Ecol Res (2011) 26: 865–873
DOI 10.1007/s11284-010-0693-3
SPECIAL FEATURE
Robert J. Naiman • David Dudgeon
Global alteration of freshwaters: influences on human
and environmental well-being
Received: 6 February 2009 / Accepted: 26 December 2009 / Published online: 27 February 2010
 The Ecological Society of Japan 2010
Abstract Human and environmental well-
being—including disease resistance or avoidance, good
nutrition, and species-appropriate population dynam-
ics—are congruent with sustained healthy conditions.
Unfortunately, hydrological alterations designed to
benefit human societies often have unintended—and
sometimes severe—consequences for the environment
and the biodiversity it supports, and hence affecting
billions of people. Improving this situation necessitates
new water-resource developments, better water-use effi-
ciency, and a reduction of contamination. Overall, the
influences of existing and future freshwater (FW) re-
gimes on human and environmental well-being are var-
ied and wide-ranging. Furthermore, the scale is
daunting: >1 billion people currently live in basins
likely to require river management interventions for
climate change alone. Global declines in FW biodiver-
sity, in the nutritional value, and abundance of har-
vestable FW and riparian products, as well as
deterioration in habitat quality for many species, require
solutions; as do ongoing increases in the spread of FW-
related diseases and non-native species. Modifications to
FWs are now manifested in population declines and
non-sustainable demographics for many aquatic species,
as well as in deterioration of human health. In response,
scientists, policy-makers, and water users are beginning
to conceptualize FWs in terms of a global water system
(GWS) to better understand and manage anthropogenic
R. J. Naiman (&)
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,
University of Washington,
Box 355020, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
E-mail: naiman@uw.edu
Tel.: +1-206-6852025
Fax: +1-206-6857471
D. Dudgeon
Division of Ecology and Biodiversity,
School of Biological Sciences,
The University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong SAR, China
Environmental change, pathogens and human linkages
impacts. This involves identifying the ecological and
policy implications of changes to the GWS, establishing
international programs to understand and resolve major
social and environmental issues arising from those
changes, and developing broad-based mitigation or
restoration techniques (e.g., environmental flow meth-
odologies). Achieving these goals is paramount for
maintaining human health as well as for the FW eco-
systems upon which we depend.
Keywords Freshwater regimes Æ Environmental flow
allocations Æ Biodiversity conservation Æ Human
health Æ Ecological sustainability
Anybody who can solve the problems of water will be
worthy of two Nobel Prizes—one for peace and one for
science.
John F Kennedy
Introduction
Fresh water is a strategic resource for humans as well as
for nature. It is a source of energy, an avenue for
transportation, habitat for organisms, and absolutely
essential for life (Naiman et al. 1995a, 1995b). As we
enter the Anthropocene—a human-dominated, geologi-
cal epoch (Zalasiewicz 2008)—the fresh water (FW)
portion of the earth’s hydrological system is undergoing
profound alterations (Vörösmarty et al. 2004; Alcamo
et al. 2008; Palmer et al. 2008). Water resource devel-
opments have substantially changed freshwater flow and
inundation regimes, and are fundamentally altering the
life histories—thereby threatening the long-term sur-
vival—of thousands of species, including humans
(Dudgeon et al. 2006). Changes in the distribution,
abundance, and quality of fresh water represent a stra-
tegic threat to the vitality of human life as well as to the
866
environmental sustainability of the biosphere. These
changes are manifest in human and environmental well-
being. We consider human and environmental well-
being to be congruent with sustained disease resistance
(or avoidance), good nutrition, and persistence of spe-
cies-appropriate population dynamics.
It is well recognized that fresh water is essential for life
while the organisms contained therein constitute valu-
able natural resources in economic, cultural, aesthetic,
scientific and educational terms. The conservation and
management of fresh waters and their biodiversity are
critical to the interests of all humans, nations, and gov-
ernments. Yet this precious heritage is rapidly dimin-
ishing. Quality fresh waters are increasingly scarce
throughout most of the world, and FW environments are
experiencing declines in biodiversity far greater than
those in the most impacted terrestrial and marine eco-
systems (Loh et al. 2005; MEA (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment) 2005). If trends in human demands for wa-
ter remain unaltered, and if species losses continue at
current rates, the opportunity to maintain much of the
remaining biodiversity will soon vanish. The human
crisis associated with pollution and declining water
quality is already severe, with perhaps 40% of the earth’s
population lacking clean water or adequate sanitation
(Postel and Richter 2003; WHO/UNICEF 2008).
The ethical imperative to improve this situation will
involve new water-resource developments, plus initia-
tives to use water more efficiently and to reduce burdens
from pollution. However, environmental gains from
pollution amelioration may be offset by increased water
use, which can limit the allocation of water to sustain
ecosystem functions and biodiversity (Naiman et al.
2002). Nevertheless, there is some evidence that
improving human welfare does not have to mean less
water for nature, as there is no relationship between per-
capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and per-capita
water withdrawals, including wastage (Gleick 2003).
Further, there are now quantitative methods available
for allocating water among users, including the envi-
ronment (e.g., Arthington et al. 2006, 2010). Future
water allocations, if done efficiently, could ensure that
absolute amounts of water consumed grow at a slower
rate than the number of people benefiting from that
allocation. This will aid in meeting the reasonable needs
of human populations while providing adequate water
for nature. Efficient provision of water will require
investment in water infrastructure, especially in the
agricultural sector where most water is withdrawn and
potential wastage is high (Postel 1999).
