Research

INTRODUCTION

Despite the importance of freshwater resources for human well-being, global threats to freshwater ecosystems continue to grow, with flow modification and expanding hydropower identified among the major concerns (Dudgeon et al. 2006, Reid et al. 2019). Hydropower balances electricity demand and availability of water, which often creates hydropeaking that matches diurnal cycles of consumer demand while maintaining the storage of water in a headpond upstream (Gracey and Verones 2016, Hecht et al. 2019). Hydropower operations rarely match a natural flow regime and thus cause direct and indirect changes to downriver ecosystems. For example, flow management infrastructure often alters freshwater ecosystems by driving changes in the timing, variability, and magnitude of flow regimes, in addition to changing the thermal regime in the immediate vicinity of the impoundment and causing system and habitat fragmentation (Anderson et al. 2015, Grill et al. 2015, Gracey and Verones 2016, Hecht et al. 2019). This modification of flows can have direct impacts on ecosystem health, affecting the ecological structure and function of freshwater systems (Gracey and Verones 2016) as well as having both direct and indirect impacts on social and cultural connections and interactions with the river (Poff and Zimmerman 2010, Arthington et al. 2018a, Flecker et al. 2022). Although the biological and physical impacts of flow management, particularly hydropower operations, are largely well studied (Gracey and Verones 2016), there is an increasing recognition of the need to also include the social-cultural-spiritual aspects of flow and connections to these river systems in decision making around water management (Botelho et al. 2017, Anderson et al. 2019, Flecker et al. 2022). The connections that people develop with the environment contribute substantially to human well-being and can promote support for sustainable policies (Forslund et al. 2009).

Effective flow management decisions should actively include human-environment connections to both maximize and improve ecosystem-derived benefits to humans (Martin et al. 2014). For example, if flow management decisions reduce the spawning success of fish, then this potentially disrupts ecosystem-derived benefits such as recreational fishing or subsistence harvesting, which may also impact Aboriginal and Treaty rights (Arthington et al. 2024). Ecosystem-derived benefits may be provisional or economical, contribute to social and cultural identity and well-being, or maintain and regulate freshwater habitats and ecosystem processes (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). In a flow management context, this may include consideration of the quantity and timing of flow required to support freshwater fisheries and provide drinking water, to allow recreation and provide an aesthetic experience, and to ensure processes such as nutrient cycling occur while regulating aspects such as flood levels and erosion rates. Assessment of the effects of changes to the flow regime on such ecosystem-derived benefits requires an understanding of their mechanistic pathways. Ecosystem-derived benefits are dependent upon healthy ecosystem function, which highlights the importance of linking the social-cultural-spiritual component to the environmental foundation and understanding the interconnections (Forslund et al. 2009, Botelho et al. 2017, Rova and Pranovi 2017).

The concept of environmental flows offers an opportunity to balance the water needs of the ecosystem with the needs of the people who live and interact with the landscape (Forslund et al. 2009). Environmental flows describe the quantity, quality, and timing of water flows and levels required to sustain freshwater ecosystems and the human livelihood, culture, spirituality, and well-being derived from these ecosystems (Arthington et al. 2018a). Watershed management that is guided by defined environmental flow needs has the potential to ensure that flow conditions support core ecosystem functions such as migration, emergence, and reproduction of animal and plant biota (Widén et al. 2022). The broader goal of environmental flows management is to protect and restore the benefits that humans derive from healthy and diverse aquatic systems, including recreational, economic, social, cultural, and spiritual ecological services (McManamay et al. 2016, Arthington et al. 2018a, Flecker et al. 2022). Environmental flows have evolved to include linkages among environmental and social-cultural-spiritual components at the watershed scale (Martin et al. 2014). This change represents a systematic shift away from habitat-focused and species-specific methods toward an inclusive approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of ecosystem processes (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013, Poff and Matthews 2013, Matthews et al. 2014, Poff 2018, Bergbusch et al. 2025a).

Visualizing the connections across the environmental and social-cultural-spiritual components in complex river networks remains a key challenge in the development of environmental flows frameworks (Wineland et al. 2022, Arthington et al. 2024). The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) framework is an environmental flows method that was developed to work across knowledge boundaries by bringing data, existing knowledge, and modeling together with expert judgement, public surveys, and workshop discussions to develop an integrated and inclusive, watershed-scale management strategy (Poff et al. 2010, McManamay et al. 2016). However, the ELOHA framework lacks specific guidance on effective approaches to bridge environmental and social-cultural-spiritual concepts in a way that will make mechanistic linkages and pathways clear. The DPSIR framework (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response model of intervention sensu Smeets and Weterings 1999, further adapted by Baird et al. 2016) offers a pathway structure within complex systems that could be used as part of ELOHA to bring together environmental processes and social-cultural-spiritual considerations in a single decision support tool. Widely adopted for landscape planning (e.g., Spanò et al. 2017), biodiversity conservation strategies (e.g., Spangenberg et al. 2009), and human health (e.g., Yee et al. 2012), the DPSIR approach allows users to map and objectively evaluate these pathway connections to support management scenarios and decision making, and to facilitate communication among decision makers, stakeholders, and rightsholders (Xue et al. 2015). Pathways are built from the social and environmental drivers (e.g., agriculture, hydropower operations, recreation) that then lead to primary pressures (e.g., flow regulation, recreational pressures) and secondary stressors (e.g., nutrients or noise pollution). Although the terms “pressures” and “stressors” are often used interchangeably, they can be separated to identify the overarching pressures that drive the multiple stressor impacts (Sabater et al. 2019, Perujo et al. 2021). The driver-pressure-stressor pathways allow us to understand the mechanisms leading to our observed changes in state (e.g., biodiversity, peace and tranquility). The subsequent impacts are often characterized as ecosystem trends or wider societal change (e.g., cultural loss, biodiversity loss; Jackson et al. 2015, Nassl and Löffler 2015, Balzan et al. 2019). Our capabilities to return to a previous state, reflecting resilience, or the move to collapse because of system fragility are identified in the response category within the framework as actions that can be taken (e.g., policy and regulation, education; Balzan et al. 2019).

In this study, we work to fill a critical gap in environmental flows application by developing and demonstrating a structured, repeatable methodology that bridges the gap between technical-ecological science and human social-cultural-spiritual values for the purpose of creating more holistic and effective environmental flows frameworks. We test the novel use of a DPSIR framework supported by fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) to demonstrate the power of adopting a systematic pathway method to bridge environmental and social-cultural processes in the ELOHA approach. We also demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach for environmental flows management by actively adopting both enabling factors (e.g., engagement and communication, adaptive management) and actions to reduce constraints (e.g., diverse stakeholder engagement, diversifying monitoring indicators, and output formats; Arthington et al. 2024). Using the DPSIR output represents an actionable management tool that applies semi-quantitative FCM and network analyses to the survey results, identified hypotheses from structured expert workshops and the peer-reviewed literature that can visualize and assess the hypothesized linkages between the environmental and social-cultural-spiritual components for inclusive flow management.

