## 6.5. Adaptive management

Adaptive management is an effective means of management when many gaps in knowledge and uncertainty abound as with the case of ecosystem services (section 5.3.5). This learning-by-doing approach is especially needed for sustainable groundwater management due to the often inadequate characterization of the involved groundwater resources, ecosystem services, and human activities. Adaptive management is also a means to account for our known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Mai-mone (2004) provides a detailed discussion about this topic, and argues that adaptive management is the only viable approach to dealing with knowledge uncertainty and the variability of societal attitudes towards groundwater resources. In addition, being aware of the knowledge limitations and uncertainties can advance an interconnected systems-approach to groundwater management. For example, Sophocleous (2000) illustrates the concepts of adaptive management and the interconnected systems-approach in Kansas, showing how this leads to the formation of local groundwater management districts, the adoption of minimum streamflow standards, the modification of safe yield policies in some districts, the implementation of integrated resource planning, and the application of sub-basin management in potential problem areas. Similarly, Levangie (2008) shows that moving from fixed to adaptive management led to the transition from safe yield policy for water supply to a sustainable yield policy for water supply and environmental sustainability in the study area in Massachusetts.

Adaptive management is a policy instrument to address uncertainty, and can be planned ahead to reduce uncertainty. For example, Piscopo et al (2019) present an adaptive management workflow to evaluate groundwater sustainability for a hydrothermal area in Italy that starts from the available hydrogeological knowledge to consider the unknowns of the system. The workflow includes stakeholder participation, the development of an integrated plan subject to annual review along with the constant update of the numerical model, and groundwater quantity and quality monitoring system for model update, validation, and uncertainty analysis. Piscopo et al (2019) note that the combination of monitoring and modeling will allow water resource managers and stakeholders to review the management policy based on what is known and unknown about the system, and to dynamically adapt any decision to the variable socioeconomic and environmental conditions. Similarly, Seward et al (2006) argue that our ability to predict the impacts of groundwater pumping on surface water and ecological systems is highly imperfect, and suggests that the way forward is to accept the complex, difficult-to-predict characteristics of aquifer systems, and to build management strategies around those characteristics that are adaptive rather than rigid

command-and-control management. This practice is being implemented at different levels at many places worldwide (e.g. Sophocleous 2005, Allan 2008, Ross and Martinez-Santos 2010, Curran and Mascher 2016, Ha et al 2018b, Seward and Xu 2019, Thomas 2019). For example, the Water Resource Protection Plan of Hawaii (CWRM 2019b), which provides the sustainable yield estimates for the state of Hawaii (CWRM 2019a), is updated about every five years based on monitoring programs, advances in groundwater research and modeling in Hawaii, and participation, among other potential advances.

# 7. Scientific evaluation of groundwater sustainability: participation

## 7.1. Participation and groundwater sustainability

The term participation here refers to any level of stakeholder involvement in the planning, modeling, and management of water resources. A stakeholder is a person or entity (e.g., water authorities, non-governmental organizations, or community members) with an interest or concern in something. Stakeholder participation can add saliency, credibility, and legitimacy to scientific assessments, which may lead to more effective and readily adoptable water management decisions (Cash et al 2003, White et al 2010, Heink et al 2015). Saliency entails demand-driven science that provides what is needed at that the time and place; credibility emerges from the technical merits and quality of science that is generally evaluated by peer and external review along with expert consensus; legitimacy refers to an inclusive, comprehensive, and fair process. For the products of science to gain legitimacy for policy implementation, they must emerge from an iterative, collaborative, and bidirectional exchange between stakeholders (Carr et al 2012, Brown et al 2015, Wheater and Gober 2015). Several examples in the literature show that legitimacy is the number one predictor of whether the science products are used in decision making, with legitimacy stemming from how involved the stakeholders were in the scientific assessment (Mckenzie et al 2014, Bremer et al 2015, Posner et al 2016). Additionally, participation is shown to improve the credibility and saliency of science products, which can lead to more effective solutions being identified and adopted (Watson 2005). This is mainly because participation involves tapping into institutional and traditional knowledge, exchange of experiences, deeper understanding, consensus building, and raising commitment toward resource management, among other advantages (Carr et al 2012, Mays 2013, Castilla-Rho 2017). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) suggests that sustainable groundwater management requires that ‘users participate in the design of governance, incentive schemes and management interventions—otherwise groundwater
management will remain a top-down, technocratic activity with unsatisfactory results' (2016, p 20).

Participation is a basic component in the scientific evaluation of groundwater sustainability. Participation is an integral policy component in several groundwater regulations, such as the Australia water reform agenda (e.g. Tan et al 2012), the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (e.g. Kiparsky 2016, Babbitt et al 2018), the EU Water Framework Directive (e.g. Jorgensen et al 2017), and South Africa Water Reform (e.g. Seward 2010), among many others. In addition, real-world examples show the great need for participation in groundwater sustainability (e.g. Griffioen et al 2014, Leduc et al 2017, Custodio et al 2019). For example, Custodio et al (2019) show top-down administrative decisions to achieve given sustainable outcomes in Spain have resulted in partial failures, whereas stakeholder consensus can lead to better outcomes. Similarly, Knuppe and Pahl-Wostl (2011) develop an aquifer governance framework to analyze groundwater sustainability at a basin level in Spain, showing that conflict occurs from the one-way communication between official authorities and excluding local stakeholders during the planning processes. On the other hand, evaluation of groundwater sustainable planning in Australia shows that the interaction between decision makers and the public has much to offer when applied to questions that have been developed collaboratively, allowing for implementation of findings. Moreover, participation is an inevitable means to reduce uncertainty in groundwater sustainability as shown by Guillaume et al (2012). This can be equally true for transboundary aquifers. For example, Leduc et al (2017) states that dialogue between local stakeholders, water managers, and researchers seems to be the only way to avoid or alleviate the serious threats to Mediterranean groundwater resources. To enhance the sustainability of the High Plains aquifer in Kansas, Sophocleous (2012) recommends the formation of an interstate groundwater commission along the lines of the Delaware and Susquehanna River Basins Commissions in the U.S.

