base on the determinants of the dynamics and
as a basis for testing concepts and developing performance trends of water governance and manage-
transferable flow rules. ment systems in different socio-economic and environ-
mental contexts [41,42].

Governance of environmental flows and Given the bottlenecks in implementation of EFR

associated ecosystem services policies, research is needed on both structural character-
Despite increased attention to environmental flows in istics of the governance system to support implementa-
ecological research, and their environmental and water tion and on characteristics of the implementation
policy importance, little scientific research has been con- processes themselves. Critical governance challenges to
ducted to date to identify requirements for effective be addressed include: setting of strategic goals, conflict
policies. Table 1 summarizes results of a search of scien- resolution and negotiation, resource mobilization, identi-
tific publications on selected topics in the SCOPUS data fication of operational targets and monitoring indicators,
base. These show clearly the emergence of environmen- development and implementation of an adaptive imple-
tal flows as a research topic, and their association with mentation process.
implementation or management. Research on the link
between environmental flows and governance issues or Meeting these challenges requires having appropriate
ecosystem services has, however, remained very limited. institutions1 in place. Institutions (e.g. laws, societal
Developments in related fields are represented as well as norms) determine who sets targets, what they are, how
reference. they are monitored, and the assessment of the con-
sequences of outcomes. In contrast to legal frameworks,
societal norms are not changed by purposeful design, but
How to implement EFRs in policy and water they change during processes of societal learning. How-
management practice ever, formal and informal rules are not independent of
Experience from implementation shows that critical bot- each other [44,45]. The content of laws may reflect
tlenecks in the process of developing and implementing societal norms and value structures. Informal settings
EFR policies lie in the dialogue between scientists, support innovation but may also be an impediment for
policy-makers and water managers and users, and in change (e.g. patronage networks).
the appropriateness of governance structures
[17,19,22,27,39]. A recent report produced by The Regarding regulatory frameworks, environmental policy
Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund compiled has for a long time relied on a command and control
expert assessments on the basis of international reviews, approach to prescribing environmental targets. This
and experience from case studies on the implementation worked reasonably well for issues relating to water quality
of EFRs, concluded: Governments and water management where many conflicts can be overcome through technical
authorities across the world have made significant and wide- solutions. However, often costly end-of-pipe solutions
spread progress in developing policies and laws to recognize have been chosen to deal with individual problems in
EFRs. Despite this significant policy development, in the isolation. Allocating water to different uses and users is a
majority of cases environmental flow provisions remain at more difficult problem, since conflicts over water and land
the stage of policy and debate rather than implementation. use can be overcome by technical means to only a limited
[18]. This report identified as major implementation extent, in particular in times of extreme water scarcity.
challenges: first, the lack of political will and stakeholder The paradigm shift towards more integrated approaches
support, second, insufficient resources and capacity, third,
institutional barriers, and fourth, conflicts of interest. 1
We use institutions here in the tradition of scholarly work in the
Presently, this represents an uncommon example of broad field of institutional analysis, to refer to the rules (formal and
comparative work on this topic, though the lack of con- informal) which shape the behavior of actors, including legal frame-
ceptual underpinnings from the social sciences results in works, operational rules and practices, and social and cultural norms.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111 www.sciencedirect.com

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

Environmental flows and water governance Pahl-Wostl et al. 5

Table 1

SCOPUS analysis of number of publications on selected topics

Search terms 2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012

Environmental flow 17 45 73 111 115 123
Environmental flow AND implementation OR management 3 20 35 59 71 70
Environmental flow AND policy 0 6 10 18 13 15
Environmental flow AND governance 0 3 0 1 4 3
Environmental flow AND ecosystem service 0 0 2 5 6 2
Environmental flow AND stakeholder 0 1 1 4 3 4
Ecosystem service AND governance 1 1 7 31 38 52
Water AND governance 18 58 153 232 288 327
Ecosystem service 36 123 401 841 1018 1199

Number of publications (choice for search space in category article or review) with search terms in title, abstract or keywords. Date of research:
31.05.2013.