METHODS

Study area

The Wolastoq watershed, also known by its colonial name as Saint John River or fleuve Saint-Jean, is one of the largest rivers in Maritime Canada with a watershed area of over 55,000 km². Located within the unceded and unsurrendered lands of the Wolastoqiyik (the people of the beautiful and bountiful river), Mi’kmaq, and Peskotomuhkati Peoples, the river flows over 673 km from its headwaters in the state of Maine, USA, through the Canadian provinces of Québec and New Brunswick where it discharges to the Bay of Fundy in Saint John, New Brunswick (Fig. 1). The watershed of the Wolastoq lies within three Level III Terrestrial Ecoregions (Wiken et al. 2011). The Northern Appalachian and Atlantic Maritime Highlands ecoregion overlaps the most northern and western areas of the watershed and is characterized by warm, humid summers and cold, snowy winters, mixed hardwood and spruce-fir forests, and hills and mountains with shallow, nutrient-poor soils (Wiken et al. 2011). The Maritime Lowlands ecoregion is found in the eastern part of the watershed and is characterized by warm summers and mild, snowy winters, closed mixed-wood forest, and lowland areas underlain by sandstone and shales (Wiken et al. 2011). The Maine/New Brunswick Plains and Hills ecoregion covers most of the Wolastoq watershed and is characterized by a more severe climate with warm, humid, and wet summers and cold, snowy winters, mixed wood forests, and a mix of rolling uplands, plains, and lowlands with complex geology (Wiken et al. 2011). The watershed is more than 80% forested, though extensive logging over the last few centuries has replaced most of the old-growth hardwood forests that previously characterized the region (Kidd et al. 2011). Agriculture (particularly potato growing) makes up 6% of the land use in the watershed, and urban development covers only 2% of the land (Kidd et al. 2011).

The river flows are heavily modified with more than 200 barriers along the river network, including eleven hydroelectric generating structures and multiple impoundments and water control structures (Kidd et al. 2011). The Mactaquac Generating Station, the largest hydropower facility in the river network, is undergoing a renewal process because of early end-of-life changes to the structures (Curry et al. 2020). The Wolastoq is very biologically diverse, including 53 fish species, 11 of which are diadromous and may migrate past barriers where possible, 10 freshwater mussel species, and a broader freshwater community comprising aquatic invertebrates, macrophytes, algae, and microbiome (Kidd et al. 2011). Human population density of the watershed ranges from 0.1/km² to 914.3/km², with the highest population densities found along the river corridor and 20% relying on the watershed for their drinking water (Kidd et al. 2011). Communities actively use the river for recreation, social, cultural, and spiritual purposes across all seasons, with a growing movement toward (re)connecting to the land and water (Doiron Koller et al. 2023). Increasing support for sustainable flow management at the watershed scale for the Wolastoq is leading to the development of an environmental flows framework and associated tools that meet the needs of stakeholders and rightsholders.

Study approach

We developed a DPSIR framework supported by FCM for the Wolastoq to identify the ecological and social-cultural-spiritual flow needs and connect them to impact pathways as an example of how holistic environmental flows approaches can be created to support flow management and decision making. Three expert-led workshops and a systematic literature review were primarily used to identify the environmental components of the DPSIR framework. These were further supported by a public structured survey that identified the social-cultural-spiritual components of the framework. Keywords from each data source were used to build an interconnected DPSIR framework. By bringing these concepts together in a structured pathway, we were able to develop flow recommendations that explicitly recognized the interconnectedness of different flow needs in the Wolastoq.

Data collection

Workshops

A series of three workshops was held in 2015–2016 to gather information about the environmental components of flow in the Wolastoq to feed into the DPSIR framework. The workshops targeted participants from different organizations that represented a range of viewpoints from across the watershed, including representatives from the provincial and federal governments, industry, regional and national NGOs, Indigenous organizations, and subject matter academics (including hydrologists, geomorphologists, groundwater, freshwater ecologists, sediment and hydrological modelers). The first two workshops invited up to 40 individuals across these disciplines while the third workshop invited a subset of 12 subject matter experts to refine the outputs from the first two meetings.

The first workshop was focused on building a foundation for the environmental component of the DPSIR framework for the Wolastoq, including locating data sources, describing flow habitats, and identifying potential target taxa that might be particularly relevant to flow-ecology hypotheses. Workshop participants developed an inventory of existing data resources for the Wolastoq, including the type, source, and spatial and temporal scale of data that could be used to support development of the environmental component of the DPSIR framework (Monk et al. 2017). The inventoried data types described different aspects of the ecosystem and biota, including water level, river ice, ice jams, flooding, hydrologic network, wetlands, water chemistry, water temperature, sediments and soil, bathymetry, land cover, bedrock and surficial geology, weather, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, waterfowl, mammals, vascular plants, bryophytes, and species at risk. In addition, there were data sources for anthropogenic influences such as land use (including land use change), agricultural, industrial, and municipal water use, dams, protected natural areas, fish recreational areas, archaeology sites, land ownership and management, pollution release, and census information. Working from existing data and expert knowledge, workshop participants began to build an understanding of flow habitats within the Wolastoq, classifying habitat types and mapping them across the basin. A preliminary list of potential target taxa was created based on data sources and existing knowledge to provide a foundation to begin to explore flow-ecology hypotheses.

The second workshop was focused on developing flow-ecology hypotheses for each of the identified flow habitats to elucidate driver-pressure-stressor-state pathways. Workshop participants made use of the data sources inventoried in the first workshop in addition to hydrologic and temperature modeling results for the Wolastoq, taxonomic lists for the basin, and results of a literature review that gathered information about linkages between flow, temperature, and physical, chemical, and biotic ecosystem components. Based on the compiled information and expert knowledge, participants developed hypotheses describing the mechanistic pathways for direct or indirect effects of flow and temperature. Hypotheses described who (taxa, group, or habitat component), what (flow or temperature component), when (month or season), where (habitat type or unit), and why/how (ecological response and hypothesized or known mechanism). Hypotheses were structured for each of the identified priority flow habitat types and included a focus on (1) seasonal flows, (2) low flows including extreme low flows, (3) high flows including extreme high flows, and (4) ice-affected conditions. Developed hypotheses were either positive (needs-based) or negative (threshold-based). Workshop participants also identified additional information that would be needed to support the development of flow recommendations. Expert discussion identified key habitat types within the watershed and described the typical conditions within each habitat type, including temperature, flow, geomorphology, and vegetation. Defining habitat types in this way informed the development of tailored flow-ecology pathways by characterizing the range of environmental conditions that must be considered within the watershed and indicating key organism groups that may be relevant to each habitat type. These outputs supported the structure of a subsequent systematic literature review that targeted each of the critical ecosystem states and their associated pathways identified during the discussions. The structured literature review was used to ensure a strong foundation for each of the hypotheses.

The focus of the third and final workshop was on reviewing the results of the systematic literature review, using the information to refine the flow-ecology hypotheses, and developing broad flow statements for the Wolastoq to support flow recommendations. Participants reviewed, combined and revised the more than 500 flow-ecology hypotheses that were developed in the second workshop. Using information from hydrologic and temperature modeling and the refined flow-ecology hypotheses, participants broadly identified flow needs for the watershed. Finally, information on taxa in the basin was coupled with relevant flow-ecology hypotheses to create lists of priority components for long-term monitoring of the Wolastoq. The set of flow-ecology hypotheses developed through the expert workshop process was further refined to remove redundancy and combine strongly related hypotheses, resulting in a final set of 69 hypotheses (Appendix 2). This refinement process focused on a thorough review of the identified pressures, described components, processes, and ecological responses to determine where combination and reduction would be possible without loss of information about structural and functional responses to flow and temperature.

