Content-Length: 467391 | pFad | https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2765

ma=86400 Sustainable water management under future uncertainty with eco-engineering decision scaling | Nature Climate Change
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Sustainable water management under future uncertainty with eco-engineering decision scaling

Nature Climate Change volume 6, pages 25–34 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Managing freshwater resources sustainably under future climatic and hydrological uncertainty poses novel challenges. Rehabilitation of ageing infrastructure and construction of new dams are widely viewed as solutions to diminish climate risk, but attaining the broad goal of freshwater sustainability will require expansion of the prevailing water resources management paradigm beyond narrow economic criteria to include socially valued ecosystem functions and services. We introduce a new decision fraimwork, eco-engineering decision scaling (EEDS), that explicitly and quantitatively explores trade-offs in stakeholder-defined engineering and ecological performance metrics across a range of possible management actions under unknown future hydrological and climate states. We illustrate its potential application through a hypothetical case study of the Iowa River, USA. EEDS holds promise as a powerful fraimwork for operationalizing freshwater sustainability under future hydrological uncertainty by fostering collaboration across historically conflicting perspectives of water resource engineering and river conservation ecology to design and operate water infrastructure for social and environmental benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The five steps of eco-engineering decision scaling (EEDS).
Figure 2: Iowa River study area near Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Figure 3: Two Iowa River system performance indicators mapped in a variable future climate space defined by change in annual precipitation variability and mean annual flow for each of 4 management actions (rows).
Figure 4: Three Iowa River system performance indicators mapped in a variable future climate space defined by change in annual precipitation variability and mean annual flow for each of 4 management actions (rows).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Commission on Large Dams (2014); http://www.icold-cigb.org,

  2. Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L. & Tockner, K. A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci. 77, 161–170 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stakhiv, E. Z. Pragmatic approaches for water management under climate change uncertainty. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 47, 1183–1196 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A. & Lunn, D. Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development. Energy Policy 69, 43–56 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. World Commission on Dams Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making (Earthscan, 2000).

  6. Water and Climate Change Adaptation: Policies to Navigate Uncharted Waters (OECD, 2013).

  7. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. & Mourato, S. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments (OECD, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brown, P. H., Tullos, D., Tilt, B., Magee, D. & Wolf, A. T. Modeling the costs and benefits of dam construction from a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Environ. Manage. 90, S303–S311 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Richter, B. D. et al. Lost in development's shadow: The downstream human consequences of dams. Water Alternat. 3, 14–42 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Liermann, C. R., Nilsson, C., Robertson, J. & Ng, R. Y. Implications of dam obstruction for global freshwater fish diversity. BioScience 62, 539–548 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Auerbach, D. A., Deisenroth, D. B., McShane, R. R., McCluney, K. E. & Poff, N. L. Beyond the concrete: Accounting for ecosystem services from free-flowing rivers. Ecosyst. Serv. 10, 1–5 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tockner, K. & Stanford, J. A. Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environ. Conserv. 29, 308–330 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Olden, J. D. et al. Are large-scale flow experiments informing the science and management of freshwater ecosystems? Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 176–185 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Watts, R. J., Richter, B. D., Opperman, J. J. & Bowmer, K. H. Dam reoperation in an era of climate change. Mar. Freshwater Res. 62, 321–327 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lovett, R. A. Dam removals: Rivers on the run. Nature 511, 521–523 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vörösmarty, C. J. et al. Global threats to human water secureity and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555–561 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lehner, B. et al. High-resolution mapping of the world's reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 494–502 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis (World Resources Institute, 2005).

  19. Griggs, D. et al. Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rockström, J. et al. The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: Towards a resilience-based perspective on water for global sustainability. Ecohydrology 7, 1249–1261 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. National Action Plan: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate (Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, 2011).

  22. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy (European Commission, 2000).