and the explicit recognition of complexity and uncer- networks to move an issue forward, experiment with or
tainty also demand far more flexible and adaptive institu- promote innovative practices, and interpret and adapt the
tions. Modern regulatory frameworks (e.g. the European rules under which they operate. Agency is essential in
Water Framework Directive (WFD)) abstain from narrow processes of learning and transformative change. We
prescriptions of specific environmental targets and adopt argue here that transformative change towards more
a more inclusive and integrated approach (e.g. a good sustainability may be supported by organising stake-
state for European waters as goal in the WFD). holder dialogue around the concept of ecosystem services
and the importance of functional ecosystems to deliver
However, as shown by Pahl-Wostl et al. [40], innovative them.
legal frameworks are a necessary, but not sufficient con-
dition for dealing effectively with water related man- The climate change debate has raised awareness on how a
agement problems. In this first comprehensive range of hitherto largely neglected ecosystem services
comparative analysis of complex water governance and may enhance adaptive capacity and resilience of social-
management systems in national river basins, the imple- ecological systems. Investments in natural systems have
mentation of policies was found to be a critical bottleneck been promoted as an efficient and effective approach in
[40] and, in some cases, the capacity for implementation climate change adaptation, to increase the capacity of
(knowledge and resources) was missing. Another import- social-ecological systems to deal with uncertainty and
ant factor is lack of general effectiveness of formal surprise [48]. Such reframing may also support a more
institutions. If effectiveness is low, laws and management systematic and integrated approach to dealing with EFRs.
plans may exist on paper but are not applied in practice. In water governance and management systems over-
Furthermore, the study by Pahl-Wostl et al. [40] sup- whelming emphasis has been given to provisioning2
ports the view that development often focuses on services, whereas regulating and supporting services
economic benefits and leads to fulfilling needs for human (e.g. storage capacity of riparian landscapes to buffer both
populations at the expense of the environment [4]. against droughts and floods) and requirements for their
Similarly, central government incentives for economic maintenance have been largely ignored. Provisioning
growth in China have driven inter-province competition, services, such as water supply for irrigation, arguably
which in turn has marginalized attention to water quality, are often perceived to provide the most direct socio-
especially in trans-provincial rivers [46]. This suggests economic benefits. Correspondingly, governance and
that economic development needs to be in balance with management have evolved around exploiting and guar-
institutional development and capacity building and lea- anteeing access to these provisioning services. Ineffective
dership at different levels to lead to sustainable practice. governance systems and the ignorance of complex feed-
backs have often led to ineffective use and overexploita-
The analyses of Pahl-Wostl et al. [40] showed that tion of some services, to the detriment of the overall
adaptive capacity and the ability to respond to challenges
from global change is strongly related to polycentric
governance which refers to a distribution of power but 2
This typology for ecosystem services was introduced by the Millen-
effective coordination structures. Such polycentric struc- nium Ecosystem Assessment [49], which makes a distinction between:
tures balance bottom-up and top-down pathways of influ- provisioning services such as food, water or energy, regulating services such
ence. Their modular structure supports learning as climate regulation, waste decomposition, purification of water and air
or pest and disease control, supporting services such as nutrient dispersal
processes and the diffusion of innovation [47]. The driver and cycling, seed dispersal or primary production and cultural services
of change and thus also for development and implementa- such as cultural and spiritual inspiration, recreational experiences and
tion of EFRs is agency how actors form coalitions and scientific discovery.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