Cross-sectional surveys

The St. John River Society and ACAP Saint John designed and coordinated public consultation on the social-cultural-spiritual components of flow through a cross-sectional survey focused on values to identify connections, concerns, and activities related to the ecosystem-derived benefits provided by the river and its watershed. Although in-person events for data collection, including focus group discussions, were originally planned, final consultation was held in 2020 and was only possible online because of continued COVID restrictions at the time. The cross-sectional surveys offered a structured method of engaging with users (Katz-Gerro and Orenstein 2015, Botelho et al. 2017) and extended interactions to include the wider public. The process allowed us to identify direct and indirect derived benefits and highlight pathways through which ecosystem changes may impact those benefits (Katz-Gerro and Orenstein 2015, Botelho et al. 2017).

The basis for the research framework underpinning the questions for the survey was the identification of social, cultural, and spiritual benefits derived from the ecosystem (sensu Díaz et al. 2018) to complement the identification of ecosystem function (sensu Ferraro et al. 2025) through the environmental data collection process. The cross-sectional survey was designed to be short (10 questions) to promote full completion by respondents in the general public, although respondents did have the ability to skip questions. Questions were focused on benefits and values associated with the river and allowed for both positive and negative perspectives to gain information about respondent concerns. There were also open-ended survey questions asking respondents what they love about the river, their concerns about the river, and the events they associate with the river. Multiple choice questions allowed respondents to indicate the benefits they derive from the river, why they feel the river is important, and what the river represents in their community, with opportunities for write-in answers. Questions were framed to direct respondents to think about the benefits derived during all seasons, rather than just the season during which the survey was available. The survey was made available on social media in English and French, and responses were solicited over a period of six weeks from 25 July 2020 to 25 September 2020. The survey was actively promoted on social media within the geographical boundaries of the watershed during the response window and was accessed by 237 respondents, although eight did not follow the survey through to completion and their answers were omitted. Most questions had a response rate greater than 95%, though two questions had response rates of 84% and 55% (not all questions were mandatory).

Data analysis

Identification of keywords

The DPSIR was built based on the identification of keywords in the flow-ecology hypotheses and survey responses and the use of FCM and network analysis to describe pathways and connections among keywords. We conducted open coding of the input from the 69 hypotheses identified during the workshop process (“Hypothesis summary” column in Appendix 2) and survey answers from 229 respondents to screen and identify initial individual keywords (in both French and English) and themes from the data supported by an additional coding analysis using NVivo (version 14; Lumivero 2023). We reviewed the resultant keywords to remove any erroneous terms or misclassifications as well as to ensure consistency across variables that ended up with different keywords. An axial coding approach was then used to condense the individual keywords based on similar terms and phrases into broader categories that were subsequently assigned to one of the six DPSIR categories to form the structure of the final framework. Keyword groupings were reviewed to ensure that the same keyword was not assigned to multiple groups to ensure their independence.

Fuzzy cognitive mapping and network analyses

We used the individual keywords and their broader categories in a FCM analysis to identify, quantify, and prioritize directional pathways among the DPSIR categories. FCM incorporates information from individual and expert opinions into a decision-making space through a graphical model composed of nodes and directed edges, which show the calculated causal links among them. Each edge has a direction, a sign (positive or negative), and a “fuzzy” weight that translates qualitative statements into numerical values ranging from -1 to +1, where values closer to the extremes indicate a stronger positive or negative influence (Jetter and Kok 2014, Gray et al. 2015, Andersson and Silver 2019).

Information from the survey responses and hypotheses were assessed for content via the keywords, with keyword groups used as nodes in the map space. Connections among the nodes were derived from relational statements within the survey results and hypotheses. We extracted directional terms from the survey responses and hypotheses to represent positive (e.g., enjoy, love, supports) or negative (e.g., restricts, concern) relationships as well as connecting terms (e.g., leads to, facilitates) within the statements to assess keyword connectance and the direction of sentiment within the text. As part of this process, we edited the language of the flow-ecology hypotheses as needed to ensure clarity and consistency in the relationship and directionality (e.g., a statement such as, “fewer ice-jam flooding events could reduce connections between habitats” was replaced with, “ice-jam flooding events facilitate connections between habitats” to ensure the FCM process could correctly identify the positive relationship between ice-jam flooding and connectivity).

Indegree and outdegree centrality were calculated for each keyword group using graph theory-based indices on the FCM outputs (Özesmi and Özesmi 2004). The extent to which each keyword group is affected by other groups is calculated as the weighted indegree that considers the number and relative strength of arrows that enter a node. By contrast, the weighted outdegree quantifies how each keyword group affects other groups and is also based on the number and relative strength of arrows exiting in a node. A higher sum for either indicates a higher centrality measure of their overall importance. Analyses were completed using the FCMapper (Version 1.1; Turney and Bachhofer 2016) and tidytext (Version 0.4.1; Silge and Robinson 2016) packages in the R environment (Version 4.5.1; R Development Core Team 2025).

RESULTS

Environmental component

As part of the process of establishing the environmental foundation for the environmental flows framework, workshop participants described key flow habitat types and taxonomic trait groups within the Wolastoq to better understand which flow-ecology hypotheses would be relevant to the basin. Eight habitat types were identified that encompassed characteristics of system size, temperature and flow conditions, habitat complexity, connectivity, and diversity across the watershed (Fig. 2). Descriptions of the habitat types highlighted potential connections to ecological processes, including nutrient cycling, sediment transport, and connectivity, as well as the potential for flow-related disturbances (Fig. 2). These habitat types were further linked to biological components of the ecosystem through the summary of taxonomic trait groups of vegetation, benthic macroinvertebrates, mussels, and fish in the Wolastoq and the flow habitat types in which each trait group is found (Appendix 1).

The final set of 69 flow-ecology hypotheses reflected the key flow habitats, taxonomic trait groups, and ecological processes in the Wolastoq (Appendix 2). Hypotheses were stratified by flow type (low, high, diurnal, seasonal, or ice-affected flows) and by flow timing (all months or particular months of relevancy) and were grouped by management goals (e.g., establish ecosystem connectivity to critical habitat or maintain ice processes and disturbance events). Each hypothesis outlined a potential pathway for positive or negative connections between drivers, pressures, stressors, states, and impacts.

Social-cultural-spiritual component

Survey respondents strongly connected to the river through both active and passive opportunities including recreation (77.6% of respondents), nature (89.5%), and beauty (93.7%) but also identified other benefits including viewing the river as a spiritual (45.1%), cultural (46.0%), and inspirational (46.8%) place as well as a place for physical (54.7%) and mental (83.5%) health and peace of mind (54.7%). The river was also highlighted for providing connection to place (61.4%) and community identity (58.5%), and for representing a cultural feature for the region through spiritual and ceremonial activities. The management of the river featured in many of the survey answers, though these responses made it clear that there were misunderstandings around the current management options for the Wolastoq with, for example, suggestions of dredging of the lower river to improve flood management. Further, while there were many positive comments discussing the river’s name and its rich Indigenous history, there were also answers that reflected the ongoing tension in the area with openly racist and small-minded comments.

DPSIR framework

A final set of 399 keywords from the flow-ecology hypotheses and survey responses were collated into 39 standardized groups that contained similar individual phrases and terms and represented the broader concepts that were discussed during the workshops and surveys (Table 1). For example, the keyword group Algal Blooms was represented by six keywords (“algae,” “cyanobacteria,” “bloom,” “toxic,” “blue-green,” and “algal”) while Stewardship and Education was characterized by eight keywords (“stewardship,” “education,” “collaboration,” “awareness,” “responsible,” “research,” “field trip,” and “learn”; Table 1).

