A systematic scoping review of the collaborative governance of environmental and cultural flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study systematically reviews English-language papers about the collaborative governance of environmental and cultural flows. With mixed-methods analyses, we illustrate that the determination of environmental flow needs is common, with authors in 42 countries across 112 watersheds describing their management. In contrast, cultural flows (characterized by attention to both ecological and non-ecological needs, decision-making authority of Indigenous Nations, and Indigenous rights) were reported only in papers by authors in commonwealth, colonial countries: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Evaluated against the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Water Governance Principles, we found that the literature reported efforts that considered appropriate local and regional scales, information and data, regulatory frameworks, and capacity building of communities and authorities engaged in environmental and cultural flow initiatives. However, there was limited consideration of the roles of communities in policymaking, which was more common in jurisdictions with decentralized governance. In jurisdictions with democratic community-based initiatives, environmental and cultural flows have not been approached in merely technical processes to communicate hydro-social-ecological information to decision-makers. Instead, the initiatives have created the context for evaluating new developments at the watershed level in light of communities’ social and ecological water goals, collaborating during unique drought and flooding conditions, working to rebalance power in decision-making through water justice, creating ecological and Indigenous reserved water rights, granting legal personhood for rivers, and protecting water for the environment and dependent people in water markets. Going forward, we identify a need for greater attention to community roles in environmental and cultural flows protection in water governance, including policy creation and evaluation, regulatory initiatives, strategic planning, and impact assessments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".