6 Open issue 2013

integrity of ecological systems and long-term negative due to global and climate change [20,6467]. Experimen-
consequences for human well-being [49,50,51]. tal approaches also help to manage adaptive response to
trade-offs between human and ecosystem water
Ecosystem services to support implementation in an demands. For example, where engineered water man-
adaptive management approach agement already exists, but EFRs include occasional high
The definition of ecological objectives and monitoring flows to mobilize spawning gravels for fish or create
targets for river basin management constitutes a societal new geomorphological surfaces to reset riparian plant
choice. A promising approach not yet fully explored in successions, experimental reservoir flow releases, with
relation to EFRs is the concept of ecosystem services. measured ecological response to this manipulation [6],
Ecosystem services describe the benefits derived for can lead to ecologically beneficial re-design of reservoir
human well-being from terrestrial and aquatic ecosys- operating rules [16]. It is important to point out that
tems. The ecosystem services concept allows evaluation implementing adaptive management requires enabling
of trade-offs and synergies amongst different services, and institutional frameworks that provide guidance for trans-
can assess the implications of choice quantitatively and in parent and flexible processes at different levels, from the
a spatial context (e.g. [49]). Economic methods for the redesign of operational management rules to a re-allo-
monetary valuation of ecosystem services are being devel- cation of water shares. The importance of, and require-
oped [52,53], but valuation should and must not be ments for, adaptive management needs to be addressed at
limited to monetary approaches to make the ecosystem the stage of policy design.
services concept operational. Methods of multi-criteria
analysis and the combination of quantitative and qualita- Summary of major research and implementation gaps:
tive approaches can raise awareness about the multiple
roles and values of ecosystem services [54,55]. This can  Scant research on the governance of environmental
support deliberative processes and help to identify and flows, in particular, institutional settings, use of
negotiate complex trade-offs between different water scientific and local knowledge and dealing with
demands, including those of aquatic ecosystems [56]. uncertainty, decision-making processes and policy
implementation.
The importance of combining different governance  Limited transferability of insights, due to the preva-
approaches has also been shown in the implementation lence of case study specific analyses with no compara-
of water markets, which have been promoted as one tive analyses across a larger number of cases.
solution to achieve efficient water allocation and redis-  A lack of research on the applicability of the ecosystem
tribution of water to meet environmental targets [57]. A services concept in policy development, trade-off
crucial step in formal water trading is the initial allocation analysis and implementation of EFRs.
of tradable water rights, in order to include a share for the  Little research on the economics of environmental
environment [58]. The considerable experience of flows with regard to short and long-term cost-benefit
Australia with water markets has shown that formal regu- impact assessments of their implementation.
lation, participatory approaches and market-based instru-  Few synthesis efforts and trans-disciplinary approaches
ments need to be combined to achieve efficient and (linking science, policy, practice) directed towards the
effective water allocation which can cope with increasing common goal of developing guidelines for effective
uncertainty and conflict, for example caused by climate EFR implementation.
change [59,60].

One constraint in using the ecosystem services concept to Towards an integrative framework
determine sustainable EFRs is the weakness of quanti- Given the knowledge gaps identified, we conclude that
tative relationships between river flows, ecosystem state there is a need to develop an integrative framework to
and service functions [61]. However, the application of guide the establishment of a sound knowledge base on
the concept to assess the impacts of flow alterations does EFRs and their associated water governance and man-
not require, and will never be based on, perfect predictive agement needs. However, simply developing a scientific
knowledge. Given the complexity of human-environ- knowledge base cannot overcome a lack of political will or
ment feedbacks, it is rare to find linear causal patterns stakeholder engagement. Knowledge co-production
of the linkages between ecosystems ecosystem ser- needs to be closely linked to policy processes. Therefore,
vices human well-being human response and the framework should support both scientific analysis and
feedbacks to drivers of change [62,63]. Knowledge gaps practical implementation, implying a systematic compi-
may be overcome by an adaptive management approach, lation, sharing and evaluation of experiences from river-
which can act as a meta-framework to allow management ine systems around the globe. Such a framework would
action under situations of incomplete and uncertain not ignore complexities and differences among basins,
knowledge of flow-ecology relationships, conflicts be- but would enable differences to be taken into account in a
tween competing uses, and conditions of high uncertainty systematic way [44,68].