We mainly focus here on participation studies related to groundwater sustainability, even though communication with water authorities and community members can be done regularly during groundwater management research. Specifically, while there are several groundwater sustainability studies that involve participation (e.g. Rinaudo et al 2016, Curtis et al 2016, Ross 2016), we focus on the case studies that are reviewed in section 5, which are either case-specific studies, or cross-case studies. A case-specific study would generally include a hydrological modeling component. A cross-case study could be a research or review article for a certain geographic region covering multiple case-studies, summarizing research results, or presenting success or failure stories. In the reviewed case studies

in section 5, we identified 26 articles that discussed participation. In addition, from our record search (section 4) we identified 11 articles that provide conceptual discussion on participation within the context of groundwater sustainability, and few case studies about social learning.

## 7.2. Levels of participation

Although identifying stakeholders and defining avenues for user participation is largely contextual (Carr et al 2012, Kusters et al 2017), participation in the identified 26 articles could be considered on three levels of engagement. The first level is to produce demand-driven scientific assessment based on user needs to seek assistance in solving real-world problems within a community or region. This would ensure that the science products such as management cases and future scenarios are designed according to the users' needs and priorities. Most of the reviewed modeling studies to evaluate groundwater sustainability (section 5) can be considered to be demand-driven, yet only few studies explicitly mention that (Gallardo et al 2009, Sheng 2013, Alcala et al 2015). While Gallardo et al (2009) and Sheng (2013) mention that their research findings will be used by stakeholders for groundwater management, Alcala et al (2015) study the Amtoudi Oasis in southern Morocco/northern Sahara and find that low financial capability and technical feasibility in northern Sahara prevent the implementation of actions proposed in their study. At this level of participation, the stakeholders could be aware or unaware of the ongoing research, and could be interested or uninterested in the research.

The second level of participation is stakeholder engagement through collaborative model development and characterization of the consequences of alternative options (Brown et al 2015, Basco-Carrera et al 2017). We identified 14 studies that discussed some level of involvement between researchers and stakeholders for model or plan development, which is often referred to in the literature as collaborative modeling or participatory modeling. Using the Basco-Carrera et al (2017) classification, figure 12 shows the level of participation implemented or called for in these 11 articles. Additionally, figure 12 shows two articles (Sheng 2013, Alcala et al 2015) that do not involve any form of collaborative modeling or participatory modeling for the purpose of illustration. The articles shown in figure 12 are either case-specific studies or cross-case studies. Participatory or collaborative modeling is important in groundwater sustainability evaluation. Refsgaard et al (2010) state that developing integrated information systems that include quality assurance and uncertainty information to facilitate active stakeholder involvement and learning is one of the four key scientific challenges facing sustainable groundwater management in Denmark. Henriksen et al (2008)
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 12.** The levels of engagement between researchers and stakeholders that are discussed or adopted by studies related to groundwater sustainability, using the Basco-Carrera *et al* (2017) classification.</figcaption></figure>

study in Denmark stresses the importance of collaborative modeling, stating that if stakeholders are engaged in a design process that involves making consensus decisions, then the chance that they will accept the research outcomes is significantly increased. Similarly, Sophocleous (2010) discusses that unlike previous modeling efforts in Kansas, new models developed under the groundwater-availability modeling program have had substantial stakeholder involvement; this yielded highly successful outcomes for providing appropriate and publicly available tools for regional water planning, raising stakeholder awareness of groundwater modeling, and promoting the importance of groundwater management (van Kelley *et al* 2008, Sophocleous 2010).

While the aforementioned studies mainly focus on key stakeholders such as the water managers and regulators, other studies widen stakeholders to include public participation. This is towards the goal of achieving social learning. Because sustainable groundwater management interacts with multiple systems processes and subsequent uncertainty stemming from such complexity, social learning lies at the intersection of public engagement, scientific assessments, and decision making (Gober 2018). This need was earlier echoed by Sophocleous (2000):

> It is imperative that the community at large participates in policy formulations and in judgments of what is to be sustained. Strong public education

and outreach programs are needed to improve understanding of the nature, complexity, and diversity of groundwater resources, and to emphasize how this understanding must form the basis for operating conditions and constraints. This is the only way to positively influence, for the long term, the attitudes of the various stakeholders involved. Pressure from the community for better management of our natural resources will be the main driving force for most changes.

This is further emphasized by Sophocleous (2005) and Tuinstra and van Wensem (2014) that sustainable groundwater management cannot be achieved without an aware and involved citizenship. These are citizens who are aware of the value of their water resources and their potential strength, weakness, uses, and threats. Social learning is a means to build capacity to learn and respond to ongoing and complex water systems problems. Typically, water users will put pressure on key stakeholders such as water regulators and managers, and key stakeholders will voice these concerns to researchers. To better achieve social learning, researchers can engage in bi-lateral information exchange with key stakeholders, community members, or both. For example, Fernald *et al* (2015) in New Mexico worked with the communities to develop an understanding of the
sociohydrological system function using causal loop diagrams, which form the basis for modeling future scenarios to identify thresholds and tipping points of groundwater sustainability in the study area. Piscopo et al (2019) involved both key stakeholders and community members to evaluate groundwater sustainability of a hydrothermal area in Italy. To this end, Piscopo et al (2019) conducted consultations and interviews with water managers and groups of citizens who have diverse and conflicting preferences to determine the trade-off between thermal water use and spring discharge at that study area.