This article provides an overview of changes taking
place in the global freshwater system; explores linkages
between altered flow regimes, biodiversity and human
diseases/well-being; and describes some positive devel-
opments in international initiatives. We believe that
understanding the ability of freshwater systems to re-
spond to anthropogenic pressures, and the limitations in
adapting to such changes, are vital to long-term societal
stability (Poff et al. 2003). This thesis is fully expressed
by linkages between FW resources and human and
environmental well-being.
Changes to the earth’s freshwater resources
The global volume of FW is diminutive by oceanic
standards, representing a small fraction of the planet’s
hydrosphere (<3% of total volume, much of it snow
and ice). Nonetheless, it is a vital component of the earth
system. Fresh water is intertwined with energy exchange,
atmospheric teleconnections, and feedbacks linking
major components of the climate system (Vörösmarty
et al. 2004; Oki and Kanae 2006). Water movement
constitutes the largest flow of any material through the
biosphere, and serves as the primary vehicle for physi-
cally shaping the continents. The importance of FW,
which regulates productivity and supports ecosystems
and biodiversity, is evident everywhere on the earth.
Fresh water is equally critical to human society. It
underpins global food production by providing the
fundamental resource upon which irrigation, livestock
production, fisheries, and aquaculture depend (Postel
2005; Sala et al. 2008). Domestic, industrial, hydro-
power, and recreational water use is crucial to a growing
world population that aspires to long-term improve-
ments in well-being. Providing basic sanitation and clean
drinking water remain major public health chal-
lenges—and the extent is considerable. More than 1
billion people are without access to clean drinking water,
2.5 billion are without adequate sanitation, and over
5,000 people—mostly children—die each day from wa-
ter-related diarrheal diseases (World Water Assessment
Programme 2003, WHO (World Health Organization)
2004; WHO/UNICEF 2008). The matter is complicated
by more than 1 billion people living in areas likely to
require management interventions from climate change
(Palmer et al. 2008), with further complexities arising
from projections suggesting that current water-man-
agement practices no longer will be appropriate for the
more unpredictable flow regimes of a warmer world
(Milly et al. 2008).
Water is a naturally circulating resource that is con-
stantly recharged but unevenly distributed in space and
time. A key manifestation of this variability is that global
water storage capacity continues to be substantially in-
creased in an attempt to control supplies and extreme
events, thereby fragmenting the connectivity so funda-
mental to the ecological integrity of rivers (Nilsson et al.
2005). The instantaneous amount of water in the world’s
rivers is only 2,000 km3, much less than the 3,800 km3
annual withdrawal. Even though this is <10% of the
45,500 km3/year of ‘available’ water flowing from conti-
nents to the sea, properties of the withdrawn water, such
as purity, heat content, and potential gravitational en-
ergy, are profoundly changed (Oki and Kanae 2006). The
major alteration to freshwater resources is from storage
and its consequences on natural flow regimes. Biotic
characteristics, especially life-history strategies and

food-web structure shaped by evolution and ecosystem-
scale processes, are deeply affected by flow alteration
(Poff et al. 2009), including storage and evaporation.
Currently, 7,200 km3 of surface flow are stored in mil-
lions of reservoirs, man-made lakes and ponds. Evapo-
ration from these storage units (240 km3), from water
application to crop and grazing lands (7,600 and
14,400 km3/year, respectively) and from the virtual water
trade in crops (1,000 km3/year; Oki and Kanae 2006),
collectively impact all aspects of the global water system
(GWS) (Vörösmarty et al. 2004).
What mechanisms drive alteration to FW resources?
The number of mechanisms and their rate of change are
daunting (Naiman and Turner 2000; MEA (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment) 2005). A sound understanding
of regional and global-scale consequences of these
mechanisms is required for sustaining the environment
and human societies. Consider, for example, this
abbreviated (but not prioritized) list of fundamental,
and strongly interacting, influences on FW systems:
• International water governance
• Land-cover changes
• Climate change
• Water diversions for agriculture and energy
• Nutrient and sediment transport
• Historic legacies of human and natural interactions
• Water needs for sustaining ecosystems
Addressing any one of these topics represents a grand
challenge for science and policy, especially the complex
interactions between them. Consider the single topic of
water diversions as an example of the complexity. The
Fig. 1 The main components of the highly interactive global water system [from Global Water System Project (GWSP) 2005]
867
global alteration of surface and ground water through
impoundments, irrigation projects, and other large
diversion projects regulated by antiquated governance
systems has led to fragmentation of river systems,
alteration of flow regimes, changed water budgets,
declining biodiversity, the loss of traditional goods and
services (e.g., riparian zones and fisheries), and has re-
sulted in major issues for human health (McMichael
et al. 1999; Postel and Richter 2003). At the same time,
development of rivers has provided electricity, flood
protection, irrigation water for food, economic well-
being, and other goods and services. Looking into a
future where the human population could exceed 9 bil-
lion people, and even scarcer and hence more valuable
water, how will the needs of the environment be bal-
anced with those of human societies?
In the context of water’s many roles in the earth
system, the concept of a GWS provides a useful orga-
nizing framework (Fig. 1). It is a way of envisaging the
extent of the human alteration of the hydrosphere at an
appropriate scale (Vörösmarty et al. 2004). The GWS
has three major interacting components: (1) water in all
its forms, as part of the physical hydrologic cycle; (2)
biological systems, as integral transformers of water and
constituent fluxes that determine biogeochemical cycling
and water quality; and (3) human beings and their
institutions, as agents of environmental change, and as
entities that experience and respond to ongoing trans-
formations of the GWS. Assessing these components
and their interactions is a fundamental challenge con-
fronting environmental scientists and those concerned
with human health and welfare (Alcamo et al. 2008).