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111 www.sciencedirect.com

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

Environmental flows and water governance Pahl-Wostl et al. 7

An integral part of such a framework is a consistent leading to scholarly advances [69,70]. For practical imple-
classification system across different climates, aquatic mentation of an integrative approach to EFR assess-
and riparian ecosystems, societal water needs, levels ments, and as a guide for engaged research, we have
and types of anthropogenic modification (e.g. reservoir developed the SUMHA (Sustainable Management of
and dam constructions, abstractions, return flows, changes Hydrological Alterations) framework presented in
in water quality), and management goals. We do not seek Figure 1. This framework adopts the Ecological Limits
to explain the full details of such a classification system in of Hydrological Alteration (ELOHA) framework as the
this brief review, but rather, present a research agenda by starting point. The ELOHA framework makes a clear
identifying its essential dimensions: distinction between social and scientific processes, but
details only the hydro-ecological science underlying the
 Societal and environmental context refers to external setting of environmental flows. The SUMHA framework
factors of influence, including economic and institu- introduces the social sciences as an essential part of an
tional development, culture, climate regime and assessment, and, by while advocating engaged research it
expected trends of climate change impact; these does not make a strict distinction between scientific and
cannot be changed by interventions at the level of social processes. Governance and management systems
water governance or management; (GMS) are classified according to different types. These
 The environmental system in a river basin is types determine requirements and barriers for nego-
characterized by its current state of aquatic and riparian tiations about setting targets for EFRs and for their
ecosystems, hydrologic regimes, trends of anthropo- implementation. To do so SUMHA adopts the classifi-
genic modification; cation scheme described above.
 The governance system can be classified according to
institutions, actors, multi-level structures, existing The SUMHA framework (like ELOHA) does not assume
EFR policies, and implementation of good governance that natural flow conditions should be identified for
principles; different river types as the most desirable states from
 The interface between human and environmental an ecological perspective; it is not reference-based, but
systems is characterized by ecosystem services, which rather, is objective-based [71]. It suggests expressing
includes the availability, valuation, resilience and use desirable goals in terms of ecosystem state, of bundles of
of ecosystem services (including biodiversity!), and ecosystem services, which need to be negotiated in
observed trade-offs or synergies between services; participatory settings. This implies negotiating target
 Management options and goals refer to strategies use patterns of those ecosystem services expected to
guiding ecosystem management in general. These meet criteria for economic, environmental and social
include conservation (i.e. preserving the relatively sustainability, and designing adaptive implementation
intact state), mitigation (e.g. avoiding future negative strategies to achieve negotiated targets. Applying such
impacts), restoration (e.g. restore heavily modified a framework cannot overcome existing gaps in our un-
system towards a more natural state), and intervention derstanding of how environmental flows affect ecosystem
(adaptive intervention to achieve predefined functional functions and thus ecosystem services. However, data
state) approaches. requirements can be assessed from the perspective of the
decision-making process [72]. A lack of data should not
These five dimensions and n attributes for each dimen- imply inaction. SUMHA advocates an adaptive manage-
sion are not meant to result in a five multiplied by n ment framework where the knowledge base is improved
classification space. The goal is to develop a few classes during the implementation process.
combining attributes along each of the five dimensions
and then combine some dimensions to develop types. The nature of the participatory process, and the kinds of
Initially this will require identification of types of management strategies and types of EFRs that might be
environmental and types of governance and management the most promising to implement in particular cases, will
systems. Ultimately it could be desirable to develop types depend on the general characteristics of the governance
of coupled social-ecological systems (e.g. heavily modi- regime, and on the river type. In the SUMHA framework,
fied in arid climate with low economic and institutional the governance regime characteristics will be typical of
development). However, we consider that an initial sep- certain classes of governance systems as represented in
aration of dimensions, as suggested above, will be more the classification scheme. Having identified the class of
fruitful in synthesizing existing concepts and knowledge governance regime, it will be possible to draw on the
and identifying inter-relationships, and will lead to more global experience to identify the best available practices
robust results. in comparable situations. The classification system thus
supports various steps of the assessment by providing
Our expectation is that research that is linked with on- guidance and a systematic approach that builds on knowl-
going policy processes will lead to more meaningful edge accumulated across various social-ecological set-
insights that address the needs of stakeholders while also tings. We therefore expect the SUMHA framework to

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

8 Open issue 2013

Figure 1

Geomorphic
Baseline Hydrologic River Type
Sub-
Hydrographs Classification
classification
Flow Data and
Modeling
Measures of
Developed Analysis of Flow
Flow
Hydrographs Alteration
Alteration

Monitoring

Flow Alteration-
Flow Ecology Ecological Data
Ecological Response
Hypotheses for for each
Relationships for each
each river type analysis node
river type

Environ
Experimental Inter- -mental Negotiated Trade-Off Analysis &
vention Scheme Flow Ecosystem
Negotiation
Require Services
Adaptive Adjustments -ments

Requirements and Requirements and

Barriers for Desired
GMS Type Barriers for setting
Implementation for Ecosystem
Goal State for each
each GMS Type Services
GMS Type

Analyse Governance
and Management
System (GMS)
Societal System

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

The Sustainable Management of Hydrological Alterations (SUMHA) Framework. The SUMHA Framework builds on the ELOHA Framework. SUMHA
framework introduces the social sciences as essential part of an assessment, and while advocating engaged research it does not make a strict
distinction between scientific and social processes as ELOHA does. SUMHA includes a process of analyzing governance and management systems
(orange squares) which interact with design and implementation of policy and management processes (orange rounded squares). The description of
hydrological analysis and classification (blue) and the analysis of flow alterationecological response relationships (green) were adopted from the
ELOHA framework [24].