The DPSIR developed through FCM had 39 nodes with 941 connections that reflected a generally high number of incoming and outgoing connections for each node (n = 24.1) and an average connection density of 0.62 (Fig. 3A). Connections between nodes in the DPSIR were classified as positive or negative with the weights calculated based on the number of positive and negative sentiment and connection analyses for each node pair combination. The large number of connections represented a large range of connection strengths (Fig. 3A), and the DPSIR was simplified for interpretation purposes by focusing only on connections with a strength greater than 0.1 (Fig. 3B).

The strength and sentiment (positive/negative) of the connections in the DPSIR, as well as the number of connections to each node, provided a representation of the interconnected nature of environmental and social-cultural-spiritual components of flows in the Wolastoq, as pathways were not restricted to only environmental nodes or more socially related nodes (Fig. 3B). For example, water quality (environmental stressor) was linked to biodiversity + abundance (environmental state) as well as to peace + tranquility (social state; Fig. 3B). Similarly, culture + history (social driver) was linked to flow variability (environmental stressor), which was then linked to Indigenous heritage (social state; Fig. 3B). These cross-thematic connections reflected the fact that survey respondents’ viewpoints drew linkages between environmental and social-cultural-spiritual aspects of flow needs. However, there were also many nodes that were only weakly connected to other nodes in Figure 3A, which meant that few or no connections were evident when filtered by weight, with 12 of the nodes not demonstrating a strong directional response (Fig. 3B). This was particularly true for nodes that were classified as responses, for which three of the five showed no connections to other nodes in the DPSIR after filtering (Fig. 3B). Similarly, industry, forestry, and agriculture drivers had few or no connections in the filtered DPSIR. These unconnected nodes in some cases represented gaps in understanding or knowledge, for example, where flow-ecology hypotheses lacked connection to management responses or did not explicitly connect to anthropogenic drivers beyond hydropower. In contrast, the connections to these nodes that were present typically represented viewpoints from survey responses that touched on concerns within the watershed and opportunities for management, policy, and education.

The strongest node in the DPSIR with the most connections was flow variability, which was found to have the strongest connections (both positive and negative) among the nodes with 23.6% of the connections representing absolute weights above 0.5. These positive connections with some drivers and pressures (e.g., hydropower and shoreline alteration were both positively connected) indicated that an increase in the driver or pressure would result in an increase in flow variability (Fig. 3B). In contrast, flow variability was negatively connected to other stressors, states, and impacts, indicating that an increase in flow variability would have a negative effect on, for example, access to the river or on the fish community (Fig. 3B). These negative relationships often reflected the impacts of extreme flows (e.g., flood or drought), which were included as part of the flow variability node.

The node for peace + tranquility (a state) was the second strongest node in the DPSIR with overwhelmingly positive weights (97.4%), where nine of the connections were > 0.5. This highlighted the importance of providing balance between environmental and social-cultural-spiritual aspects of flows in the Wolastoq. The peace + tranquility node was strongly connected to social drivers, indicating how culture + history, recreation, and residential + community use can all have positive effects on perceptions of peace and tranquility (Fig. 3B). However, this node was also strongly linked to both social and environmental pressures, stressors, and states (Fig. 3B). Moreover, the peace + tranquility node also had some of the strongest connections to the stewardship + education response in the DPSIR (Fig. 3B), which indicated a potential positive feedback loop of how socially derived benefits might support environmental stewardship.

Quantification of the indegree centrality and outdegree centrality provided a measure of the extent of influence nodes had over each other through the DPSIR pathways. Peace + tranquility had the largest scaled indegree centrality (Fig. 4A), which indicated that it was most strongly influenced by other nodes. This was consistent with the strong positive influence of several of the social drivers on this node (Fig. 3B). Indegree centrality was also high for environmental states such as biodiversity + abundance and fish community, environmental stressors such as habitat quality, flow variability, channel structure, and water quality, and social drivers such as recreation and culture + history (Fig. 4A), which indicated that each of these nodes was influenced to a large degree by other nodes in the DPSIR. Each of these nodes had many connections in the DPSIR, allowing the opportunity for both inward and outward pathways (Fig. 3). In contrast, there were fewer nodes that had strong scaled outdegree centrality (Fig. 4B), which indicated that nodes generally received influence more than they influenced other nodes. Moreover, the food web node was identified as a receiving-only node, indicating that it had no influence on other nodes. Flow variability had the greatest degree of influence on other nodes (Fig. 4B), emphasizing its strength in the DPSIR (Fig. 3), and likely reflecting the hydrological focus of both the flow-ecology hypotheses and the survey questions. Peace + tranquility also had a strong outdegree centrality (Fig. 4B), highlighting its influence on impacts and responses in the DPSIR framework. Among the drivers in the DPSIR, recreation and culture + history had the most influence on other nodes (Fig. 4B).

Developing targeted environmental flow recommendations

The pathways identified in the DPSIR through the FCM analysis allowed us to pinpoint key environmental and social-cultural-spiritual flow requirements for an environmental flows framework in the Wolastoq. The key flow requirements were summarized and mapped onto an average hydrograph for the Wolastoq (Fredericton, NB using the Water Survey of Canada gauge 01AK003) to highlight the different aspects of the environmental flows framework that should be considered (Fig. 5). Some components of the framework were assigned to particular times of the year (e.g., ice processes, seasonal cues for fish migration and spawning) while others were more annual in their needs (e.g., nutrient cycling, water quality; Fig. 5). Some variables (e.g., recreation) have a strong seasonal component where there is greater pressure during the summer and early autumn months given the increased use of the river for boating, fishing, and other recreational activities. However, survey responses also mentioned winter activities that connect to the river (e.g., ice fishing, snowmobiling, cross country skiing) and so these were captured but with less weight (Fig. 5). Importantly, the connections to management responses were highlighted and were designed to inform management action by specifically identifying how, when, and where flow variability and alteration might affect different components, as well as how particular responses might be used to address individual flow needs (Fig. 5).

DISCUSSION

The environmental flows approach is a key tool in sustainable water management that aims to meet the needs of both environmental and social-cultural-spiritual components of flow through a collaborative, adaptive approach (Forslund et al. 2009, Martin et al. 2014, Arthington et al. 2024). The goal is to understand the feedback between ecosystem changes and the benefits humans derive from them, ensuring that conservation decisions do not threaten ecosystem function or other socially valued benefits (Dunham et al. 2018, Perry et al. 2024). We explored and applied a DPSIR framework quantified with FCM to bridge the gap between environmental processes and social-cultural-spiritual connections for environmental flows management. By integrating data from expert workshops and public surveys for the Wolastoq watershed, we successfully created a holistic, visual, and semi-quantitative model that identifies and prioritizes key flow needs and connects them to on-the-ground action. Our results demonstrate that this approach characterizes the complex, interconnected pathways between ecosystem health and human well-being, something that has been recognized as a need in ecosystem and water management (Anderson et al. 2019, Marselle et al. 2021) but also provides a functional decision-support tool to guide more inclusive and effective environmental flows. Further, we demonstrate how the approach can unite the ecological and social-cultural-spiritual aspects of environmental flows by connecting previously siloed fields like conservation, restoration, and water resource management.