Unfortunately, water-resource managers and human
societies behave naively. They often act as though they
868
have an unlimited capability to alter water resources and
surrounding landscapes without degrading the ability of
those resources to meet human and environmental needs
(Bernhardt et al. 2006). This is obviously not the case, as
the former is usually traded off against the latter. Fur-
thermore, societies often act on the erroneous assump-
tion that increasingly complex technology can continue
to replace lost environmental functions. Throughout the
last century, options for sustainable water-resource
management have been constrained by three pervasive
myths: (1) societal and environmental water demands
always compete with one another; (2) technological
solutions can solve all water resource-management
problems; and (3) environmental solutions to protect
and maintain freshwater resources are more expensive
and less dependable than technological solutions
(Bernhardt et al. 2006). Management actions based on
these myths have substantially contributed to the
alarming worldwide degradation of freshwater re-
sources, a reflection of both the acceleration of human-
caused environmental change and the sensitivity of FW
systems to change.
One of the most sobering facts about the state of FWs
is from the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) 2005).
From 1970 to 2000—a mere 30 years, the FW index of
population integrity declined 55% while that of ter-
restrial systems and marine systems each declined 25%
(95% confidence limits for freshwater integrity: 37 to
68%; Loh et al. 2005). One must suspect that the ac-
tual value for FWs was considerably higher considering
the incompleteness of the global inventory of FW bio-
diversity (Balian et al. 2008). An earlier report on the
status of North American FW biodiversity suggested
that extinction rates of FW animals were five times those
of terrestrial species (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999).
Freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support
are especially vulnerable to human activities and envi-
ronmental change because they occur at topographic low
points on the landscape and because they harbor a dis-
proportionate richness of plants and animals (Dudgeon
et al. 2006). Over 10,000 fish species live in fresh water
(Lundberg et al. 2000); approximately 40% of global fish
diversity and one quarter of global vertebrate diversity.
When amphibians, aquatic reptiles (crocodiles, turtles)
and mammals (otters, river dolphins, platypus) are added
to this freshwater-fish total, then as much as one-third of
all vertebrate species are confined to fresh water. Yet
surface FW habitats contain only around 0.01% of the
world’s water and cover only about 0.8% of the earth’s
surface (Gleick 1996). How many described species live
in fresh water? It is 126,000 out of 1.32 million (Ba-
lian et al. 2008); almost 10% of the global total. An
estimated additional 50,000–100,000 species alone may
live in ground water (Gibert and Deharveng 2002).
Even though knowledge of the total diversity of FWs
is improving, large gaps remain (Balian et al. 2008). The
gaps are particularly noticeable among less emblematic
invertebrates and microbes, and especially in tropical
latitudes (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Balian et al. 2008). Even
vertebrates are incompletely known, including such well-
studied taxa as fishes. Between 1976 and 2000, >300
new fish species, approximately 1% of known fishes,
were formally described or resurrected from synonymy
each year (Stiassny 1999; Lundberg et al. 2000). It is
similar for amphibians with 35% of the global total of
6,391 species described during the last two decades
(AmphibiaWeb 2008). The numbers are even more
marked for FW invertebrate phyla, with tens of thou-
sands of species awaiting description (Balian et al. 2008).
Additionally, regional discovery rates of new FW species
vary widely. Recent investigations in the Mekong
drainage, for example, suggest that it may support as
many as 1,700 fish species (Sverdrup-Jensen 2002), more
than three times the total estimated earlier. Further-
more, because FW biodiversity hotspots (e.g., Mekong,
Congo, Amazon) generally receive less attention than
their terrestrial counterparts (Dudgeon et al. 2006), they
tend to be both under-appreciated and threatened by
human activities.
Adequate data on the diversity of most invertebrate
groups in FWs do not exist, but high levels of local
endemism and species richness seem typical of several
major groups, including decapod crustaceans, molluscs,
and aquatic insects such as caddisflies and mayflies
(Balian et al. 2008). An outstanding example is cichlid
diversity in African Rift Valley lakes where hundreds of
endemic species are found (e.g., Fryer and Iles 1972;
Thieme et al. 2005). Information on microbial biodi-
versity is fragmentary too, notwithstanding the crucial
role of microbes in driving the biogeochemical cycles of
the earth. Most prokaryote taxonomic diversity remains
unexplored (Torsvik et al. 2002; Curtis and Sloan 2004).
Recent genomic analyses (e.g., Zwart et al. 2003) suggest
that aquatic microbial biodiversity is considerably
higher than inferred from classical, non-molecular evi-
dence. Studies using a combination of approaches show
that numerous protists (ciliates) may have restricted
geographic distributions (Foissner et al. 2003), implying
they could be more speciose than currently supposed by
researchers. It is highly likely that the richness of mic-
roalgae and freshwater fungi has been equally underes-
timated (Johns and Maggs 1997; Gessner and Van
Ryckegem 2003).
Since the beginning of the Anthropocene in the latter
part of the 18th century, the loss of biodiversity has been
devastating; representing a call to action for freshwater-
related sciences and for conservation. Even though
information is woefully incomplete at regional to con-
tinental scales, it is clear that human-mediated changes
to FW biodiversity are substantial, the extent of these
changes varies spatially, taxonomically, and over time,
and the changes are highly complex, limiting accurate
forecasts of future conditions. Given existing changes, in
combination with water being the key medium though
which the consequences of global warming and climate
change will become evident, we conclude that FW eco-
systems may well be the most endangered ecosystems on

earth. As we shall explain, this notion has profound
implications for human health (MEA (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment) 2005; Dudgeon et al. 2006).