be used for supporting the implementation process in social/political and environmental systems. Neither sim-
individual cases, and to allow the mapping of experience plistic approaches that ignore differences between
from a large number of cases in a consistent structure, for cases, nor approaches that assume each case to be
the purpose of comparative analyses to seek generaliz- unique, offer appropriate ways to proceed. A unifying
ation. framework, as sketched in this paper, is essential for the
assessment and implementation of sustainable EFRs in
Conclusions national water policy, in IWRM plans for river basins,
Building on recent advances in environmental flow and in global environmental water assessments. It is
science, water governance and management, we have essential to overcome limitations and knowledge gaps to
identified a clear need for a more systematic approach build a knowledge base and to develop transferable
to EFR analysis on both the natural and social science insights on flow rules and strategies for effective imple-
fronts and, in particular, on the interaction between mentation which take into account both (needs for

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111 www.sciencedirect.com

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

Environmental flows and water governance Pahl-Wostl et al. 9

change in) the governance context and the design of the 7. Richards KS, Brasington J, Hughes F: Geomorphic dynamics of
floodplains: ecological implications and a potential modelling
implementation process itself. A link to ecosystem ser- strategy. Freshw Biol 2002, 47(4):559-579 http://dx.doi.org/
vices is expected to raise awareness for the importance 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00920.x.
of ecosystem functions for the resilience of social-eco- 8. Naiman RJ, Bunn SE, Nilsson C, Petts GE, Pinay G, Thompson LC:
Legitimizing fluvial ecosystems as users of water: an
logical systems, to support negotiations about trade-offs overview. Environ Manage 2002, 30(4):455-467 http://dx.doi.org/
and develop strategies for adaptive implementation. 10.1007/s00267-002-2734-3.
Experience in implementation of EFR policies provides 9. Brisbane Declaration 2007. http://www.eflownet.org/
evidence for an engaged research approach, where download_documents/brisbane-declaration-english.pdf.
research is not detached from its practical use on the 10. Tharme RE: A global perspective on environmental flow
ground. We advocate strongly for such engagement as assessment: emerging trends in the development and
application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers.
the only way forward to build the foundations for sus- River Res Appl 2003, 19(56):397-441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
tainable management of water uses. rra.736.
11. Postel SL, Richter BD: Rivers For Life: Managing Water for People
Our conclusions concur with the new research agenda and Nature. Island Press; 2003.
proposed for global change science under the umbrella of 12. Hill M, Platts WS: Ecological and geomorphological concepts
Future Earth (cf. www.icsu.org/future-earth). Interdisci- for instream and out-of-channel flow requirements. Rivers
1991, 2:319-343.
plinary collaboration between natural and social sciences
13. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD,
and co-production of knowledge by actors from science Sparks RE, Stromberg JC: The natural flow regime: a paradigm
and policy are essential for tackling complex issues in the for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 1997,
47(11):769-784 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1313099.
sustainable management of environmental resources.
14. Mahoney JM, Rood SB: Streamflow requirements for
cottonwood seedling recruitment an integrative model.
Acknowledgements Wetlands 1998, 18(4):634-645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
This paper has been developed as part of the Global Water Needs Initiative BF03161678.
of the Global Water System Project (GWSP www.gwsp.org). We thank
the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research for financial 15. Bunn SE, Arthington AH: Basic principles and ecological
support for the International Project Office of GSWP organising and consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity.
supporting a workshop and further exchange of the author team. Environ Manage 2002, 30(4):492-507 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00267-002-2737-0.