Linkages between environmental and social-cultural-spiritual flow needs

Our framework revealed that the environmental and social-cultural-spiritual components of the Wolastoq are deeply connected, with specific nodes acting as critical bridges between the two areas. The two most central nodes in our DPSIR network were flow variability (an environmental stressor) and peace + tranquility (a social-cultural-spiritual state). The centrality of flow variability is not surprising as it is a master variable in regulated rivers that directly influences physical habitat, channel structure, and biological communities, affecting the ecological structure and function of freshwater systems (Poff and Zimmerman 2010). Landscape use and change paired with management within a regulated river (e.g., hydropeaking from hydropower operations) can directly drive this variability, which alters the timing and magnitude of flows and fragments river systems (Anderson et al. 2015, Hecht et al. 2019). Our model, however, goes further by mechanistically linking this core environmental factor to social-cultural-spiritual values. For instance, increased flow variability was shown to negatively impact river access, which in turn affects recreation use and the sense of peace + tranquility derived from the river. This explicitly demonstrates how operational decisions can impact the full range of benefits humans derive from ecosystems (Arthington et al. 2018a).

The emergence of peace + tranquility as a highly central node, strongly influenced by a wide range of other factors (high indegree), is a key finding. It highlights that the public’s sense of well-being is not derived from a single attribute but is an emergent property of the entire social-ecological system. Our model shows that peace and tranquility are positively influenced by social drivers like recreation and culture + history, but also by environmental states like water quality and biodiversity + abundance. This confirms that a healthy, functioning ecosystem is a direct prerequisite for many of the societal benefits people derive from rivers (Parker and Oates 2016, Hernández-Blanco et al. 2022), highlighting the importance of linking the social-cultural component to the environmental foundation (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Botelho et al. 2017, Rova and Pranovi 2017, Díaz et al. 2018). This finding provides a powerful argument for actions to be taken to improve water quality or protect biodiversity because these are not just ecological initiatives; they are direct investments in the mental and spiritual health of the community. Furthermore, the pathway from peace + tranquility to the stewardship + education response suggests a potential positive feedback loop where positive human-environment connections can promote support for sustainable policies (Forslund et al. 2009, Martin et al. 2014).

DPSIR as a tool to support inclusive environmental flows frameworks

The primary challenge we sought to address was the lack of a structured, repeatable method for integrating social-cultural-spiritual values into technical environmental flows frameworks like ELOHA (Poff et al. 2010, McManamay et al. 2016). Our application of DPSIR paired with FCM provided a clear and effective approach to formally address this problem with several key advantages. First, it offers a common language and visual structure that can facilitate communication among diverse groups, a noted strength of the DPSIR approach which has been widely adopted for landscape planning, conservation, and human health (Spangenberg et al. 2009, Yee et al. 2012, Xue et al. 2015, Spanò et al. 2017) including by government organizations for their ecosystem management design (e.g., UNEP and the EU). The network diagram we developed (Fig. 3) translates hundreds of complex survey responses and technical hypotheses into a single, intuitive map of the system, making the connections and potential consequences of management actions transparent and addressing the challenge of visualizing these connections in complex river networks (Arthington et al. 2024).

Second, the use of FCM to support the framework adds a layer of semi-quantitative rigor to what is often a purely qualitative process. By calculating connection strengths and node centrality, we can move beyond simply listing important values to identifying which components are the most influential or the most sensitive to change (Bryan et al. 2010). This prioritization is essential for sustainable and effective planning with targeted objectives to effectively manage flows and flow variability because of its cascading effects throughout the entire social-ecological system (Bryan et al. 2010, Canto-Perello et al. 2017). Indeed, the use of surveys to capture the social-cultural-spiritual connection for environmental flows allowed us to move outside a purely science-driven space. Connecting survey responses to impacts of ecosystem changes can be challenging because of the intangible nature of many personal connections to the ecosystem (Botelho et al. 2017). Additionally, other factors such as a person’s location, the length of time they have lived there, their personal values, and the stakeholder or rightsholder group to which they belong may also affect how they perceive and connect to the ecosystem (Fagerholm et al. 2012, Darvill and Lindo 2015). We addressed these potential biases through our choice of objective keywords identified through our open and axial coding process and by ensuring that we included a range of possible keywords for each grouping. This included recognizing that each person’s perception of their connection to the river and its ecosystem is based on their lived experiences (Lamarque et al. 2011), their interests (Casado-Arzuaga et al. 2013), their level of scientific knowledge or expertise (Lamarque et al. 2011, Martín-López et al. 2012), and the extent to which they are familiar with the location (Fagerholm and Käyhkö 2009).

Finally, the framework also effectively highlights existing knowledge gaps and biases in the input data. The relatively weak connections to drivers like industry, forestry, and agriculture and to most of the response nodes do not imply these are unimportant. Rather, this reflects the specific focus of our data sources. It clearly identifies where future engagement or research is needed. This aligns with the principles of adaptive management, which call for iteratively improving understanding within complex systems (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013). Further, these pathways continue to be verified by finding evidence to support the mechanism and predicted response, either through review of experimental tests of the concepts in other systems or through the development of studies within the Wolastoq to test these mechanistic pathways. For example, Wegscheider et al. (2023) characterized benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in different flow habitats in the mainstem Wolastoq, identified indicator species for fast and slow flows, and modeled the predicted shifts in the distribution of indicator species under different scenarios of hydropower-related flow alteration as a test of flow-ecology hypotheses relating high and low water conditions to changes in benthic assemblages. This allows the framework to be an adaptive tool that can be strengthened over time as new knowledge becomes available.

River management implications

A central challenge in implementing environmental flows is balancing competing objectives (Wineland et al. 2022). For example, our proposed hydrograph highlighted the importance of maintaining freshet flows during the spring, which provide environmental cues (e.g., for migration), help move sediment for habitat maintenance, and increase connectivity to vital floodplain and riparian habitats. However, these ecological needs must be balanced with social concerns over the economic and personal impacts of flooding. Furthermore, management guidelines must recognize natural flow stochasticity and incorporate the challenges of non-stationarity where flow-ecology relationships change over time (Arthington et al. 2018b). One of the challenges is the cross-jurisdictional nature of extreme events (e.g., flooding, extreme low flows) and the need for collaborative management action involving multiple parties to protect social-cultural-spiritual interests and ecological condition (McGlynn et al. 2023, 2024). The long-term consultation and relationship building with Indigenous governments and communities is a critical component for any future planning and decision making (Finn and Jackson 2011, Wong et al. 2020, Bergbusch et al. 2025b). The pathway to move forward in this process for the Wolastoq will involve increased capacity development and engagement with all stakeholders and rightsholders in addition to continued public education in this space around how our ecosystems work and how we can work with them. Effectively managing these trade-offs requires a framework that makes these connections explicit.

The integrated DPSIR framework developed for the Wolastoq provides a clear roadmap for implementing a more holistic environmental flows strategy. The framework supports a collection of flow-ecology hypotheses that connect ecosystem components to different aspects of the flow regime (Poff et al. 2010, Poff and Zimmerman 2010). Crucially, incorporating the social-cultural-spiritual components introduced new perspectives and endpoints not captured by the flow-ecology hypotheses alone, underscoring the importance of this integrated view. The resulting hydrograph of flow needs (Fig. 5) translates this complex network into an actionable management tool. It moves beyond traditional, species-centric targets to a seasonally explicit portfolio of social-ecological objectives, ensuring that flow conditions support core ecosystem functions like migration (Widén et al. 2022) while also supporting human needs for recreation and aesthetic quality. For example, management decisions about summer flows must now balance the needs of aquatic biota with the requirements for safe recreational access and the maintenance of aesthetic quality, as these are shown to be directly linked.