Linkages between altered flow regimes,
biodiversity and human diseases/well-being
The dominance of urbanism and individualism within
modern cultures has diminished the awareness of the
dependence of continued good health on the natural
world (McMichael et al. 1999; Chivian and Bernstein
2004). Flow alteration, intimately linked to the other
mechanisms driving biodiversity loss in fresh waters, has
direct impacts on many aspects of an organism’s life
history. This is because flow alteration also determines
the physical aquatic habitat via an influence on current
speed, discharge volume, disturbance, channel form, and
sediment transport and deposition (e.g., see Principle 1
of Bunn and Arthington 2002). More importantly, flow
alterations have resulted in a pandemic breakdown of
ecosystem integrity, thereby affecting the risk of
acquiring infectious diseases, directly or indirectly,
through their impact on the biodiversity of infectious
agents, reservoirs and vectors (Sala et al. 2008). The net
result is that human well-being—whether from disease
or a state of health—is increasingly compromised
(Balmford and Bond 2005). Reports on the earth’s cli-
mate give a strong sense of the great uncertainties and
seriousness related to the health impacts of climate
change (Martens and Moser 2001), and recent work
suggests that the effects of climate change on the vari-
ability of runoff will be even greater than formerly pre-
dicted (Allan and Soden 2008). This makes it difficult to
project the extent to which flows will be further altered
by such change and human responses to it, and the
consequential impacts on environment and health.
When and how water-borne diseases proliferate are just
beginning to be understood (e.g., LaDeau et al. 2007;
LaDeau 2010) but the impacts for human health and
welfare are potentially great.
Flow alterations significantly reduce FW biodiver-
sity, and thereby modify vector abundance and path-
ways of disease transmission by impacting habitat,
temperature and biotic interactions (Chivian 2002).
Effects on human health, to date, have been largely
focused on direct impacts, such as rising human disease
exposure due to increases in vector populations un-
checked by predation. While extremely important, such
direct effects represent only a fraction of unwanted
potential outcomes (Sala et al. 2008). There are more
subtle effects too, but few studies explicitly link biodi-
versity and biodiversity loss to human health, even in
terrestrial systems. Some of the general impacts of
impoverished biodiversity include decreased food pro-
duction and food security, the loss of resources for
indigenous medicine, diminished supplies of raw
materials for new pharmaceuticals and biotechnology,
869
and degraded water quality (Grifo and Rosenthal
1997). Four general types of ‘‘health functions’’ of
biodiversity can be distinguished (de Groot et al. 2000):
1. It underpins the provision of basic human needs (e.g.,
food, clean air, clean water and productive soils)
2. It prevents the spread of diseases through biological
control
3. It provides medical and genetic resources necessary to
prevent or cure diseases
4. It contributes to the maintenance of mental health by
providing opportunities for recreation, creative out-
lets, therapeutic retreats, and cognitive development.
All functions of FW biodiversity are compromised by
anthropogenic impacts, and impair human health and
well-being. For example, stabilized flow regimes facili-
tate the build-up of large populations of simuliids
(blackflies; de Moor 1994) and mosquitoes (Kirkman
et al. 2010), as well as the snail vectors of many trema-
tode parasites of humans and livestock (Brown 1994).
Blackflies are well known for the transmission of a
parasitic nematode causing river blindness, as well as a
number of other pathogenic organisms. Mosquitoes are
even better known as transmitters of microbial parasites
of many animals. The recent emergence of mosquito-
borne West Nile virus in North America has been
marked by the pathogen’s rapid dispersal, millions of
dead birds, and the largest human encephalitis outbreak
ever documented in the western hemisphere (LaDeau
et al. 2007). Likewise, the spread of viral dengue fever
and yellow fever by mosquitoes is related to small water
bodies isolated from their predators.
The example of schistosomiasis, a debilitating para-
sitic disease caused by trematodes of the genus Schisto-
soma, is informative in this regard. Its range now
includes 74 countries, ranking schistosomiasis second to
malaria as a cause of human morbidity by a parasitic
agent. The parasite alternates between human and snail
hosts, favoring pulmonate snails (e.g., Biomphalaria and
Bulinus) that proliferate in irrigation canals, reservoirs
and man-made water bodies. They are able to establish
high densities because flushing flows are artificially re-
duced and stabilized, and natural dry periods are elim-
inated by year-round provision of irrigation water
(Brown 1994), and modified flow regimes can change
substrate conditions and food availability so as to favor
snail hosts of schistosomes (Attwood 1995). Indeed, in-
creases in parasite burden are typical of residents in new
irrigation schemes associated with dams (e.g., Sri-
vardhana 1987). Irrigation combined with poor sanita-
tion provide ideal conditions for transmission of
schistosomes from snails to humans, and there is a
capacious literature on chemical and biological methods
for their control (e.g., Highton and Choudhury 1974;
Anim and Fenwick 1977; see also references in Brown
1994). Reservoirs and other impoundments are also
sources of parasitic infection both because they give rise
870
to conditions where snails can flourish, and because their
influence on human populations (through translocations
and/or immigration) that can potentially affect parasite
transmission and infection rates (e.g., Attwood 1995).
Concern has also been raised regarding the possible ef-
fects of long-distance water-transfer projects, such as
those intended to link the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers in
China, on the geographic distribution of snail hosts of
schistosomes (Stone 1983). Snail densities can build up
in irrigation channels or impoundments, in part because
aquatic predators of disease vectors are often the first to
be impacted by altered flow and inundation conditions,
and may be substantially reduced as biodiversity de-
clines in modified environments. For instance, the
reduction of snail-eating fishes, due to overfishing and
altered water quality, has led to an increase in schisto-
some infection in human populations along tropical lake
shores (e.g., Stauffer et al. 2006).