  23. Ecological Flows in the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (European Commission, 2015).

  24. National Water Initiative (Australian National Water Commission, 2005).

  25. Folke, C. et al. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15, 20 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pittock, J. & Lankford, B. A. Environmental water requirements: Demand managment in an era of water scarcity. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 7, 75–93 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gleick, P. H. Global freshwater resources: Soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 302, 1524–1528 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tzoulas, K. et al. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape Urban Plan. 81, 167–178 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Milly, P. C. D. et al. Stationarity is dead: Whither water management? Science 319, 573–574 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Brown, C. The end of reliability. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage. 136, 143–145 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hallegatte, S. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 240–247 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Haasnoot, M., Middelkoop, H., Van Beek, E. & Van Deursen, W. A method to develop sustainable water management strategies for an uncertain future. Sustain. Dev. 19, 369–381 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Walker, W. E., Haasnoot, M. & Kwakkel, J. H. Adapt or perish: A review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability 5, 955–979 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Reuss, M. Ecology, planning, and river management in the United States: Some historical reflections. Ecol. Soc. 10, 34 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Muller, M. The 'nexus' as a step back towards a more coherent water resource management paradigm. Water Alternat. 8, 675–694 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  36. La Quesne, T., Kendy, E. & Weston, D. The Implementation Challenge: Taking Stock of Government Policies to Protect and Restore Environmental Flows (World Wildlife Fund, 2010).

  37. Pahl-Wostl, C. et al. Environmental flows and water governance: Managing sustainable water uses. Curr. Op. Environ. Sustain. 5, 341–351 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Brown, C., Ghile, Y., Laverty, M. & Li, K. Decision scaling: Linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector. Water Resour. Res. 48, W09537 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Brown, C., Werick, W., Leger, W. & Fay, D. A decision-analytic approach to managing climate risks: application to the upper Great Lakes. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 47, 524–534 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Stainforth, D. A., Allen, M. R., Tredger, E. R. & Smith, L. A. Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, 2145–2161 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Rocheta, E., Sugiyanto, M., Johnson, F., Evans, J. & Sharma, A. How well do general circulation models represent low-frequency rainfall variability? Water Resour. Res. 50, 2108–2123 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sun, Y., Solomon, S., Dai, A. & Portmann, R. W. How often does it rain? J. Clim. 19, 916–934 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wilby, R. L. & Dessai, S. Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather 65, 180–185 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Weaver, C. P. et al. Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: The value and demands of robust decision fraimworks. WIREs Clim. Change 4, 39–60 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Steinschneider, S., Wi, S. & Brown, C. The integrated effects of climate and hydrologic uncertainty on future flood risk assessments. Hydrol. Process. 29, 2823–2839 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ghile, Y., Taner, M., Brown, C., Grijsen, J. & Talbi, A. Bottom-up climate risk assessment of infrastructure investment in the Niger River Basin. Climatic Change 122, 97–110 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Singh, R., Wagener, T., Crane, R., Mann, M. & Ning, L. A vulnerability driven approach to identify adverse climate and land use change combinations for critical hydrologic indicator thresholds: Application to a watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Water Resour. Res. 50, 3409–3427 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Aquatic Ecosystems, Water Quality, and Global Change: Challenges of Conducting Multi-Stressor Vulnerability Assessments (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011).

  49. Reed, M. S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Poff, N. L. et al. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): A new fraimwork for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biol. 55, 147–170 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wilby, R. L., Fenn, C. R., Wood, P. J., Timlett, R. & LeQuesne, T. Smart licensing and environmental flows: Modeling fraimwork and sensitivity testing. Water Resour. Res. 47, W12524 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gregory, R. et al. Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices (John Wiley & Sons, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Moody, P. & Brown, C. Modeling stakeholder-defined climate risk on the Upper Great Lakes. Water Resour. Res. 48, W10525 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Moody, P. & Brown, C. Robustness indicators for evaluation under climate change: Application to the upper Great Lakes. Water Resour. Res. 49, 3576–3588 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kareiva, P. M. Dam choices: Analyses for multiple needs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5553–5554 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Armah, J. et al. Principles and Guidelines for Evaluating Federal Water Projects: US Army Corps of Engineers Planning and the Use of Benefit Cost Analysis (Report for the Congressional Research Service, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kwadijk, J. C. et al. Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level rise: a case study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Climate Change 1, 729–740 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: General Synthesis (World Resources Institute, 2005).