A critical implication of this work is the demonstrated connection between river health and community well-being. Our findings provide managers and policy makers with tangible evidence to justify investments in ecosystem restoration. As shown by the survey results, improving habitat is not an abstract ecological goal; it is a direct pathway to enhancing biodiversity that, in turn, supports recreational fishing, cultural practices, and the community’s sense of peace and tranquility (Basak et al. 2021). This approach captures how social-cultural-spiritual connections can be related to environmental processes and management objectives (Martin et al. 2014). This integrated framework provides a robust foundation for adaptive management. By explicitly stating flow-ecology-social hypotheses, there is a clear pathway to adjust actions as these hypotheses are tested and as society’s needs evolve (Conallin et al. 2018). Where such an integrated approach has been employed, stakeholder engagement and co-development have been key to success (Conallin et al. 2018). By combining expert knowledge with public values in a structured framework, river managers can build a more socially defensible foundation for decision making for more inclusive and integrated water management (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013, Arthington et al. 2018b).

Although our approach provides a transferable methodology, the global implementation of holistic environmental flows remains slow, often hampered by limited resources, poor communication, and a lack of collaboration across political jurisdictions (Arthington et al. 2024). By combining expert knowledge with public values in a structured and transparent framework, river managers can build a more robust and socially defensible foundation for decision making. This work answers the call for more inclusive and integrated water management (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013, Arthington et al. 2018a) by providing a practical method to ensure that the full spectrum of benefits that rivers provide to people is at the heart of environmental flow science and policy. Moving forward on the Wolastoq requires addressing several key challenges. These include managing cross-jurisdictional events across provincial and international borders and, most critically, engaging in long-term consultation and relationship-building with Indigenous governments and communities (Finn and Jackson 2011, Wong et al. 2020). Furthermore, our survey revealed public misunderstandings about flow management. Future success will depend on increased capacity development, continued public education, and ensuring that the best available science from all knowledge systems informs inclusive decision making (Wong et al. 2020, Arthington et al. 2024).

CONCLUSIONS

With growing recognition of the significance of environmental flows as a key instrument for sustainable water management, we successfully demonstrated that a DPSIR framework quantified with FCM can effectively bridge the long-standing gap between technical environmental data and the intangible, yet critical, social-cultural-spiritual values associated with river ecosystems. By integrating expert ecological knowledge with public perspectives on the Wolastoq, we created a holistic model that not only visualizes the system’s complexity but also semi-quantitatively prioritizes its key components. This directly reflects some of the enabling factors identified by Arthington et al. (2024), for example, ecological and social-economic monitoring, evaluation of trade-offs with other water users.

Our central finding is the profound interconnectedness of the social-ecological system, strengthened by the emergence of flow variability and peace + tranquility as the network’s most influential nodes. This mechanistically links river regulation decisions directly to community well-being, providing tangible evidence that investments in ecosystem health are simultaneously investments in the mental, spiritual, and cultural health of the public. This work provides a transferable and structured methodology that answers the call for more inclusive water management. It moves beyond qualitative descriptions of human values, offering a repeatable approach to visualize trade-offs, prioritize management actions, and facilitate communication among scientists, managers, stakeholders, and rightsholders.

Given the general transition toward inclusive flow management, our results emphasize the strength of holistic environmental flows approaches. Management options focused solely on maintaining flows without making connections to the wider social-cultural-spiritual ecosystem are missing a critical part of the decision-making process (Anderson et al. 2019). Breaking down traditional discipline boundaries to understand these connections is critical. Although our framework provides a robust roadmap, its true potential lies in its application within an adaptive management cycle. The identified knowledge gaps, particularly concerning industrial drivers and management responses, point to the need for targeted future research and engagement. The successful implementation of these findings on the Wolastoq and elsewhere will depend on sustained, meaningful consultation with all parties, especially Indigenous communities, and a commitment to public education to address the misunderstandings our survey revealed. By making the connections between rivers and people visible and actionable, this approach ensures that we can strengthen the relationship between healthy ecosystems and thriving communities.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, D., H. Moggridge, P. Warren, and J. Shucksmith. 2015. The impacts of ‘run-of-river’ hydropower on the physical and ecological condition of rivers. Water and Environment Journal 29:268-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12101

Anderson, E. P., S. Jackson, R. E. Tharme, M. Douglas, J. E. Flotemersch, M. Zwarteveen, C. Lokgariwar, M. Montoya, A. Wali, G. T. Tipa, T. D. Jardine, J. D. Olden, L. Cheng, J. Conallin, B. Cosens, C. Dickens, D. Garrick, D. Groenfeldt, J. Kabogo, D. J. Roux, A. Ruhi, and A. H. Arthington. 2019. Understanding rivers and their social relations: a critical step to advance environmental water management. WIREs Water 6:e1381. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1381

Andersson, N., and H. Silver. 2019. Fuzzy cognitive mapping: an old tool with new uses in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 75:3823-3830. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14192

Arthington, A. H., A. Bhaduri, S. E. Bunn, S. E. Jackson, R. E. Tharme, D. Tickner, B. Young, M. Acreman, N. Baker, S. Capon, A. C. Horne, E. Kendy, M. E. McClain, N. L. Poff, B. D. Richter, and S. Ward. 2018a. The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018). Frontiers in Environmental Science 6:45. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00045

Arthington, A. H., J. G. Kennen, E. D. Stein, and J. A. Webb. 2018b. Recent advances in environmental flows science and water management—innovation in the Anthropocene. Freshwater Biology 63:1022-1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13108

Arthington, A. H., D. Tickner, M. E. McClain, M. C. Acreman, E. P. Anderson, S. Babu, C. W. S. Dickens, A. C. Horne, N. Kaushal, W. A. Monk, G. C. O'Brien, J. D. Olden, J. J. Opperman, A. G. Owusu, N. LeRoy Poff, B. D. Richter, S. A. Salinas-Rodríguez, B. Shamboko Mbale, R. E. Tharme, and S. M. Yarnell. 2024. Accelerating environmental flow implementation to bend the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss. Environmental Reviews 32(3):387-413. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2022-0126

Baird, D. J., P. J. Van den Brink, A. A. Chariton, K. A. Dafforn, and E. L. Johnston. 2016. New diagnostics for multiply stressed marine and freshwater ecosystems: integrating models, ecoinformatics and big data. Marine and Freshwater Research 67:391-392. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF15330

Balzan, M. V., A. M. Pinheiro, A. Mascarenhas, A. Morán-Ordóñez, A. Ruiz-Frau, C. Carvalho-Santos, I. N. Vogiatzakis, J. Arends, J. Santana-Garcon, J. V. Roces-Díaz, L. Brotons, C. S. Campagne, P. K. Roche, S. de Miguel, S. Targetti, E. G. Drakou, V. Vlami, F. Baró, and I. R. Geijzendorffer. 2019. Improving ecosystem assessments in Mediterranean social-ecological systems: a DPSIR analysis. Ecosystems and People 15:136-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1598499

Basak, S. M., M. S. Hossain, J. Tusznio, and M. Grodzińska-Jurczak. 2021. Social benefits of river restoration from ecosystem services perspective: a systematic review. Environmental Science & Policy 124:90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.06.005

Bergbusch, N. T., M. Lo, A. St-Hilaire, R. B. Gibson, T. D. Jardine, K. Leonard, and S. C. Courtenay. 2025b. Centring water in impact assessment: reconsidering environmental and cultural flows in development decision-making in Canada. Environmental Management 75:2010-2030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02194-2

