The term “environmental flows” describes the quantities, quality, and patterns of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide. Environmental flows may be achieved in a number of different ways, most of which are based on either (1) limiting alterations from the natural flow baseline to maintain biodiversity and ecological integrity or (2) designing flow regimes to achieve specific ecological and ecosystem service outcomes. We argue that the former practice is more applicable to natural and semi‐natural rivers where the primary objective and opportunity is ecological conservation. The latter “designer” approach is better suited to modified and managed rivers where return to natural conditions is no longer feasible and the objective is to maximize natural capital as well as support economic growth, recreation, or cultural history. This permits elements of ecosystem design and adaptation to environmental change. In a future characterized by altered climates and intensive regulation, where hybrid and novel aquatic ecosystems predominate, the designer approach may be the only feasible option. This conclusion stems from a lack of natural ecosystems from which to draw analogs and the need to support broader socioeconomic benefits and valuable configurations of natural and social capital.

Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are particularly challenging to value as well as to subsequently incorporate in scientific assessments and environmental management actions and programmes. In this paper, we apply a cultural ES typology to an Australian water resources case at a location of major indigenous cultural significance, the Brewarrina Aboriginal fish traps, and consider the potential implications for water planning. Data from qualitative interviews with indigenous custodians demonstrates diverse cultural values and associated benefits with respect to the fish traps themselves and to their connectivity with another key water site, an upstream lagoon. Supported by additional analyses of water planning legislation, flow requirements, and non-indigenous tourist values, we analyse the applicability of the typology and the implications for water planning. Key issues include: the distinction between values and benefits; whose values and which cultural ES benefits are identified and managed; the challenges of categorising indigenous aspirations within cultural ES frameworks; and the implications for water planning of indigenous perspectives on connectivity. Case studies of culturally specific minorities are useful for testing cultural ES frameworks because they posit conceptual and categorisation challenges. In addition, 'culture' is often of strategic and symbolic value for such minorities, representing the key means by which they gain access to, and traction within, natural resource planning and prioritisation processes.No Full Tex

The case for restoring water to the environment in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia, is based mainly on condition assessments, although time series provide valuable information on trends. We assessed trends of 301 ecological time series (mean 23 years, range 1905–2013) in two categories: (1) ‘population’ (abundance, biomass, extent) and (2) ‘non-population’ (condition, occurrence, composition). We analysed trends using log-linear regression, accounting for observation error only, and a state–space model that accounts for observation error and environmental ‘noise’. Of the log-linear series (n = 239), 50 (22%) showed statistically significant decline, but 180 (78%) showed no trend. For state–space series (n = 197) one increased, but others were stable. Distribution of median exponential rates of increase (r) indicated a small but statistically significant declining trend, though 35–39% of the series were positive. Our analysis only partly supports, though does not refute, prevailing assumptions of recent ecological decline in the Murray–Darling Basin. The pattern is of fluctuating stability, with declines during droughts and recovery after flood. The overall trend from our meta-analysis is consistent with a pattern of historical decline to a hybrid ecosystem followed by slow, recent decline for some components and stability for others, with considerable variation in trends of specific ecological components: in short, there are ecological ‘winners’ and ‘losers’.