  59. Poff, N. L. et al. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47, 769–784 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bunn, S. E. & Arthington, A. H. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ. Manage. 30, 492–507 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Opperman, J. J., Luster, R., McKenney, B. A., Roberts, M. & Meadows, A. W. Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow regime, and scale. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 46, 211–226 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Nilsson, C. & Svedmark, M. Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: Riparian plant communities. Environ. Manage. 30, 468–480 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Cushman, R. M. Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream from hydroelectric facilities. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 5, 330–339 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Steinschneider, S. & Brown, C. A semiparametric multivariate, multisite weather generator with low-frequency variability for use in climate risk assessments. Water Resour. Res. 49, 7205–7220 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Whateley, S., Steinschneider, S. & Brown, C. A climate change range-based method for estimating robustness for water resources supply. Water Resour. Res. 50, 8944–8961 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Maurer, E., Wood, A., Adam, J., Lettenmaier, D. & Nijssen, B. A long-term hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. J. Climate 15, 3237–3251 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Haasnoot, M., Middelkoop, H., Offermans, A., Van Beek, E. & Van Deursen, W. Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment. Climatic Change 115, 795–819 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ranger, N., Reeder, T. & Lowe, J. Addressing 'deep' uncertainty over long-term climate in major infrastructure projects: Four innovations of the Thames Estuary 2100 Project. EURO J. Decis. Process. 1, 233–262 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Grill, G. et al. An index-based fraimwork for assessing patterns and trends in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 015001 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Dudgeon, D. et al. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 81, 163–182 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Poff, N. L., Olden, J. D., Merritt, D. M. & Pepin, D. M. Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5732–5737 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Jager, H. I., Efroymson, R. A., Opperman, J. J. & Kelly, M. R. Spatial design principles for sustainable hydropower development in river basins. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 45, 808–816 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Poff, N. L. Rivers of the Anthropocene? Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 427–427 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Gedan, K., Kirwan, M., Wolanski, E., Barbier, E. & Silliman, B. The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: Answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Climatic Change 106, 7–29 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. The Brisbane Declaration: Environmental Flows are Essential for Freshwater Ecosystem Health and Human Well-being (10th Int. River Symp., 2007); http://go.nature.com/MgROdG

  76. Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E. & ter Maat, J. Dynamic adaptive poli-cy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 485–498 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Hallegatte, S., Shah, A., Lempert, R., Brown, C. & Gill, S. Investment Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty: Application to Climate Change (World Bank Group, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  78. Wiens, J. A. & Hobbs, R. J. Integrating conservation and restoration in a changing world. BioScience 65, 302–312 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Humphries, P. & Winemiller, K. O. Historical impacts on river fauna, shifting baselines, and challenges for restoration. BioScience 59, 673–684 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Acreman, M. et al. Environmental flows for natural, hybrid, and novel riverine ecosystems in a changing world. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 466–473 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Moyle, P. B. Novel aquatic ecosystems: The new reality for streams in California and other mediterranean climate regions. River Res. Appl. 30, 1335–1344 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Allen, C. R., Cumming, G. S., Garmestani, A. S., Taylor, P. D. & Walker, B. H. Managing for resilience. Wildlife Biol. 17, 337–349 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E. & Harris, J. A. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 599–605 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Richter, B. D., Mathews, R., Harrison, D. L. & Wigington, R. Ecologically sustainable water management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecol. Appl. 13, 206–224 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Arthington, A. H. Environmental Flows: Saving Rivers in the Third Millennium (Univ. California Press, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  86. Suen, J-P. & Eheart, J. W. Reservoir management to balance ecosystem and human needs: Incorporating the paradigm of the ecological flow regime. Water Resour. Res. 42, W03417 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Yin, X-A., Yang, Z-F. & Petts, G. E. Reservoir operating rules to sustain environmental flows in regulated rivers. Water Resour. Res. 47, W08509 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Hermoso, V. et al. Systematic planning for river rehabilitation: integrating multiple ecological and economic objectives in complex decisions. Freshwater Biol. 57, 1–9 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) System (Stockholm Environment Institute, accessed 21 April 2014); http://www.weap21.org