When participatory or collaborative modeling extends beyond key stakeholders, the selection of stakeholders is not a trivial task. Wurl et al (2018) studied groundwater sustainability for agricultural activities in the Valley of Santo Domingo, Mexico, where the stakeholders were selected following guidelines from IFC (2007) with the following criteria: (1) they represent a particular community or an important subgroup of population of the Santo Domingo Valley; (2) they would provide technical knowledge and/or essential information to the process; (3) to ensure the coherence of the project; (4) to ensure the application of the project, (5) because they are holders of rights in the project area. The selection of stakeholders is contextual, and it may not be limited to targeted stakeholders. For example, Jorgensen et al (2017) mention that public participation in groundwater management in Denmark primarily has the character of information and consultation procedures such that draft implementation plans, generally at a regional scale, are made publicly available to all citizens for comments invited within a stipulated time. Jorgensen et al (2017) further state that in the recent years, especially under the EU Water Framework Directive, Denmark is testing different methods of stakeholder involvement to get citizen input and make citizens more directly engaged in, and committed to, groundwater management processes and decision making. Similarly, Seward (2010) voices the need for further research and practical testing to formulate a more structured approach to public participation and adaptive management to better operationalize the South Africa Water Act.

### 7.3. Participation methods and tools

Formulating more structured approaches to public participation is needed for effective scientific evaluation of groundwater sustainability. Because of the heterogeneity of people and their interests and perceptions, societal preferences are harder to tackle than individual preferences (Reichert et al 2015). This can be even more challenging, as noted by Leduc et al (2017), when water territories are too vast, individual interests too divergent; when there are individuals and firms that exploit resources for short-term profits; and when individual profit prevarils over the need to preserve a common resource.

Elicitation of intersubjective societal preferences can be done through surveys, public comment and vote, interviews, and similar tools (e.g. Fernald et al 2015, Sanderson and Curtis 2016, Jorgensen et al 2017, Piscopo et al 2019, Rudestam et al 2018, Wurl et al 2018). Summary assessments can then be feed into agent-based models (Mulligan et al 2014, Wada et al 2017, Roobavannan et al 2018), which are models of local human behavior. For example, Tan et al (2012) discuss the challenges of adaptive management and social learning in Australia in groundwater sustainability planning. Studies also discuss building community confidence by using the best available science with tools such as agent-based participatory modelling, deliberative multi-criteria evaluation, social impact assessment, and groundwater visualization models, and with good-practices in indigenous engagement (Mackenzie et al 2012, Jackson et al 2012, Tan et al 2012). Tan et al (2012) conclude that interactive tools with high visual impact are consistently rated highly by both indigenous and non-indigenous community members and water planners. Yet, Tan et al (2012) observe that due to the inherent politicized risks in water planning it is safer and easily manageable to follow current methods of public participation such as information-giving and allowing written submissions.

With respect to modeling studies, both Castilla-Rho (2017) and Guillaume and El Sawah (2014) discuss iterative stakeholder engagement throughout the model development process. Castilla-Rho (2017) focus on participatory agent-based modeling as a proposed means by which to inform decision-making and to understand competing stakeholder objectives, similar to an informative game. Whereas, Guillaume and El Sawah (2014) offer an iterative methodology for engaging stakeholders throughout the groundwater model development process as a mean for information exchange. The most comprehensive use of participation in modeling is described by Baldwin et al (2012) in a similar process to engage stakeholders in decision-making in the Tiwi Islands of the Northern Territory of Australia. All the aforementioned models discuss the importance of visualization in the successful use of modeling products for knowledge exchange, and employ the most comprehensive means by which to engage stakeholders.

Other studies do not necessarily use groundwater models or visualization tools as a means to engage stakeholders in decision-making. The method of engagement as discussed by Manda and Klein (2014) include qualitative analysis via interviews and archival data as a mediation process to solve an impasse in policy development. Comparably, Wurl et al (2018) approach stakeholder engagement through the lens of sociohydrological resilience, and use dialogue, public meetings, and surveys to assess resilience and involve stakeholders in scenarios for future aquifer
management in the Santo Domingo Valley of Mexico. Rudestam *et al* (2018) adopted an approach that is based on ethnographic observation and interviews with groundwater users to elicit the social character, economic interactions, and dominant understandings of culture and community to define the relational values of the place. Molina *et al* (2012) develop a novel method of calculating a Social Sustainable Aquifer Yield (SSAY), which they demonstrate in the Jaen province of Spain. The SSAY calculation incorporates the average perception of the maximum aquifer exploitation expressed by stakeholders, which they acquire through a survey. In addition, other approaches can be employed in areas where participation is limited. For example, Fayolle and Petit (2012) describe a case study in the Chaouia coastal region of Morocco where they propose a social learning process as a means of counteracting weak governance characterized by weak interactions between groundwater users and managers. The study looked at a situation where dialogue was initiated to understand if social learning was an outcome. Although some barriers to communication were overcome, without a long-term outlook for dialogue, it is difficult to classify this case as social learning.

In summary, our systematic review shows that an increasing number of articles discuss stakeholder participation in the context of groundwater sustainability. More case studies of stakeholder engagement that are directly linked to model development and prediction are particularly needed. More cases studies that implement recently developed conceptual frameworks (e.g. Guillaume and El Sawah 2014, Castilla-Rho 2017) for integrating participation with groundwater modeling are needed for proof-of-concept. Finally, Mitchell *et al* (2012), through their comprehensive literature review, note that ‘upon critical analysis, we concluded that much of the literature identified during our research lacked an adequate foundation in social theory or was not based on sound research methods.’ Thus, care should be taken in the use of participation methods to be grounded in social theory by engaging with scholars in social sciences, for example.