References and recommended reading 16. Richter BD, Thomas GA: Restoring environmental flows by
modifying dam operations. Ecol Soc 2007, 12(1):12 In: http://
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art12/.
have been highlighted as:
17. Dyson M, Bergkamp G, Scanlon J (Eds): Flow The Essentials of
 of special interest Environmental Flows, edn 2. IUCN; 2008. Reprint, IUCN http://
 of outstanding interest data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2003-021.pdf.
18. Le Quesne T, Kendy E, Weston D. The implementation challenge.
1. Cook C, Bakker K: Water security: debating an emerging Taking stock of government policies to protect and restore
 paradigm. Global Environ Change 2012, 22(1):94-102 http:// environmental flows. The Nature Conservancy and WWF Report.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.011. WWF; 2010. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/
Comprehensive and insightful review of the concept of water security, the the_implementation_challenge.pdf.
different meanings and interpretations of the concept in the natural and
social sciences, the increasing popularity of the concept in the scientific 19. King JM, Pienaar H (Eds): Sustainable Use of South Africas Inland
and policy literatures. Waters: A Situation Assessment of Resource Directed Measures
12 Years After the 1998 National Water Act. WRC Report No. TT
2. Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C: Fragmentation and 491/11. South Africa: Water Research Commission, Pretoria; 2011
flow regulation of the worlds large river systems. Science In: www.wrc.org.za/Pages/DisplayItem.aspx?ItemID=9519.
2005, 308:405-408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1107887.
20. Poff NL, Allan JD, Palmer MA, Hart DD, Richter BD, Arthington AH,
3. Palmer MA, Reidy-Liermann C, Nilsson C, Florke M, Alcamo J,
Meyer JL, Stanford JA, Rogers KH: River flows and water wars?
Lake PS, Bond N: Climate change and worlds river basins:
Emerging science for environmental decision making. Front
anticipating management options. Front Ecol Environ 2008,
Ecol Environ 2003, 1(6):298-306.
6(2):81-89 http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/060148.
21. Cullen P: The future of flow restoration in Australia. Water Shed
4. Vorosmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D,
2001:1-2.
 Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Reidy
Liermann C, Davies PM: Global threats to human water security 22. Smakhtin V, Revenga C, Doll P: A pilot global assessment of
and river biodiversity. Nature 2010, 467:555-561 http:// environmental water requirements and scarcity. Water Int
dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09440. 2004, 29(3):307-317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
Highly cited diagnostic analysis of implications of threats to water secur- 02508060408691785.
ity. Analyses provided evidence that increasing water security for humans
is achieved to the expense of water security for the environment. 23. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP: A method for
assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv
5. Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH: Ecological responses to altered flow Biol 1996, 10(4):1163-1174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.
regimes: a literature review to inform the science and 1523-1739.1996.10041163.x.
management of environmental flows. Freshw Biol 2010,
55(1):194-205 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 24. Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff LN, Naiman RJ: The challenge of
2427.2009.02272.x. providing environmental flow rules to sustain river
ecosystems. Ecol Appl 2006, 16(4):1311-1318 In: http://
6. Konrad CP, Olden JD, Lytle DA, Melis TS, Schmidt JC, Bray EN, www.jstor.org/stable/40062003.
Freeman MC, Gido KB, Hemphill NP, Kennard MJ et al.: Large-
scale flow experiments for managing river systems. 25. King JM, Tharme RE, de Villiers MS (Eds): Environmental Flow
BioScience 2011, 61(11):948-959 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ Assessments for Rivers: Manual for the Building Block
bio.2011.61.12.5. Methodology. Updated Edition. WRC Report No. TT 354/08.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