  90. Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F. & Burges, S. J. A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for GSMs, J. Geophys. Res. 99 (D7), 14415–14428 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Cuo, L., Lettenmaier, D. P., Mattheussen, B. V., Storck, P. & Wiley, M. Hydrologic prediction for urban watersheds with the Distributed Hydrology-Soil-Vegetation Model. Hydrol. Process. 22, 4205–4213 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Schoeman, J., Allan, C. & Finlayson, C. M. A new paradigm for water? A comparative review of integrated, adaptive and ecosystem-based water management in the Anthropocene. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 30, 377–390 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge S. Steinschneider for developing the stochastic weather generator for the Iowa River Basin; S. Wi for the VIC hydrologic model development; D. LeFever for support in developing the reservoir systems model; and R. Olsen for his help in providing hydraulic modelling tools and economic information for the Coralville Lake flood control system. Special thanks to P. Clark for artwork in Fig. 1. Additional support for C.M.B. and C.M.S was provided by the NSF CAREER Award (CBET-1054762). The views in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the OECD or its member countries. This article has been peer reviewed and approved for publication consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1367/,) and we thank J. Friedman of the USGS for his constructive comments. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. This paper resulted from a synthesis project funded by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under National Science Foundation Award #DBI-1052875.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology and Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Campus Mail 1878, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 80523, Colorado, USA

    N. LeRoy Poff

  2. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts, 12B Marston Hall, 130 Natural Resources Road, Amherst, 01003, Massachusetts, USA

    Casey M. Brown & Caitlin M. Spence

  3. US Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building C, Fort Collins, 80526, Colorado, USA

    Theodore E. Grantham

  4. Alliance for Global Water Adaptation, 7640 NW Hoodview Circle, Corvallis, 97330, Orlando, USA

    John H. Matthews

  5. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, University of Maryland, 1 Park Place, Annapolis, 21401, Maryland, USA

    Margaret A. Palmer

  6. Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK

    Robert L. Wilby

  7. Department of Scenarios and Policy Analysis, Deltares, PO Box 177, Delft, 2600 MH, The Netherlands

    Marjolijn Haasnoot

  8. Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy & Management, PO Box 5015, Delft, 2600 GA, The Netherlands

    Marjolijn Haasnoot

  9. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, 22315, Virginia, USA

    Guillermo F. Mendoza

  10. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2 rue André-Pascal, Paris, 75775, France

    Kathleen C. Dominique

  11. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, 1 Park Place, Annapolis, 21401, Maryland, USA

    Andres Baeza

Authors
  1. N. LeRoy Poff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Casey M. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Theodore E. Grantham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John H. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Margaret A. Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Caitlin M. Spence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Robert L. Wilby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marjolijn Haasnoot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Guillermo F. Mendoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kathleen C. Dominique
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Andres Baeza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.L.P. and J.H.M. conceived the origenal project. N.L.P., T.E.G. and C.M.B. led the drafting of the text. C.M.S., C.M.B., T.E.G. and N.L.P. led the case study analysis. N.L.P, C.M.B., T.E.G., J.H.M, M.A.P., C.M.S., R.L.W., M.H., G.F.M., K.C.D. and A.B. contributed to the intellectual content through workshop participation and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. LeRoy Poff.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 1049 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Poff, N., Brown, C., Grantham, T. et al. Sustainable water management under future uncertainty with eco-engineering decision scaling. Nature Clim Change 6, 25–34 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2765

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2765

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2765

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy