In many countries of the Global South, aquatic ecosystems such as streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands are severely impacted by several simultaneous environmental stressors, associated with accelerated urban development, and extreme climate. However, this problem receives little attention. Applying a DPSIR approach (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses), we analyzed the environmental impacts and their effects on urban hydrosystems (including stagnant waters), and suggest possible solutions from a series of case studies worldwide. We find that rivers in the Global South, with their distinctive geographical and socio-political setting, display significant differences from the Urban Stream Syndrome described so far in temperate zones. We introduce the term of ‘Southern Urban Hydrosystem Syndrome’ for the biophysical problems as well as the social interactions, including the perception of water bodies by the urbanites, the interactions of actors (e.g., top-down, bottom-up), and the motivations that drive urban hydrosystem restoration projects of the Global South. Supported by a synthesis of case studies (with a focus on Brazilian restoration projects), this paper summarizes the state of the art, highlights the currently existing lacunae for research, and delivers examples of practical solutions that may inform UNESCO’s North–South–South dialogue to solve these urgent problems. Two elements appear to be specifically important for the success of restoration projects in the Global South, namely the broad acceptance and commitment of local populations beyond merely ‘ecological’ justifications, e.g., healthy living environments and ecosystems with cultural linkages (‘River Culture’). To make it possible implementable/practical solutions must be extended to (often poor) people having settled along river banks and wetlands.

Flood risk management in the context of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) is becoming widely accepted as an approach to improving resilience in light of increasing flood risks due to climate change and other factors. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the governance arrangements needed for effectively implement integrated approaches to managing flood risk. We compare how IWRM and flood risk management have been operationalized within "top-down" and "bottom-up" governance arrangements in the European Union and the United States. We focus in particular on two case study regions, the Catalan coastal region in Spain and the San Francisco Bay Area in California, which have strong similarities in economy, climate, and environmental values, but different institutional settings. Our findings contribute empirical evidence of the need for a balance between "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches. While the San Francisco Bay Area's strongly collaborative and participatory approach has generated new connections among flood managers and other stakeholders, the lack of a central entity with the capacity and mandate for on-going coordination and region-wide risk assessments appears to constrain its ability to support integrated and adaptive management. The European Union's top-down approach and the presence of a central authority at the river basin scale have led to a consolidated regional plan in Catalonia encompassing all phases of flood risk management, but the degree of engagement and opportunities for knowledge-sharing among participants may be more limited.

Conventional flood control has emphasized structural measures such as levees, reservoirs, and engineered channels—measures that typically simplify river channels and cut them off from their floodplain, both with adverse environmental consequences. Structural measures tend to be rigid and not easily adapted to increased flooding regimes resulting from environmental change. Such actions also limit the natural hydrologic benefits of floodplains such as storing floodwaters, improving water quality, providing habitat for invertebrates and fish during periods of inundation, and supporting a multitude of cultural services. As these benefits are more widely recognized, policies are being adopted to encourage projects that reduce flood risks and restore floodplain ecosystems, while acknowledging the social-ecological context. The number of such projects, however, remains small. We assessed four multi-benefit floodplain projects (two in California, United States, and two in Germany) and characterized their drivers, history, and measures implemented. In both United States cases, the dominant driver behind the project was flood risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration followed, in one case inadvertently, in the other as a requirement to receive a subsidy for a flood risk reduction project. One German case was motivated by ecosystem restoration, but it was more widely accepted because it also offered flood management benefits. The fourth case was conceived in terms of balanced goals of flood risk reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation. We conclude that projects that both reduce flood risk and restore ecosystems are clearly possible and often cost-effective, and that they could be more widely implemented. The principal barriers are often institutional and regulatory, rather than technical.

No abstract

No abstract