10 Open issue 2013

Pretoria, South Africa: Water Research Commission; 2008 In: environmental flows ecological data, new methods and analytical
www.wrc.org.za/Pages/DisplayItem.aspx?ItemID=3675. framework (ELOHA), individual case studies.
26. Brown CA, Pemberton CW, Greyling AJ, King JM: DRIFT user 40. Pahl-Wostl C, Lebel L, Knieper C, Nikitina E: From applying
manual volume 1: biophysical module for predicting overall river  panaceas to mastering complexity: toward adaptive
condition in small to medium sized rivers with predictable flow governance in river basins. Environ Sci Pol 2012, 23:24-34 http://
regimes. WRC Report No. 1404/1/05. Pretoria, South Africa: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.014.
Water Research Commission; 2005, :. www.wrc.org.za/Pages/ First comprehensive comparative analyses of complex governance and
DisplayItem.aspx?ItemID=7056. managements systems in national river basins to identify how the char-
acteristics of a governance regime affect its performance in different
27. Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, contextual conditions.
 Acreman M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Freeman MC et al.: The
ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new 41. Meinzen-Dick R: Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proc
framework for developing regional environmental flow Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:15200-15205.
standards. Freshw Biol 2010, 55(1):147-170 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02204.x. 42. Ingram H: Beyond universal remedies for good water
Framework to assess the implications of flow alterations on riverine governance: a political and contextual approach. In Water for
ecosystems in a more systematic way by using a classification scheme Food in a Changing World. Edited by Garrido A, Ingram H.
to assign rivers to different types. Practical stepwise guidance for a Routledge; 2007:241-261.
scientifically based implementation of environmental flow require- 43. Gleick P: Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for
ments. the 21st century. Science 2003, 302:1524-1528.
28. Kendy E, Apse C, Blann K: A practical guide to environmental 44. Pahl-Wostl C: A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive
flows for policy and planning. Nat Conserv 2012 In: http:// capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource
conserveonline.org/workspaces/eloha/documents/practical- governance regimes. Global Environ Change 2009, 19(3):354-
guide-to-environmental-flows-for-policy. 365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001.
29. Belmar O, Velasco J, Martnez-Capel F: Hydrological 45. Ostrom E: Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton
classification of natural flow regimes to support University Press; 2005.
environmental flow assessments in intensively regulated
rivers, Segura River Basin Spain. Environ Manage 2011, 46. Silveira A: Chinas Political System, Economic Reform and the
47:992-1004. Governance of Water Quality: the case of the Pearl River
Basin. In Water Security and Federal Rivers. Edited by Connell D,
30. Zhang Y, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Mackay XiaJ, Kennard M: Garrick D, Anderson G, Pittock J. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar;
Classification of flow regimes for environmental flow December 2013.
assessment in regulated rivers: the Huai River Basin, China.
River Res Appl 2012, 28:989-1005. 47. Ostrom E: Polycentric systems for coping with collective
action and global environmental change. Global Environ
31. Arthington AH, Mackay SJ, James CS, Rolls RJ, Sternberg D, Change 2010, 20:550-557.
Barnes A, Capon SJ: Ecological limits of hydrologic alteration: a
test of the ELoHA framework in south-east Queensland. Waterlines 48. Smith DM, Barchiesi S: Environment as infrastructure:
Report Series No. 75. Canberra, Australia: National Water Resilience to climate change impacts on water through
Commission; 2012, . Available at: In: www.nwc.gov./publications/ investments in nature. In Perspectives on water and climate
waterlines/75. change adaptation. Edited by International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN); 2009:110. http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/
32. Finn M, Jackson S: Protecting indigenous values in water fileadmin/wwc/Library/Publications_and_reports/Climate_
management: a challenge to conventional environmental flow Change/PersPap_02._Environment_as_ Infrastructure.pdf.
assessments. Ecosystems 2011, 14(8):1232-1248 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9476-0. 49. MEA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment]: Introduction and
conceptual framework. Ecosystems and human well-being: a
33. Meigh J, Folwell S, Sullivan C: Linking water resources and framework for assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment;
global change in West Africa: options for assessment. In 2005.
Regional Hydrological Impacts of Climatic Change: Impact
assessment and Decision Making, vol. 295. Edited by Wagener T, 50. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B et al.: Global biodiversity:
Franks SW. IASH Pub; 2005:297-306. indicators of recent declines. Science 2010, 328:1164-1168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512.
34. Widen-Nilsson E, Halldin S, Chong-Yu X: Global water-balance
modelling with WASMOD-M: parameter estimation and 51. Naiman RJ, Dudgeon D: Global alteration of freshwaters:
regionalisation. J Hydrol 2007, 340(12):105-118 http://  influences on human and environmental well-being. Ecol Res
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.04.002. 2011, 26:865-873.
Synthesis article which highlights the global dimension of environmental
35. Hoff H, Falkenmark M, Gerten D, Gordon L, Karlberg L, flows, decline of freshwater ecosystems and global responsibility to deal
Rockstrom J: Greening the global water system. J Hydrol 2010, with the challenges.
384(34):177-186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.026.
52. EEA [European Environmental Agency]: Scaling up ecosystem
36. Hanasaki N, Kanae S, Oki T, Masuda K, Motoya K, Shirakawa N, benefits. A contribution to The Economics of Ecosystems
Shen Y, Tanaka K: An integrated model for the assessment of and Biodiversity (TEEB) study. European Environmental Agency,
global water resources Part 1: Model description and input Report No. 4/2010. 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.2800/
meteorological forcing. HESS 2008, 12:1007-1025 http:// 41295.
dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1007-2008.
53. Puhspam K (Ed): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:
37. Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM, Chapagain AK, Mathews RE, Ecological and Economic Foundations. Routledge; 2012.
Richter BD: Global monthly water scarcity: blue water
footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS ONE 2012,
7(2):e32688 In: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032688. 54. Busch M, La Notte A, Laporte V, Erhard M: Potentials of
quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing
38. Richter BD, Davis MM, Apse C, Konrad C: A presumptive ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 2012, 21:89-103.
standard for environmental flow protection. River Res Appl
2011, 28(8):1312-1321 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.1511. 55. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J: Rethinking ecosystem
services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol
39. Arthington AH, Naiman RJ, McClain ME, Nilsson C: Preserving Econ 2012, 74:8-18.
 the biodiversity and ecological services of rivers: new
challenges and research opportunities. Freshw Biol 2010, 56. ESAWADI: ESAWADI. Utilizing the Ecosystem Services Approach
55(1):1-16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02340.x. for the Water Framework Directive Implementation. Framework of
Insightful and comprehensive summary of major insights and recom- Analysis. ESAWADI; 2011. http://www.esawadi.eu/IMG/pdf/
mendations derived from a special issue in Freshwater Biology on ESAWADI-Framework_of_Analysis-vf.pdf.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111 www.sciencedirect.com