In summary, habitat degradation and simplification
of the natural flow regime, creation of ‘ruderal’ fresh-
water habitats such as canals, ditches, ponds, and res-
ervoirs, and simplification of natural species assemblages
allows mass proliferation of dipteran and snail vectors
for parasites and modification of bacterial and viral
communities, of which the latter are not well docu-
mented but are of increasing importance (Jones et al.
2008). Altered water regimes certainly impact trophic
and parasitic interactions within microbial and proto-
zoan populations, contributing to the spread and viru-
lence of bacteria and viruses in humans and in nature.
Environmental changes, including altered water regimes,
have been implicated in the recent mass mortalities of
carp (Cyprinus carpio) attributed to the koi herpes virus
(KHV) observed throughout the world (Kawabata et al.
2010). Collectively, there are deep and complex inter-
actions between water regimes and disease that have
existed for millennia. This implies that freshwater system
integrity, and the inherent natural biotic assemblages, if
allowed to degrade, will lead to conditions that foster
disease transmission. Increased disease or parasite bur-
dens will offset the manifest benefits of food and water
security, which can accrue from water-engineering pro-
jects. Nevertheless, we suspect that they are rarely, if
ever, taken into account when assessing the net benefits
or environmental impacts of such projects.
Water regimes shaping the evolution of FW diversity
and the life-history adaptations of individual species
during the Holocene and earlier, will be different in the
Anthropocene. Major changes to the earth’s most basic
biophysical systems are taking place with only a rudi-
mentary understanding of the organisms being affected
or the larger-scale consequences of those changes
(Dudgeon et al. 2006). The taxonomy, global richness,
and geographic distribution of FW biodiversity are just
becoming clear (Balian et al. 2008) at a time when
major shifts in water regimes are occurring (Oki and
Kanae 2006; Allan and Soden 2008; Milly et al. 2008).
Linking altered flow regimes to biodiversity and to
human diseases and well-being remains major research
challenges—with potential benefits accruing to both
society and nature.
Positive developments in international initiatives
Historically, epidemiology has been concerned with
lowering the incidence of infectious disease by lowering
infection rates. Similarly, agricultural and nutritional
sciences concentrated on increased crop production and
quality, and hence on food security. All are tightly
linked to fresh water. A holistic approach to the man-
agement of FWs that integrates water regimes, epide-
miology, and agricultural and nutritional sciences would
be a strong positive step. Fortunately, that may be on
the horizon as a major shift in thinking about FW is
taking place in science and policy circles (Gleick 2003;
IWMI (International Water Management Institute)
2006), prompted by progress in disciplines as disparate
as earth science, climate policy, watershed management
and global economic integration (GWSP (Global Water
System Project) 2005, Alcamo et al. 2008). Building on
the legacy of more than a century of essentially local-
scale hydrologic research, scientists and policy-makers
are now poised to clearly articulate the role of water in a
broader earth system context. The discovery of new
pathways, thresholds and characteristics of the hydro-
sphere reveal that it is insufficient to focus solely on local
processes, as there is a serious risk of overlooking
important global dynamics with large and possibly
irreversible impacts on society and nature (Alcamo et al.
2008).
The shift in thinking is also manifest in institutional
initiatives (e.g., Water Scarcity Report 2006). In
December 2003, the United Nations General Assembly
adopted a resolution proclaiming 2005–2015 as an
International Decade for Action—‘Water for Life’. The
resolution called for a greater focus on water issues and
development efforts, with the goal of recommitting
countries to achieving the water-related goals of the
2000 Millennium Declaration and of Agenda 21; in
particular, to halve by 2015 the proportion of people
lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanita-
tion. In this context, 2008 was designated the Interna-
tional Year of Sanitation in order to help simulate global
progress toward the Millennium Development Goal
(MDG) targets for drinking-water and sanitation during
the ‘Water for Life’ decade (WHO/UNICEF 2008).
Further, 2010 has been designated as the International
Year of Biodiversity. These are vitally important mat-
ters, yet their importance does not obscure the fact that
the ‘Water for Life’ resolution and the International
Year of Biodiversity come at a time when water re-
sources and FW biodiversity are facing unprecedented
and growing threats from human activities (Dudgeon
et al. 2006; Palmer et al. 2008). The general nature of
these threats is known, although their relative magnitude
varies from place to place (Vörösmarty et al. 2010).
Unfortunately, identifying threats has done little to
 871

mitigate or alleviate them. However, that may be
changing too.
In the last decade, the international science com-
munity has initiated a number of innovative programs
to better understand all aspects of the GWS and to
discover water-related linkages having significant
implications for the long-term vitality of the environ-
ment and human society. The initiatives and programs
can be categorized into those supported by intergov-
ernmental organizations (e.g., The Division of Water
Sciences at UNESCO http://www.unesco.org/water), by
individual countries having an international perspective
(e.g., The Global Water System Project http://www.
gwsp.org, based in Bonn, Germany), and by non-
profit organizations (e.g., DIVERSITAS International
http://www.diversitas-international.org, based in Paris,
France).
In addition to the organizational examples, there are
numerous efforts to quantify the global scope of issues
related to fresh water quantity and quality (e.g., Gleick
2003, 2006), to identify basic principles that could guide
sustainable water-resource development (e.g., Bunn and
Arthington 2002; Bernhardt et al. 2006), to devise
practical approaches for a balancing water uses (e.g.,
Johnson et al. 2001; IWMI (International Water Man-
agement Institute) 2006; Arthington et al. 2010; Poff
et al. 2010), to conserve the earth’s freshwaters (e.g., the
Freshwater Sustainability Project of The Nature
Conservancy; Stockholm’s World Water Week; World
Water Forum; Brisbane’s RiverFest), and to meet
Millennium Development goals (Alcamo et al. 2008).