Bergbusch, N. T., M. D. Saunders, K. Leonard, A. St-Hilaire, R. B. Gibson, T. D. Jardine, and S. C. Courtenay. 2025a. A systematic scoping review of the collaborative governance of environmental and cultural flows. Environmental Reviews 33:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2024-0015

Botelho, A., P. Ferreira, F. Lima, L. M. C. Pinto, and S. Sousa. 2017. Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with hydropower. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70:896-904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.271

Bryan, B. A., C. M. Raymond, N. D. Crossman, and D. H. Macdonald. 2010. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how? Landscape and Urban Planning 97:111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.002

Canto-Perello, J., J. Martinez-Leon, J. Curiel-Esparza, and M. Martin-Utrillas. 2017. Consensus in prioritizing river rehabilitation projects through the integration of social, economic and landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 72:659-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.004

Casado-Arzuaga, I., I. Madariaga, and M. Onaindia. 2013. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. Journal of Environmental Management 129:33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059

Conallin, J., J. Campbell, and L. Baumgartner. 2018. Using strategic adaptive management to facilitate implementation of environmental flow programs in complex social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 62:955-967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1091-9

Curry, R. A., G. Yamazaki, T. Linnansaari, W. Monk, K. M. Samways, R. Dolson, K. R. Munkittrick, and A. Bielecki. 2020. Large dam renewals and removals—Part 1: building a science framework to support a decision‐making process. River Research and Applications 36:1460-1471. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3680

Darvill, R. and Z. Lindo. 2015. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosystem Services 13:153-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.004

Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, K. M. A. Chan, I. A. Baste, K. A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Larigauderie, P. W. Leadley, A. P. E. van Oudenhoven, F. van der Plaat, M. Schröter, S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G. Erpul, P. Failler, C. A. Guerra, C. L. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359:270-272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826

Doiron Koller, K., D. Beaver, and S. Perley-Dutcher. 2023. Reclaiming Wolastoqeyik land-based pedagogy in Waponahkik: the intersection of rights, relationship, and reconciliation. Pages 206-217 in M. Kress and K. Horn-Miller, editors. Land as relation: teaching and learning through place, people, and practices. Canadian Scholars, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z.-I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Lévêque, R. J. Naiman, A.-H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. Stiassny, and C. A. Sullivan. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81:163-182. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793105006950

Dunham, J. B., P. L. Angermeier, S. D. Crausbay, A. E. Cravens, H. Gosnell, J. McEvoy, M. A. Moritz, N. Raheem, and T. Sanford. 2018. Rivers are social-ecological systems: time to integrate human dimensions into riverscape ecology and management. WIREs Water 5:e1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1291

Fagerholm, N., and N. Käyhkö. 2009. Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia-International Journal of Geography 187:43-60.

Fagerholm, N., N. Käyhkö, F. Ndumbaro, and M. Khamis. 2012. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments-mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators 18:421-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004

Ferraro, K. M., A. L. Ferraro, E. Lundgren, and N. R. Sommer. 2025. The use and abuse of ecosystem service concepts and terms. Biological Conservation 308:111218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111218

Finn, M., and S. Jackson. 2011. Protecting Indigenous values in water management: a challenge to conventional environmental flow assessments. Ecosystems 14:1232-1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9476-0

Flecker, A. S., Q. Shi, R. M. Almeida, H. Angarita, J. M. Gomes-Selman, R. García-Villacorta, S. A. Sethi, S. A. Thomas, N. L. Poff, B. R. Forsberg, S. A. Heilpern, S. K. Hamilton, J. D. Abad, E. P. Anderson, N. Barros, I. C. Bernal, R. Bernstein, C. M. Cañas, O. Dangles, A. C. Encalada, A. S. Fleischmann, M. Goulding, J. Higgins, C. Jézéquel, E. I. Larson, P. B. McIntyre, J. M. Melack, M. Montoya, T. Oberdorff, R. Paiva, G. Perez, B. H. Rappazzo, S. Steinschneider, S. Torres, M. Varese, M. T. Walter, X. Wu, Y. Xue, X. E. Zapata-Ríos, and C. P. Gomes. 2022. Reducing adverse impacts of Amazon hydropower expansion. Science 375:753-760. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj4017

Forslund, A., B. M. Renöfält, S. Barchiesi, K. Cross, S. Davidson, T. Farrell, L. Korsgaard, K. Krchnak, M. McClain, K. Meijer, and M. Smith. 2009. Securing water for ecosystems and human well-being: the importance of environmental flows. Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Gracey, E. O., and F. Verones. 2016. Impacts from hydropower production on biodiversity in an LCA framework—review and recommendations. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21:412-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1039-3

Gray, S. A., S. Gray, J. L. De Kok, A. E. R. Helfgott, B. O'Dwyer, R. Jordan, and A. Nyaki. 2015. Using fuzzy cognitive mapping as a participatory approach to analyze change, preferred states, and perceived resilience of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 20(2):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07396-200211

Grill, G., B. Lehner, A. E. Lumsdon, G. K. MacDonald, C. Zarfl, and C. Reidy Liermann. 2015. An index-based framework for assessing patterns and trends in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales. Environmental Research Letters 10:015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/015001

Hecht, J. S., G. Lacombe, M. E. Arias, T. D. Dang, and T. Piman. 2019. Hydropower dams of the Mekong River basin: a review of their hydrological impacts. Journal of Hydrology 568:285-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.045

Hernández-Blanco, M., R. Costanza, H. Chen, D. deGroot, D. Jarvis, I. Kubiszewski, J. Montoya, K. Sangha, N. Stoeckl, K. Turner, and V. van ‘t Hoff. 2022. Ecosystem health, ecosystem services, and the well-being of humans and the rest of nature. Global Change Biology 28:5027-5040. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16281

Jackson, S., C. Pollino, K. Maclean, R. Bark, and B. Moggridge. 2015. Meeting Indigenous peoples’ objectives in environmental flow assessments: case studies from an Australian multi-jurisdictional water sharing initiative. Journal of Hydrology 522:141-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.12.047

Jetter, A. J., and K. Kok. 2014. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for futures studies - a methodological assessment of concepts and methods. Futures 61:45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.05.002

Katz-Gerro, T., and D. E. Orenstein. 2015. Environmental tastes, opinions and behaviors: social sciences in the service of cultural ecosystem service assessment. Ecology and Society 20(3):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07545-200328

Kidd, S. D., R. A. Curry, and K. R. Munkittrick, editors. 2011. The Saint John River: a state of the environment report. Canadian Rivers Institute, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Lamarque, P., U. Tappeiner, C. Turner, M. Steinbacher, R. D. Bardgett, U. Szukics, M. Schermer, and S. Lavorel. 2011. Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Regional Environmental Change 11:791-804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0214-0

Lumivero. 2023. NVivo (Version 14). https://lumivero.com/

Marselle, M. R., T. Hartig, D. T. C. Cox, S. de Bell, S. Knapp, S. Lindley, M. Triguero-Mas, K. Böhning-Gaese, M. Braubach, P. A. Cook, S. de Vries, A. Heintz-Buschart, M. Hofmann, K. N. Irvine, N. Kabisch, F. Kolek, R. Kraemer, I. Markevych, D. Martens, R. Müller, M. Nieuwenhuijsen, J. M. Potts, J. Stadler, S. Walton, S. L. Warber, and A. Bonn. 2021. Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: a conceptual framework. Environment International 150:106420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106420

Martin, D. M., D. Harrison-Atlas, N. A. Sutfin, and N. L. Poff. 2014. A social-ecological framework to integrate multiple objectives for environmental flows management. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 153:49-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2014.03179.x