## 8. Conclusions

As a dynamic policy instrument, sustainable groundwater management balances water use and development with a changing society, environment, and climate. This article discusses a collective approach to groundwater sustainability policy development and implementation, and recognizes that science alone rarely leads to direct policy outcomes, especially where scientific findings are contested. Even in the face of strong debate, science can help to inform policy, provided that studies are salient to the policy challenge, involve decision makers in the scientific

process, and that results are communicated effectively and viewed as credible (Cash *et al* 2003, Bremer *et al* 2020).

This article also shows that even when a well-designed policy is in place, as in the case of Hawaii, the science required to capture the dynamics and complexity of hydrogeology and its dependent ecological and human systems is only beginning to be established. Nevertheless, integrated transdisciplinary groundwater management approaches that closely tie science to policy (or vice versa) are rapidly emerging. However, there is a clear need for more transdisciplinary research and case studies addressing the effective development and implementation of groundwater sustainability policy based on multi-process modeling, multi-narrative solution, and participation.

Addressing multi-process modeling requires continuous improvement of existing groundwater modeling frameworks (e.g. Henriksen *et al* 2008, Guillaume *et al* 2012) to better incorporate ecosystem services and human activities. It additionally requires developing new groundwater frameworks (e.g. Castilla-Rho *et al* 2017, 2019) that align with emerging calls in the hydrology community to frame water security and sustainability beyond just the foci of water quality and quantity to better understand possible co-evolving scenarios between water systems, ecosystems, and society (Montanari *et al* 2013, Thompson *et al* 2013, Vogel *et al* 2015, Ceola *et al* 2016, Wada *et al* 2017). A toolbox to address groundwater sustainability at different levels is needed since there is no ‘one-model-fits-all’ solution. Regardless of the modeling framework, this article illustrates that the incorporation of natural, engineered, societal, and institutional systems into an integrated modeling framework is gradually evolving in the groundwater sustainability literature to keep up with emerging policies that call for these integrations. We review two hydrological modeling approaches for estimating groundwater sustainability, which address the debate over the relative reliability of phenomenological models in comparison to numerical models. Selection of the appropriate modeling approach is case-specific and depends on the available data, aquifer type, sustainability factors of interest, and should be guided by the law of parsimony (Voss 2011a, 2011b). While numerical models are more useful and accurate, simple phenomenological models can be especially useful when there is insufficient site-specific data to develop a high-fidelity numerical model with more mathematical and geological realism. Our analysis shows that hydrological modeling, with respect to surface water and groundwater interaction, is more mature than ecosystem services modeling and human activities modeling. While both ecosystem services modeling and human activities modeling are both emerging, tools for managing
groundwater dependent ecosystems are not yet well defined, and calls for more adaptive management approaches.

Decisions on water resources will be made, whether accounting for the uncertainty of our scientific knowledge or not. One of the roles of science is to reduce errors and their cost. How much investment in scientific knowledge and monitoring is needed in a given case to reduce uncertainty depends on the current and future costs of these errors to humans and the environment. Addressing the inherent uncertainty associated with both the natural and societal aspects of complex and dynamic groundwater systems requires developing innovative multi-model approaches to provide multiple narratives about the problem solution (Ferré 2017b), and to effectively communicate uncertainty to end-users and stakeholders in a way that would help them to make better decisions (Guillaume et al 2012). This requires working with stakeholders through collaborative modeling and adaptive management to better characterize, and sustainably manage the groundwater resources. While technical advancements in uncertainty analysis are still developing (especially with respect to handling the high computational cost of groundwater models, multi-disciplinary subsurface characterization and uncertainty quantification, and handling multifaceted uncertainty of water-ecology-human systems), existing methods and tools are not fully utilized in the groundwater sustainability literature. What seems to be lacking is the mainstreaming of these tools to end-users. Additionally, it is of great significance to make the end-user aware of the importance of uncertainty analysis, and the existence of these tools.

The degree of participation in the science-policy process may be the most critical piece, yet the most difficult to design and implement due to tight budgets, time constraints, or the absence of clear structured approaches. It is an essential and non-trivial component, not only to resolve conflicts, but also to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to groundwater sustainability. Within the scientific community, greater collaboration among physical scientists, social scientists, groundwater managers, and policy makers is necessary to develop this aspect of the groundwater sustainability evaluation process. Such collaborative relationships between researchers and key stakeholders can generally be easier to establish than public participation. Testing and evaluating different methods for increasing public participation in groundwater management to achieve social learning is an active research area (e.g. Tan et al 2012, Jorgensen et al 2017). To get public input and make citizens more engaged in groundwater management is particularly important, since sustainable groundwater management cannot be achieved without well-informed, perceptive, and involved citizens.

## Acknowledgments

This work is funded by U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Award # OIA-1557349. The fifth author is funded by U.S. NSF EAR 1828827. The authors are very grateful to Tom Gleeson, Anita Milman, and two anonymous reviewers, who helped to significantly improve the manuscript.

## Supplement and data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available (Elshall 2020). This includes the Jupiter Notebook that has the supplement data, method and code, which can also be accessed from https://github.com/aselshall/SYReview/blob/master/Supplement%20.ipynb

## ORCID iDs

Ahmed S Elshall https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8200-5064

Aida D Arik https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6207-1742

Kimberly M Burnett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6222-8946

## References

Acero Triana J S, Chu M L, Guzman J A, Moriasi D N and Steiner J L 2019 Beyond model metrics: the perils of calibrating hydrologic models *J. Hydrol.* **578** 124032

Aeschbach-Hertig W and Gleeson T 2012 Regional strategies for the accelerating global problem of groundwater depletion *Nat. Geosci.* **5** 853–61

Aistrup J A, Bulatewicz T, Kulcsar L J, Peterson J M, Welch S M and Steward D R 2017a Conserving the Ogallala Aquifer in southwestern Kansas: from the wells to people, a holistic coupled natural-human model *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **21** 6167–83