A coalescing of the scientific, policy, and user commu-
nities has resulted in several insightful declarations for
better water-resource management and agreement
on—and articulation of—management guidelines. A
specific example relevant in the present context relates to
the significance and maintenance of environmental flow
allocations for humans and nature: the 2007 Brisbane
declaration (http://www.nature.org/initiatives/fresh
water/press/press3195html).
To further the engagement of stakeholders and
interest groups, a general set of eight guidelines for
balancing water-resource development and environ-
mental well-being are available (Table 1). It is intended
that these guidelines serve as principles for making
sustainable planning decisions. They relate to under-
standing the effects of human activities within catch-
ments; embracing environmental uncertainty; accepting
the need for environmental flows; managing connectivity
of FW systems; understanding the consequences of
biodiversity loss for ecosystem services; assisting the
development and evaluation of new technologies to
manage water in heavily modified catchments; discov-
ering innovative ways to facilitate the recovery of de-
graded ecosystems; and improving the ecological
understanding of the GWS (Bernhardt et al. 2006).
The history of water management has been often
marked by hubris and conflict. Indeed, the Latin root of
the word ‘rivalry’ (rivalis)—specifically, one who uses a
stream in common with another—is the same as that of
the word ‘stream’ or ‘brook’ (rivus). It refers to the
inevitable conflicts that arose when humans shared wa-

Table 1 Eight general guidelines for balancing water-resource development and environmental well-being (modified from Bernhardt et al.
2006)

1. Understand the aggregative effects of human activities within a catchment. Determine the optimal spatial configuration of development,
protection, and restoration that minimizes impacts to water resources and maintains essential ecosystem services and products.
2. Embrace environmental uncertainty. Recognizing that natural systems are inherently dynamic and unpredictable, seek innovative ways
to live with environmental variability within a natural range rather than trying to manage solely for stability and predictability.
3. Accept that rivers and estuaries need environmental flows. Freshwater systems require the right quality of water at the right times in
the right amounts to sustain ecosystem services and biodiversity. Such flows are essential for ensuring the provision of the goods and
services that river ecosystems offer societies, including (but not limited to) the water in rivers.
4. Manage connectivity of freshwater systems. Water-resource development continues to fragment river systems and their populations of
plants and animals. Maintaining the flow of essential materials and organisms between catchments, rivers and coastal systems,
while minimizing the transfer of contaminants and invasive species, are fundamental for long-term well-being.
5. Understand the consequences of biodiversity loss for ecosystem services. Species in ecosystems are involved in a myriad of
complementary processes (e.g., production, decomposition, nutrient cycling). Present global extinction rates of freshwater organisms
are vastly greater than the rate of evolution of new species, and freshwaters are among the most threatened ecosystems in terms of
biodiversity loss. Species that seem redundant provide an insurance to uphold ecosystem functions in a changing world.
6. Assist with the development and evaluation of new technologies to manage water in heavily modified catchments. Better use of remote
sensing technologies and sophisticated modeling tools improve the efficiency of water use and reuse so that overall costs—both
economic and ecological—are lowered.
7. Discover ways to facilitate the recovery of degraded ecosystems. Innovative collaboration can be the foundation for a more
mechanistic understanding of how rivers provide ecosystem services, and provide effective strategies for restoration
and rehabilitation.
8. Improve the ecological understanding of the global water system. More than ever before, fresh water is a global resource. The
freshwater cycle and its consequences for peoples, cultures, and environments are an integrated system—and much remains to be
discovered. This includes improving understanding of the environmental consequences of virtual water trading—the use of water
resources in one region for the production of crops and goods, and their export to other regions of the globe.
872
ter as a common resource. However, the past need not
dictate the future. A new path is not only possible, it is
essential. It requires advances in understanding the ways
by which catchment ecosystems work as well as ad-
vances in understanding social processes facilitating
ecologically sustainable water management. Most of all,
it depends on a commitment to new, holistic thinking
about fundamental connections between humans and
FW systems.
What will the future hold as the Anthropocene un-
folds? Clearly, there are many daunting challenges ahead
with a rapidly growing world population, declining
biodiversity, habitat loss and degradation, climate
change and the consequential alteration of the GWS,
economic expansion, and regional conflicts as well as
shifting ideologies and alliances. Collectively, however,
the regional and international programs described above
encourage sharing and collaborations that actively in-
volve much of the global expertise and data on FW
ecosystems, and will do so even more effectively in the
coming years if financial and political support for
cooperation continues. These visionary programs and
dedicated individuals, in collaboration with govern-
ments and the earth’s 6 billion human inhabitants, will
help resolve the many serious and urgent issues that face
us during the ‘Water for Life’ decade—and allow us to
achieve the water-related Millennium Development
Goals. The consequences of failure are too grave to
imagine, and cannot be allowed to happen, especially
when the health of humans and the FW ecosystems
upon which we depend are at stake.
Acknowledgments We thank Z. Kawabata for the opportunity to
present our thoughts at the 2008 Kyoto symposium on ‘Environ-
mental Change, Pathogens and Human Linkages’, T. Oki for
sharing information, and A. Arthington, P. McIntyre, K. Kirkman
and M. C. McClain for comments that greatly improved the
manuscript. This is a contribution from the DIVERSITAS fresh-
water BIODIVERSITY Committee, the Global Water System
Project, and the UNESCO Ecohydrology Programme.
References
Alcamo J, Vörösmarty C, Naiman RJ, Lettenmaier D, Pahl-Wostl
C (2008) A grand challenge for freshwater research: under-
standing the global water system. Environ Res Lett 3:1–6
Allan RP, Soden BJ (2008) Atmospheric warming and the ampli-
fication of precipitation events. Science. doi:10.1126/science.