Martín-López, B., I. Iniesta-Arandia, M. García-Llorente, I. Palomo, I. Casado-Arzuaga, D. G. D. Amo, E. Gómez-Baggethun, E. Oteros-Rozas, I. Palacios-Agundez, B. Willaarts, J. A. González, F. Santos-Martín, M. Onaindia, C. López-Santiago, and C. Montes. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7:e38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970

Matthews, J., A. Forslund, M. McClain, and R. Tharme. 2014. More than the fish: environmental flows for good policy and governance, poverty alleviation and climate adaptation. Aquatic Procedia 2:16-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2014.07.004

McGlynn, B., R. Plummer, J. Baird, and A. M. Guerrero. 2024. Investigating the risky dilemma of regional flood planning: the case of the Wolastoq | Saint John River Basin, Canada. Environmental Science & Policy 158:103795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103795

McGlynn, B., R. Plummer, A. M. Guerrero, and J. Baird. 2023. Assessing social-ecological fit of flood planning governance. Ecology and Society 28(1):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13842-280123

McManamay, R. A., S. K. Brewer, H. I. Jager, and M. J. Troia. 2016. Organizing environmental flow frameworks to meet hydropower mitigation needs. Environmental Management 58:365-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0726-y

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Monk, W. A., Z. G. Compson, D. G. Armanini, A. Idígoras Chaumel. 2017. Mactaquac Aquatic Ecosystem Study Report Series 2017-035, Proposed holistic environmental flows framework for the Saint John River with a focus on operations at the Mactaquac Generating Station. Canadian Rivers Institute, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Nassl, M., and J. Löffler. 2015. Ecosystem services in coupled social-ecological systems: closing the cycle of service provision and societal feedback. Ambio 44:737-749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0651-y

Özesmi, U., and S. L. Özesmi. 2004. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling 176:43-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027

Pahl-Wostl, C., A. Arthington, J. Bogardi, S. E. Bunn, H. Hoff, L. Lebel, E. Nikitina, M. Palmer, L. N. Poff, K. Richards, M. Schlüter, R. Schulze, A. St-Hilaire, R. Tharme, K. Tockner, and D. Tsegai. 2013. Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5:341-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009

Parker, H., and N. Oates. 2016. How do healthy rivers benefit society? ODI Working Paper 430. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Perry, D., S. Praskievicz, R. McManamay, A. Saxena, K. Grimm, N. Zegre, L. Bair, B. L. Ruddell, and R. Rushforth. 2024. Resilient riverine social-ecological systems: a new paradigm to meet global conservation targets. WIREs Water 11:e1753. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1753

Perujo, N., P. J. Van den Brink, H. Segner, C. Mantyka-Pringle, S. Sabater, S. Birk, A. Bruder, F. Romero, and V. Acuña. 2021. A guideline to frame stressor effects in freshwater ecosystems. Science of The Total Environment 777:146112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146112

Poff, N. L. 2018. Beyond the natural flow regime? Broadening the hydro-ecological foundation to meet environmental flows challenges in a non-stationary world. Freshwater Biology 63:1011-1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13038

Poff, N. L., and J. H. Matthews. 2013. Environmental flows in the Anthropocene: past progress and future prospects. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5:667-675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.006

Poff, N. L., B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, S. E. Bunn, R. J. Naiman, E. Kendy, M. Acreman, C. Apse, B. P. Bledsoe, M. C. Freeman, J. Henriksen, R. B. Jacobson, J. G. Kennen, D. M. Merritt, J. H. O’Keeffe, J. D. Olden, K. Rogers, R. E. Tharme, and A. Warner. 2010. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology 55:147-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02204.x

Poff, N. L., and J. K. Zimmerman. 2010. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology 55:194-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x

R Development Core Team. 2025. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Reid, A. J., A. K. Carlson, I. F. Creed, E. J. Eliason, P. A. Gell, P. T. J. Johnson, K. A. Kidd, T. J. MacCormack, J. D. Olden, S. J. Ormerod, J. P. Smol, W. W. Taylor, K. Tockner, J. C. Vermaire, D. Dudgeon, and S. J. Cooke. 2019. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biological Reviews 94:849-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480

Rova, S., and F. Pranovi. 2017. Analysis and management of multiple ecosystem services within a social-ecological context. Ecological Indicators 72:436-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.050

Sabater, S., A. Elosegi, and R. Ludwig. 2019. Chapter 1 - Defining multiple stressor implications. Pages 1-22 in S. Sabater, A. Elosegi, and R. Ludwig, editors. Multiple stressors in river ecosystems: status, impacts and prospects for the future. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811713-2.00001-7

Silge, J., and D. Robinson. 2016. tidytext: Text mining and analysis using tidy data principles in R. Journal of Open Source Software 1(3):37. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00037

Smeets, E., and R. Weterings. 1999. Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Report No. 25. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen Denmark.

Spangenberg, J. H., J. Martinez-Alier, I. Omann, I. Monterroso, and R. Binimelis. 2009. The DPSIR scheme for analysing biodiversity loss and developing preservation strategies. Ecological Economics 69:9-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.024

Spanò, M., F. Gentile, C. Davies, and R. Lafortezza. 2017. The DPSIR framework in support of green infrastructure planning: a case study in Southern Italy. Land Use Policy 61:242-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.051

Turney, S., and M. Bachhofer. 2016. FCMapper: Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=FCMapper

Wegscheider, B., W. A. Monk, J. Lento, K. Haralampides, M. Ndong, T. Linnansaari, and R. Allen Curry. 2023. Developing environmental flow targets for benthic macroinvertebrates in large rivers using hydraulic habitat associations and taxa thresholds. Ecological Indicators 146:109821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109821

Widén, Å., B. Malm Renöfält, E. Degerman, D. Wisaeus, and R. Jansson. 2022. Environmental flow scenarios for a regulated river system: projecting catchment-wide ecosystem benefits and consequences for hydroelectric production. Water Resources Research 58:e2021WR030297. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030297

Wiken, E., F. Jiménez Nava, and G. Griffith. 2011. North American terrestrial ecoregions—Level III. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Wineland, S. M., H. Bașağaoğlu, J. Fleming, J. Friedman, L. Garza-Diaz, W. Kellogg, J. Koch, B. A. Lane, A. Mirchi, L. F. Nava, T. M. Neeson, J. P. Ortiz-Partida, S. Paladino, S. Plassin, G. Gomez-Quiroga, R. Saiz-Rodriguez, S. Sandoval-Solis, K. Wagner, N. Weber, J. Winterle, and A. M. Wootten. 2022. The environmental flows implementation challenge: insights and recommendations across water-limited systems. WIREs Water 9:e1565. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1565

Wong, C., K. Ballegooyen, L. Ignace, M. J. Johnson, and H. Swanson. 2020. Towards reconciliation: 10 calls to action to natural scientists working in Canada. Facets 5:769-783. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0005

Xue, H., S. Li, and J. Chang. 2015. Combining ecosystem service relationships and DPSIR framework to manage multiple ecosystem services. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187:117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4303-2

Yee, S. H., P. Bradley, W. S. Fisher, S. D. Perreault, J. Quackenboss, E. D. Johnson, J. Bousquin, and P. A. Murphy. 2012. Integrating human health and environmental health into the DPSIR framework: a tool to identify research opportunities for sustainable and healthy communities. EcoHealth 9:411-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-012-0805-3