Aksever F, Davraz A and Karaguzel R 2015 Groundwater balance estimation and sustainability in the Sandikli Basin (Afyonkarahisar/Turkey) *J. Earth Syst. Sci.* **124** 783–98

Alam N and Olsthoorn T N 2014 Sustainable conjunctive use of groundwater for additional irrigation *Hydrol. Process.* **28** 5288–96

Al-amin S, Berglund E Z, Mahinthakumar G and Larson K L 2018 Assessing the effects of water restrictions on socio-hydrologic resilience for shared groundwater systems *J. Hydrol.* **566** 872–85

Alcala F J, Martinez-Valderrama J, Robles-Marin P, Guerrera F, Martin-Martin M, Raffaelli G, de Leon J T and Asebriy L 2015 A hydrological-economic model for sustainable groundwater use in sparse-data drylands: application to the Amtoudi Oasis in southern Morocco, northern Sahara *Sci. Total Environ.* **537** 309–22

Alcala F J, Martin-Martin M, Guerrera F, Martinez-Valderrama J and Robles-Marin P 2018 A feasible methodology for groundwater resource modelling for sustainable use in sparse-data drylands: application to the Amtoudi Oasis in the northern Sahara *Sci. Total Environ.* **630** 1246–57

Aldous A R and Bach L B 2014 Hydro-écologie des écosystèmes tributaires des eaux souterraines: application de la science de base à la gestion des eaux souterraines *Hydrol. Sci. J.* **59** 530–44
Allan C 2007 Can adaptive management help us embrace the Murray-Darling Basin's wicked problems? *Adaptive and Integrated Water Management* (Berlin: Springer) pp 61–73

Alley W M 2018 Groundwater Sustainability Groundwater: State of the Science and Practice eds W M Alley, A Smith and K Svitana (Westerville, OH: National Ground Water Association Press) pp 54–57

Alley W M, Clark B R, Ely D M and Faunt C C 2018 Groundwater development stress: global-scale indices compared to regional modeling *Groundwater* **56** 266–75

Alley W M and Leake S A 2005 The journey from safe yield to sustainability *Groundwater* **42** 12–16

Alley W M, Reilly T E and Franke O L 1999 Sustainability of ground-water resources *U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ.* **1186** pp 79

Al-Maktoumi A, El-Rawy M and Zekri S 2016 Management options for a multipurpose coastal aquifer in Oman *Arab. J. Geosci.* **9** 636

Archer D R, Forsythe N, Fowler H J and Shah S M 2010 Sustainability of water resources management in the Indus Basin under changing climatic and socio economic conditions *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **14** 1669–80

Archfield B S A, Vogel R M, Steeves P A, Brandt S L, Weiskel P W and Garabedian S P and US Geological Survey 2009 The Massachusetts sustainable-yield estimator: A decision-support tool to assess water availability at ungaged stream locations in Massachusetts *U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report* 2009–5227

Arnold J G, Srinivasan R, Muttiah R S and Williams J R 1998 Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development *J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.* **34** 73–89

Asefa T, Adams A and Kajtezovic-Blankenship I 2014 A tale of integrated regional water supply planning: meshing socio-economic, policy, governance, and sustainability desires together *J. Hydrol.* **519** 2632–41

Babbitt C, Gibson K, Sellers S, Brozović N, Saracino A, Hayden A, Hall M and Zellmer S 2018 *The future of groundwater in California | environmental Defense Fund* (https://www.edf.org/ecosystems/future-groundwater-california)

Badiuzzaman P, Mclaughlin E and Mccaulley D 2017 Substituting freshwater: can ocean desalination and water recycling capacities substitute for groundwater depletion in California? *J. Environ. Manage.* **203** 123–35

Baguma A *et al* 2017 Groundwater and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa a short investigation highlighting outstanding knowledge gaps *UPGro Working Paper* (St. Gallen: Skat Foundation)

Bailey R T, Khalil A and Chatikavanij V 2015 Estimating current and future groundwater resources of the Maldives *J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.* **51** 112–22

Bailey R T and Tavakoli Kivi S 2017 Method for estimating available groundwater volume of small coral islands *Hydrol. Sci. J.* **62** 2381–92

Bakalowicz M 2005 Karst groundwater: a challenge for new resources *Hydrogeol. J.* **13** 148–60

Bakker K 2012 Water management. Water security: research challenges and opportunities *Science* **337** 914–5

Baldwin C, Tan P L, White I, Hoverman S and Burry K 2012 How scientific knowledge informs community understanding of groundwater *J. Hydrol.* **474** 74–83

Barlow P M, Leake S A and Fienen M N 2018 Capture versus capture zones: clarifying terminology related to sources of water to wells *Groundwater* **56** 694–704

Basco-Carrera L, Warren A, van Beek E, Jonoski A and Giardino A 2017 Collaborative modelling or participatory modelling? A framework for water resources management *Environ. Model. Softw.* **91** 95–110

Basso B and Ritchie J T 2015 Simulating Crop Growth and Biogeochemical Fluxes in Response to Land Management Using the SALUS Model *The Ecology of Agricultural Landscapes: Long-Term Research on the Path to Sustainability*, ed S K Hamilton, J E Doll and G P Robertson (Oxford : Oxford University Press) pp 252–74

Benini L, Antonellini M, Laghi M and Mollema P N 2016 Assessment of water resources availability and groundwater salinization in future climate and land use change scenarios: a case study from a coastal drainage basin in Italy *Water Resour. Manag.* **30** 731–45

Beven K J 2016 Facets of uncertainty: epistemic uncertainty, non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication *Hydrol. Sci. J.* **61** 1652–65

Beven K J and Alcock R E 2012 Modelling everything everywhere: a new approach to decision-making for water management under uncertainty *Freshw. Biol.* **57** 124–32