1160787
AmphibiaWeb (2008) AmphibiaWeb species numbers. Amphibia-
Web: information on amphibian biodiversity and conservation.
Berkeley, California, USA. http://www.amphibiaweb.org/. Ac-
cessed 29 Aug 2008
Anim MA, Fenwick A (1977) The development of an annual reg-
imen for blanket snail control on the Gezira irrigated area of
the Sudan. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 71:205–212
Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ (2006) The chal-
lenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river
ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16:1311–1318
Arthington AH, Naiman RJ, McClain ME, Nilsson C (2010)
Preserving the biodiversity and ecological services of rivers: new
challenges and research opportunities. Freshw Biol 55:1–16
Attwood SW (1995) A demographic analysis of y-Neotricula aperta
(Gastropoda: Pomatiopsidae) populations in Thailand and
southern Laos. J Molluscan Stud 61:133–136
Balian EV, Lévêque C, Segers H, Martens K (eds) (2008) Fresh-
water animal biodiversity assessment. Springer, Berlin Heidel-
berg New York
Balmford A, Bond W (2005) Trends in the state of nature and their
implications for human well-being. Ecol Lett 8:1218–1234
Bernhardt E, Bunn SE, Hart DD, Malmqvist B, Muotka T, Nai-
man RJ, Pringle C, Reuss M, van Wilgen B (2006) The chal-
lenge of ecologically sustainable water management. Water
Policy 8:475–479
Brown DS (1994) Freshwater snails of Africa and their medical
importance. Taylor & Francis, London
Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological
consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity.
Environ Manage 30:492–507
Chivian E (ed) (2002) Biodiversity: its importance to human heal-
th—interim executive summary, Center for Health and the
Global Environment. Harvard Medical School, Cambridge
Chivian E, Bernstein AS (2004) Embedded in nature: human health
and biodiversity. Environ Health Perspect 112:A12–A13
Curtis TP, Sloan WT (2004) Prokaryotic diversity and its limits:
microbial community structure in nature and implications for
microbial ecology. Curr Opin Microbiol 7:221–226
de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for
the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem
functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408
de Moor FC (1994) Aspects of the life history of Simulium
chutteri and S. bovis (Diptera; Simuliidae) in relation to
changing environmental conditions in South African rivers.
Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung Limnologie
25:1817–1821
Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z, Knowler
D, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard A-H, Soto D, Sti-
assny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity:
importance, status, and conservation challenges. Biol Rev
81:163–182
Foissner W, Strüder-Kypke M, van der Staay GWM, Moon-van
der Staay SY, Hackstein JHP (2003) Endemic ciliates (Proto-
zoa, Ciliophora) from tank bromeliads (Bromeliaceae): a
combined morphological, molecular, and ecological study. Eur
J Protistol 39:365–372
Fryer G, Iles TD (1972) The cichlid fishes of the great lakes of
Africa: their biology and evolution. Oliver and Boyd, Edin-
burgh
Gessner MO, Van Ryckegem G (2003) Water fungi as decomposers
in freshwater ecosystems. In: Bitton G (ed) Encyclopedia of
environmental microbiology. Wiley, New York. doi:10.1002/
0471263397.env314)
Gibert J, Deharveng L (2002) Subterranean ecosystems: a trun-
cated functional biodiversity. Bioscience 52:473–481
Gleick PH (1996) Water resources. In: Schneider SH (ed) Ency-
clopedia of climate, weather. Oxford University Press, New
York, pp 817–823
Gleick PH (2003) Water use. Annual review of environment and
resources 28:275–314
Gleick PH (2006) The World’s Water, 2006–2007: the biennial re-
port on freshwater resources. Island Press, Washington, DC
Grifo F, Rosenthal J (eds) (1997) Biodiversity and human health.
Island Press, Washington, DC
GWSP (Global Water System Project) (2005) The Global Water
System Project: science framework and implementation activi-
ties. Earth System Science Partnership. Global Water System
Project Office. Bonn, Germany. http://www.gwsp.org
Highton RB, Choudhury AW (1974) The cost evaluation of mol-
lusciciding operations on five irrigation schemes in Kenya. East
Afr Med J 51:180–193
IWMI (International Water Management Institute). (2006) In-
sights from the comprehensive assessment of water manage-
ment in agriculture. Report of the International Water
Management Institute, Colombo

Johns DM, Maggs CA (1997) Species problems in eukaryotic algae:
a modern perspective. In: Claridge MF, Dawah H, Wilson MR
(eds) Species: the units of biodiversity. Chapman & Hall,
London, pp 82–107
Johnson N, Revenga C, Echeverria J (2001) Managing water for
people and nature. Science 292:1071–1072
Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman
JL, Daszak P (2008) Global trends in emerging infectious dis-
eases. Nature 451:990–994
Kawabata Z, Minamoto T, Honjo MN, Uchii K, Yamanaka H,
Suzuki AA, Kohmatsu Y (2010) KHV-carp-human linkages: a
case study in Lake Biwa, Japan. Ecol Res (this volume)
Kirkman K, Smith L, Golladay S, Opsahl S (2010) Linkages be-
tween isolated wetland ecology and disease ecology in the
southeastern US. Ecol Res (this volume)
LaDeau SL (2010) Spatial and temporal drivers of West Nile virus
outbreaks in North America. Ecol Res (this volume)
LaDeau SL, Kilpatrick AM, Marra PP (2007) Continental declines
in bird populations and the emergence of West Nile virus.
