Water research is introduced from the combined perspectives of natural and social science and cases of citizen and stakeholder coproduction of knowledge. Using the overarching notion of transdisciplinarity, we examine how interdisciplinary and participatory water research has taken place and could be developed further. It becomes apparent that water knowledge is produced widely within society, across certified disciplinary experts and noncertified expert stakeholders and citizens. However, understanding and management interventions may remain partial, or even conflicting, as much research across and between traditional disciplines has failed to integrate disciplinary paradigms due to philosophical, methodological, and communication barriers. We argue for more agonistic relationships that challenge both certified and noncertified knowledge productively. These should include examination of how water research itself embeds and is embedded in social context and performs political work. While case studies of the cultural and political economy of water knowledge exist, we need more empirical evidence on how exactly culture, politics, and economics have shaped this knowledge and how and at what junctures this could have turned out differently. We may thus channel the coproductionist critique productively to bring perspectives, alternative knowledges, and implications into water politics where they were not previously considered; in an attempt to counter potential lock‐in to particular water policies and technologies that may be inequitable, unsustainable, or unacceptable. While engaging explicitly with politics, transdisciplinary water research should remain attentive to closing down moments in the research process, such as framings, path‐dependencies, vested interests, researchers’ positionalities, power, and scale. WIREs Water 2016, 3:369–389. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1132For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

The importance of extending physically based approaches to catchment management to include social considerations has recently been highlighted alongside increasing legislative pressure to utilise public participation in river management processes. Nine water managers, operating at varying geographical scales, from the UK and north‐west Europe were interviewed to determine their approach to, opinion of, and success in utilising public participation for decisionmaking. The results indicate that despite variations in approaches to, and perceptions of, participation, one dominant factor constrained the use of higher level participation: scale. The results demonstrate that the degree of participation and influence for ‘non‐certified’ experts was inversely proportional to the scale of the project. This was attributed to issues of practicality in communicating between a large number of individuals, but also to underlying factors such as availability of financial support and governing regulations that differ between organisations of different sizes. The findings were used to consider the role of Callon's public education, public debate and co‐production of knowledge models of scientific knowledge production (Callon 1990). It is suggested that, for practical application, traditional models be developed into more reflexive approaches that account for the complexity of real‐world situations.

Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.enpol.2013.12.046 Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Energy policy. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be re ected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A de nitive version was subsequently published in Energy policy, 68, 2014, 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.046 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Department of Geography, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3TE AbstractResearch around micro-hydro power is focused on technical aspects with limited understanding of the social organisation and environmental implications. We examine the ways in which microhydro is engaged by people and organisations as a means of contributing to the UK's policy ambition for renewable energy. We bring to the fore the way in which expertise is used and contested. A web based review of micro-hydro schemes in the UK was undertaken and a detailed evaluation of two schemes in the North of England was conducted to determine how expertise and contestation figures in community schemes. Results demonstrate a rapid expansion of micro-hydro in the UK. Ownership/control is highly 'community based'. Until now research around micro-hydro has been dominated by technical approaches with schemes defined in terms of hardware. We propose a third dimension to Walker and Cass's (2007) classification of renewable energy developments: the environmental dimension. We suggest this dimension of micro-hydro is critical, both in terms of the extent to which resources can be realised but also the ways in which it might attract controversy, in particular around how expertise is used and valued.

No abstract

River regulation for the purposes of public water supply causes the flow regime downstream of a dam to change. Traditionally, in the UK, such regulation was accompanied by requirements for reservoir releases to compensate downstream water users (e.g. industry) for the loss of natural flow (compensation flows). In this article, we compare a unique pre-impoundment macroinvertebrate data set for a regulated upland river with survey data post-impoundment. This allows a longitudinal assessment of the response of the system to regulation. The Derwent River, Northumberland, was impounded in 1966. Impacts on the hydrological regime were quantified by comparing long-term hydrographs, flow duration curves, flow ranges and flashiness indices for the pre-impoundment and post-impoundment periods. The comparison of changes in macroinvertebrate richness and diversity post-impoundment showed that the change in flow regime has had limited effect on the ecological community structure. The flow regime of the Derwent River has become less flashy with fewer extreme events, and the richness and the diversity of macroinvertebrates have, in some cases, increased and at worst have not deteriorated. We suggest that this reflects the strict compensation regime, which has guaranteed minimum flows at all times.