Bierkens M F P and Wada Y 2019 Non-renewable groundwater use and groundwater depletion: a review *Environ. Res. Lett.* **14** 063002

Blair P and Buytaert W 2016 Socio-hydrological modelling: A review asking “why, what and how?” *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **20** 443–78

Blöschl G *et al* 2019 Twenty-three unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH)—a community perspective *Hydrol. Sci. J.* **64** 1141–58

Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K H, Ekvall T and Finnveden G 2006 Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide *Futures* **38** 723–39

Bredehoeft J D 2002 The water budget myth Revisited: why Hydrogeologists Model *Ground Water* **340–5**

Bredehoeft J D and Alley W M 2014 Mining groundwater for sustained yield *The Bridge* **44** 33–41

Bremer L L, Delevaux J M S, Leary J J K, Cox J L and Oleson K L L 2015 Opportunities and strategies to incorporate ecosystem services knowledge and decision support tools into planning and decision making in Hawai'i *Environ. Manage.* **55** 884–99

Bremer L L, Hamel P, Ponette-González A G, Pompeu P V, Saad S I and Brauman K A 2020 Who are we measuring and modeling for? supporting multilevel decision-making in watershed management *Water Resour. Res.* **56** e2019WR026011

Bremer L L *et al* 2018 Bringing multiple values to the table: assessing future land-use and climate change in North Kona, Hawaii *Ecol. Soc.* **23** 33

Brown C M, Lund J R, Cai X, Reed P M, Zagona E A, Ostfeld A, Hall J, Characklis G W, Yu W and Brekke L 2015 The future of water resources systems analysis: toward a scientific framework for sustainable water management *Water Resour. Res.* **51** 6110–24

Brunner P and Simmons C T 2012 HydroGeoSphere: A fully integrated, physically based hydrological model *Ground Water* **50** 170–6

Brunner P, Simmons C T, Cook P G and Therrien R 2010 Modeling surface water-groundwater interaction with MODFLOW: some considerations *Ground Water* **48** 174–80

Brush C F and Dogrul E C 2013 User's Manual for the California Central Valley Groundwater-surface Water Simulation Model (C2VSim), Version 3.02-CG. (Bay-Delta Office: California Department of Water Resources)

Bryan E, Meredith K T, Baker A, Post V E A and Andersen M S 2016 Island groundwater resources, impacts of abstraction and a drying climate: rottnest Island, Western Australia *J. Hydrol.* **542** 704–18

Butler J J, Whittemore D O, Wilson B B and Bohling G C 2016 A new approach for assessing the future of aquifers supporting irrigated agriculture *Geophys. Res. Lett.* **43** 2004–10

Butler J J, Whittemore D O, Wilson B B and Bohling G C 2018 Sustainability of aquifers supporting irrigated agriculture: a case study of the High Plains aquifer in Kansas *Water Int.* **43** 815–28

Butscher C and Huggenberger P 2008 Intrinsic vulnerability assessment in karst areas: A numerical modeling approach *Water Resour. Res.* **44** W03408

Burnett K M, Elshall A S, Wada C A, Arik A, El-Kadi A, Voss C I, Delevaux J M S and L Bremer L L 2020 Incorporating historical spring discharge protection into sustainable groundwater management: a case study from Pearl Harbor Aquifer, Hawai'i, *Frontiers Water* **2** 14
Cabello V, Willaarts B A, Aguilar M and Ituarte L D 2015 River basins as social-ecological systems: linking levels of societal and ecosystem water metabolism in a semiarid watershed *Ecol. Soc.* **20** 20

Caers J 2011 *Modeling Uncertainty in the Earth Sciences* (Chichester, UK: Wiley) pp 1–229

Cal. Water Code § 10721(v) *California Sustainable Groundwater Management* (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=10721.&lawCode=WAT)

Calderhead A I, Martel R, Garfias J, Rivera A and Therrien R 2012 Sustainable management for minimizing land subsidence of an over-pumped volcanic aquifer system: tools for policy design *Water Resour. Manage.* **26** 1847–64

Cao G L, Zheng C M, Scanlon B R, Liu J and Li W P 2013 Use of flow modeling to assess sustainability of groundwater resources in the North China Plain *Water Resour. Res.* **49** 159–75

Carr G, Blöschl G and Loucks D P 2012 Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review *Water Resour. Res.* **48** 1–17

Carrera J, Hidalgo J J, Slooten L J and Vázquez-Suñé E 2010 Problèmes conceptuels et de calibration des modèles d'intrusion marines *Hydrogeol. J.* **18** 131–45

Cash D W, Clark W C, Alcock F, Dickson N M, Eckley N, Guston D H, Jäger J and Mitchell R B 2003 Knowledge systems for sustainable development *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.* **100** 8086–91

Castilla-Rho J C 2017 Groundwater modeling with stakeholders: finding the complexity that matters *Groundwater* **55**

Castilla-Rho J C, Mariethoz G, Rojas R, Andersen M S and Kelly B F J 2015 An agent-based platform for simulating complex human-aquifer interactions in managed groundwater systems *Environ. Model. Softw.* **73** 305–23

Castilla-Rho J C, Rojas R, Andersen M S, Holley C and Mariethoz G 2017 Social tipping points in global groundwater management *Nat. Hum. Behav.* **1** 640–9

Castilla-Rho J C, Rojas R, Andersen M S, Holley C and Mariethoz G 2019 Sustainable groundwater management: how long and what will it take? *Glob. Environ. Chang.* **58** 101972

Ceola S *et al* 2016 Adaptation of water resources systems to changing society and environment: a statement by the International Association of Hydrological Sciences *Hydrol. Sci. J.* **61** 2803–17

Chaminé H I and Chamine H I 2015 Water resources meet sustainability: new trends in environmental hydrogeology and groundwater engineering *Environ. Earth Sci.* **73** 2513–20