Nature 447:710–714
Loh J, Gren RE, Ricketts T, Lamoreux J, Jenkins M, Kapos V,
Randers J (2005) The living planet index: using species popu-
lation time series to track trends in biodiversity. Philos Trans R
Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:289–295
Lundberg G, Kottelat M, Smith GR, Stiassny MLJ, Gill AC (2000)
So many fishes, so little time: an overview of recent ichthyo-
logical discovery in continental waters. Ann Mo Bot Gard
87:26–62
Martens P, Moser SC (2001) Health impacts of climate change.
Science 292:1065–1066
McMichael AJ, Bolin B, Costanza R, Daly GC, Folke C, Lindhal-
Kiessling K, Lindgren E, Niklasson B (1999) Globalization and
the sustainability of human health. Bioscience 49:205–210
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystem and
human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC
Milly PCD, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M, Hirsch RM, Ku-
ndzewicz ZW, Lettenmaier DP, Stouffer R (2008) Stationarity
is dead: whither water management? Science 319:573–574
Naiman RJ, Turner MG (2000) A future perspective on North
America’s freshwater ecosystems. Ecol Appl 10:958–970
Naiman RJ, Magnuson JJ, McKnight DM, Stanford JA (eds)
(1995a) The freshwater imperative: a research agenda. Island
Press, Washington, DC
Naiman RJ, Magnuson JJ, McKnight DM, Stanford JA, Karr JR
(1995b) Freshwater ecosystems and management: a national
initiative. Science 270:584–585
Naiman RJ, Bunn SE, Nilsson C, Petts GE, Pinay G, Thompson
LC (2002) Legitimizing fluvial systems as users of water: an
overview. Environ Manage 30:455–467
Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmen-
tation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems.
Science 308:405–408
Oki T, Kanae S (2006) Global hydrological cycles and world water
resources. Science 313:1068–1072
Palmer MA, Reidy Liermann CA, Nilsson C, Flörke M, Alcamo J,
Lake PS, Bond N (2008) Climate change and the world’s river
basins: anticipating management options. Front Ecol Environ
6:81–89
Poff NL, Allan JD, Palmer MA, Hart DD, Richter BD, Arthington
AH, Rogers KH, Meyer JL, Stanford JA (2003) River flows and
water wars: emerging science for environmental decision-mak-
ing. Front Ecol Environ 1:298–306
873
Poff NL et al (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration:
a framework for developing regional environmental flow stan-
dards. Freshw Biol 55:147–170
Postel S (1999) Pillar of sand. Can the irrigation miracle last? W.W.
Norton & Co. Ltd, New York
Postel S (2005) Liquid assets: the critical need to safeguard fresh-
water ecosystems. Worldwatch Paper 170. Worldwatch Insti-
tute, Washington, DC
Postel S, Richter B (2003) Rivers for life: managing water for
people and nature. Island Press, Washington, DC
Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1999) Extinction rates of North
American freshwater fauna. Conserv Biol 13:220–222
Sala OE, Meyerson LA, Parmesan C (eds) (2008) Biodiversity
change and human health. Island Press, Washington, DC
Srivardhana R (1987) The Nam Pong case study. Some lessons to
be learned. Water Resour Dev 3:238–246
Stauffer JR Jr, Madsen H, McKaye K, Konings A, Bloch P, Ferreri
CP, Likongwe J, Macaula P (2006) Schistosomiasis in Lake
Malawi: relationship of fish and intermediate host density to
prevalence of human infection. EcoHealth 3:22–27
Stiassny MLJ (1999) The medium is the message: freshwater bio-
diversity in peril. In: Cracraft J, Grifo FT (eds) The living
planet crisis: biodiversity science and policy. Columbia Uni-
versity Press, New York, pp 53–71
Stone B (1983) The Chang Jiang diversion project: an overview of
economic and environmental issues. In: Biswas AK, Zuo D,
Nickum JE, Liu C (eds) Long-distance water transfer: a Chinese
case study and international experiences. Tycooly International
Publishers Limited, Dublin, pp 193–214
Thieme ML, Abell R, Stiassny MLJ, Lehner B, Skelton P, Teugels
G, Dinerstein E, Kamden Toham A, Burgess B, Olson D (2005)
Freshwater ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar. A conser-
vation assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC
Torsvik V, Øvreås L, Thingstad TF (2002) Prokaryotic diver-
sity—magnitude, dynamics, and controlling factors. Science
296:1064–1066
Vörösmarty C, Lettenmaier D, Lévêque C, Meybeck M, Pahl-
Wostl C, Alcamo J, Cosgrove W, Grassl H, Hoff H, Kabat P,
Lansigan F, Lawford R, Naiman RJ (2004) Humans trans-
forming the global water system. EOS Am Geophys Union
Trans 85:509–514
Vörösmarty et al (2010) Quantifying threats to the world’s fresh-
waters (in preparation)
WHO (World Health Organization) (2004) The World Health
Report 2004—changing history. Annex 3. World Health
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.who.int/whr/
en/. Accessed 29 Aug 2008
WHO/UNICEF (2008) Progress on drinking water and sanitation:
special focus on sanitation. World Health Organization and
United Nations Children’s Fund Joint Monitoring Programme
for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP). UNICEF, New York
and WHO, Geneva. http://www.wssinfo.org/en/40_mdg2008.
html. Accessed 2 Sept 2008
Zalasiewicz J et al (2008) Are we now living in the Anthropocene?
GSA Today 18:4–8
Zwart G, van Hannen EJ, Kamst-van Agterveld MP, Van der
Gucht K, Lindstrom ES, Van Wichelen J, Lauridsen T, Crump
BC, Han SK, Declerck S (2003) Rapid screening for freshwater
bacterial groups by using reverse line blot hybridization. Appl
Environ Microbiol 69:5875–5883
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.