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009
COSUST-324; NO. OF PAGES 11

Environmental flows and water governance Pahl-Wostl et al. 11

57. Le Quesne T, Pegram G, Von Der Heyden C: Allocating scarce 65. OKeeffe J, Le Quesne T: Keeping rivers alive. A primer on
water. A WWF primer on water allocation, water rights and environmental flows and their assessment. WWF Water Security
water markets, WWF Water Security Series 1. WWF 2007 In: Series 2. WWF; 2009 In: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/
http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/scarce_water.pdf. keeping_rivers_alive.pdf.
58. Walter T, Kloos J, Tsegai D: Options for improving water use 66. Pahl-Wostl C: The importance of social learning in restoring the
efficiency under worsening scarcity: Evidence from the Middle multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecol Soc 2006,
Olifants sub-basin in South Africa. Water SA 2011, 37(3):357- 11(1):10 In: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art10/.
370 In: www.wrc.org.za/Pages/DisplayItem.aspx?.ItemID=9078.
67. Pahl-Wostl C, Sendzimir J, Jeffrey JP, Aerts J, Berkamp G,
59. Bell S, Park A: The problematic metagovernance of networks: Cross K: Managing change toward adaptive water
the politics of water reform in New South Wales. J Public Pol management through social learning. Ecol Soc 2007, 12:30 In:
2006, 26(1):63-83 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art30/.
S0143814X06000432.
68. Pahl-Wostl C, Holtz G, Kastens B, Knieper C: Analyzing complex
60. Bell S, Quiggin J: The limits of markets: the politics of water water governance regimes: the management and transition
management in rural Australia. Environ Polit 2008, 17(5):712-729 framework. Environ Sci Pol 2010, 13(7):571-581 http://dx.doi.org/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010802421448. 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.006.
61. Palmer MA, Filoso S: Restoration of ecosystem services for
69. Palmer MA: Socio-environmental sustainability and actionable
environmental markets. Science 2009, 325:575-576.
science. BioScience 2012, 62:5-6.
62. Pahl-Wostl C: The implications of complexity for integrated
resources management. Environ Model Softw 2007, 22(5):561- 70. Pahl-Wostl C, Giupponi C, Richards K, Binder C, de Sherbinin A,
569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.024. Sprinz D, Toonen T, van Bers C: Building the foundations for
dealing with the challenges arising from global change
63. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, requirements for methodologies, methods, data and
Daz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM knowledge. Environ Sci Pol 2013, 28:36-47.
et al.: Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the
millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71. Dufour S, Piegay H: From the myth of a lost Paradise to targeted
2009, 106(5):1305-1312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ river restoration: forget natural references and focus on
pnas.0808772106. human benefits. River Res Appl 2009, 25(5):568-581 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.1239.
64. Richter BD, Warner AT, Meyer JL, Lutz K: A collaborative and
adaptive process for developing environmental flow 72. Meijer KS, van Beek E: A framework for the quantification of the
recommendations. River Res Appl 2006, 22(3):297-318 http:// importance of environmental flows for human well-being. Soc
dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.892. Nat Resour 2011, 24:1252-1269.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:111

Please cite this article in press as: Pahl-Wostl[46]> C, et al.: Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009