Chan K M A *et al* 2016 Opinion: why protect nature? rethinking values and the environment *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.* **113** 1462–5

Charalambous A N and Garratt P 2009 Recharge-abstraction relationships and sustainable yield in the Arani-Kortalaiyar groundwater basin, India *Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol.* **42** 39–50

Chitsazan N, Pham H V and Tsai F T C 2015 Bayesian chance-constrained hydraulic barrier design under geological structure uncertainty *Groundwater* **53** 908–19

Christakos G 2004 The Cognitive Basis of Physical Modelling *Computational Methods in Water Resources, Developments in Water Science*, ed T M Miller, M W Farthing, W G Gray and G F Pinder (Amsterdam: Elsevier) pp 661–9

Chung I M, Lee J, Kim N W, Na H, Chang S W, Kim Y and Kim G B 2015 Estimating exploitable amount of groundwater abstraction using an integrated surface water-groundwater model: mihocheon watershed, South Korea *Hydrol. Sci. J.* **60** 863–72

Conrad S A and Yates D 2018 Coupling stated preferences with a hydrological water resource model to inform water policies for residential areas in the Okanagan Basin, Canada *J. Hydrol.* **564** 846–58

Curran D and Mascher S 2016 Adaptive management in water law: evaluating Australian (New South Wales) and Canadian

(British Columbia) law reform initiatives *McGill J. Sustain. Develop. Law* pp 1–27

Curtis A, Mitchell M and Mendham E 2016 Social Science Contributions to Groundwater Governance *Integrated Groundwater Management: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges* (Berlin: Springer) pp 477–92

Custodio E 2002 Aquifer overexploitation: what does it mean? *Hydrogeol. J.* **10** 254–77

Custodio E, Sahuquillo A and Albiac J 2019 Sustainability of intensive groundwater development: experience in Spain *Sustain. Water Resour. Manag.* **5** 11–26

Cuthbert M O, Gleeson T, Moosdorf N, Befus K M, Schneider A, Hartmann J and Lehner B 2019 Global patterns and dynamics of climate–groundwater interactions *Nat. Clim. Chang.* **9** 137–41

CWC 2014 CWC SGMA California Water Code § 10720–10737.8. California Legislative Information Yutong.Song@stonybrook.edu (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand-edbranch.xhtml?tocCode=WAT&division=6.&title=&part=2.74.&chapter)

CWRM 2019a Appendix F – inventory and Assessment of Resources, Water Resource Protection Plan 2019 Update, *Hawaii i Water Plan, State of Hawaii i Commission on Water Resource Management* (http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/cwrm/planning/wrpp2019update/WRPP_AppF_201907.pdf)

CWRM 2019b Commission on water resource management Water Resource Protection Plan (available at: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/cwrm/planning/hiwaterplan/wrpp/)

CWRM 2019b Water Resource Protection Plan 2019 Update, *Hawaii i Water Plan, State of Hawaii i Commission on Water Resource Management* (https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/cwrm/planning/hiwaterplan/wrpp/)

CWRM 2008 Water Resource Protection Plan, *Hawaii Water Plan, State of Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management* (http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/cwrm/planning/wrpp2008_update/FINAL_WRPP_20080828.pdf)

Dai H, Ye M, Walker A P and Chen X 2017 A new process sensitivity index to identify important system processes under process model and parametric uncertainty *Water Resour. Res.* **53** 3476–90

Dai H, Ye M and Niedoroda A W 2015 A new model for simulating barrier island geomorphologic responses to future storm and sea-level rise impacts, *J. Coastal Res.* **31** 1091–102

Davidsen C, Liu S X, Mo X G, Rosbjerg D and Bauer-Gottwein P 2016 The cost of ending groundwater overdraft on the North China Plain *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **20** 771–85

Davis H J, Katz B G and Griffin D 2010 Nitrate-N movement in groundwater from the land application of treated municipal wastewater and other sources in the Wakulla Springs springshed, Leon and Wakulla Counties, Florida, 1966-2018 *U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report* 2010–5099

de Graaf I E M, Gleeson T, (Rens) van Beek L P H, Sutanudjaja E H and Bierkens M F P 2019 Environmental flow limits to global groundwater pumping *Nature* **574** 90–94

De La Hera À, Gurrieri J, Puri S, Custodio E, Manzano M, de la Hera A, Gurrieri J, Puri S, Custodio E and Manzano M 2016 Ecosystem hydrology and hydrogeological processes: groundwater-ecosystem interactions with special emphasis on abiotic processes *Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol.* **16** 99–105

Delevaux J M S *et al* 2018 A linked land-sea modeling framework to inform ridge-to-reef management in high oceanic islands ed CA Chen *PLoS One* **13** e0193230

Delottier H, Pryet A and Dupuy A 2017 Why should practitioners be concerned about predictive uncertainty of groundwater management models? *Water Resour. Manag.* **31** 61–73
Devlin J F and Sophocleous M A 2005 The persistence of the water budget myth and its relationship to sustainability *Hydrogeol.* J. 13 549–54

DHI 2003 MIKE SHE water movement user manual

Di Baldassarre G, Brandimarte L and Beven K 2016 The seventh facet of uncertainty: wrong assumptions, unknowns and surprises in the dynamics of human-water systems *Hydrol. Sci. J.* 61 1748–58

Doherty J 2015 *Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis for Complex Environmental Models* (Brisbane: Watermark Numerical Computing)

Doherty J 2016 PEST: Model-independent Parameter Estimation. *User Manual Part 1: PEST, SENSAN and Global Optimisers - 6th Edition Published in 2016* (Brisbane, Australia: Watermark Numerical Computing)

Doherty J and Hunt R J 2009 Two statistics for evaluating parameter identifiability and error reduction *J. Hydrol.* 366 119–27

