Overcoming persistent challenges in putting environmental flow policy into practice: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis

The implementation of environmental flows (e-flows) aims to reduce the negative impacts of hydrological alteration on freshwater ecosystems. Despite the growing attention to the importance of e-flows since the 1970s, actual implementation has lagged. Therefore, we explore the limitations in e-flows implementation, their systemic reasons, and solutions. We conducted a systematic review and a bibliometric analysis to identify peer-reviewed articles published on the topic of e-flows implementation research in the last two decades, resulting in 68 research and review papers. Co-occurrence of terms, and geographic and temporal trends were analyzed to identify the gaps in environmental water management and propose recommendations to address limitations on e-flows implementation. We identify the underlying causes and potential solutions to such challenges in environmental water management. The limitations to e-flow implementation identified were categorized into 21 classes. The most recognized limitation was the competing priorities of human uses of water ( n = 29). Many secondary limitations, generally co-occurring in co-causation, were identified as limiting factors, especially for implementing more nuanced and sophisticated e-flows. The lack of adequate hydrological data ( n = 24) and ecological data ( n = 28) were among the most mentioned, and ultimately lead to difficulties in starting or continuing monitoring/adaptive management ( n = 28) efforts. The lack of resource/capacity ( n = 21), experimentation ( n = 19), regulatory enforcement ( n = 17), and differing authorities involved ( n = 18) were also recurrent problems, driven by the deficiencies in the relative importance given to e-flows when facing other human priorities. In order to provide a clearer path for successful e-flow implementation, system mapping can be used as a starting point and general-purpose resource for understanding the sociohydrological problems, interactions, and inherited complexity of river systems. Secondly, we recommend a system analysis approach to address competing demands, especially with the use of coupled water-energy modeling tools to support decision-making when hydropower generation is involved. Such approaches can better assess the complex interactions among the hydrologic, ecological, socioeconomic, and engineering dimensions of water resource systems and their effective management. Lastly, given the complexities in environmental water allocation, implementation requires both scientific rigor and proven utility. Consequently, and where possible, we recommend a move from simplistic flow allocations to a more holistic approach informed by hydroecological principles. To ease conflicts between competing water demands, water managers can realize more ‘pop per drop’ by supporting key components of a flow regime that include functional attributes and processes that enhance biogeochemical cycling, structural habitat formation, and ecosystem maintenance.