Downward S R and Taylor R 2007 An assessment of Spain's Programa AGUA and its implications for sustainable water management in the province of Almería, southeast Spain *J. Environ. Manage.* 82 277–89

Duarte K T, Pongkijvorasin S, Roumasset J, Amato D and Burnett K 2010 Optimal management of a Hawaiian coastal aquifer with nearshore marine ecological interactions *Water Resour. Res.* 46 1–12

Dzurik A A, Kulkarni T S and Boland B K 2018 *Water Resources Planning: fundamentals for an Integrated Framework* (https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781442253995/Water-Resources-Planning-Fundamentals-for-an-Integrated-Framework-Fourth-Edition)

Eamus D, Fu B, Springer A E and Stevens L E 2016 Groundwater dependent ecosystems: classification, identification techniques and threats *Integrated Groundwater Management: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges* (Berlin: Springer) pp 313–46

El-Kadi A I, Tillery S, Whittier R B, Hagedorn B, Mair A, Ha K and Koh G W 2014 Assessing sustainability of groundwater resources on Jeju Island, South Korea, under climate change, drought, and increased usage *Hydrogeol.* J. 22 625–42

Elshall A S 2020 Text analytics for groundwater sustainability review (Version v1.0.0) Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3765294)

Elshall A S, Arik A, Bremer L, Wada C, Burnett K, El-Kadi A I and Chun G 2018a Aligning research and management with groundwater sustainable yield policy for the protection of Hawaii's water future *Project (Hawaii: University of Hawaii)*

Elshall A S et al Collaborative modeling based simulation optimization method to evaluate groundwater sustainable yield in Hawaii (2018)

Elshall A S, Pham H V, Tsai F T-C, Yan L and Ye M 2015 Parallel inverse modeling and uncertainty quantification for computationally demanding groundwater-flow models using covariance matrix adaptation *J. Hydrol. Eng.* 20 040104087

Elshall A S and Tsai F T-C 2014 Constructive epistemic modeling of groundwater flow with geological structure and boundary condition uncertainty under the Bayesian paradigm *J. Hydrol.* 517 105–19

Elshall A S, Tsai F T-C and Hanor J S 2013 Indicator geostatistics for reconstructing Baton Rouge aquifer-fault hydrostratigraphy, Louisiana, USA *Hydrogeol. J.* 21 1731–47

Elshall A S, Ye M, Niu G-Y and Barron-Gafford G A 2019 Bayesian inference and predictive performance of soil respiration models in the presence of model discrepancy *Geosci. Model Dev.* 12 2009–32

Elshall A S, Ye M, Pei Y, Zhang F, Niu G-Y G-Y and Barron-Gafford G A 2018b Relative model score: a scoring rule for evaluating ensemble simulations with application to microbial soil respiration modeling *Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess.* 32 2809–19

Enemark T, Peeters L J M M, Mallants D and Batelaan O 2019 Hydrogeological conceptual model building and testing: A review *J. Hydrol.* 569 310–29

Engelhardt I, Rausch R, Keim B, Al-Saud M and Schuth C 2013 Surface and subsurface conceptual model of an arid environment with respect to mid- and late Holocene climate changes *Environ. Earth Sci.* 69 537–55

Essaid H I 1990 *The computer model SHARP, a quasi-three-dimensional finite-difference model to simulate freshwater and saltwater flow in layered coastal aquifer systems: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4130* pp 181 (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri904130)

Esteban E and Dinar A 2013 Modeling sustainable groundwater management: packaging and sequencing of policy interventions *J. Environ. Manage.* 119 93–102

Falkenmark M 1979 Main problems of water use and transfer of technology *GeoJournal* 3 435–43

Farhadi S, Reza M, Reza G, Nikoo M R, Rakhshandehroo G R, Akhbari M and Alizadeh M R 2016 An agent-based-nash modeling framework for sustainable groundwater management: a case study *Agric. Water Manag.* 177 348–58

Faunt C C, Sneed M, Traum J and Brandt J T 2016 Water availability and land subsidence in the Central Valley, California, USA *Hydrogeol. J.* 24 675–84

Faysse N and Petit O 2012 Convergent readings of groundwater governance? Engaging exchanges between different research perspectives *Irrig. Drain.* 61 106–14

Feng D, Zheng Y, Mao Y, Zhang A, Wu B, Li J, Tian Y and Wu X 2018 An integrated hydrological modeling approach for detection and attribution of climatic and human impacts on coastal water resources *J. Hydrol.* 557 305–20

Ferguson G and Gleeson T 2012 Vulnerability of coastal aquifers to groundwater use and climate change *Nat. Clim. Chang.* 2 342–5

Ferguson I M and Maxwell R M 2012 Human impacts on terrestrial hydrology: climate change versus pumping and irrigation Related content Human impacts on terrestrial hydrology: climate change versus pumping and irrigation *Environ. Res. Lett.* 7 8

Fernald A et al 2015 Linked hydrologic and social systems that support resilience of traditional irrigation communities *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* 19 293–307

Ferré T P A 2017a Modelers: is objectivity overrated? *Groundwater* 55 603

Ferré T P A 2017b Revisiting the relationship between data, models, and decision-making *Groundwater* 55 604–14

Fetter C W 2001 *Applied Hydrogeology* (NJ: Prentice hall)

Fishman R, Devineni N and Raman S 2015 Can improved agricultural water use efficiency save India's groundwater? *Environ. Res. Lett.* 10 084022

Foster S, Garduno H, Tuinhof A and Tovey C 2010 *Groundwater governance: conceptual framework for assessment of provisions and needs* (Washington, DC: The World Bank)

Foster S and Loucks D P 2006 *Non-renewable Groundwater Resources: A Guidebook on Socially-sustainable Management for Water-policy Makers* (Paris: UNESCO) (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146997)

Freeze R A and Cherry J A 1979 *Groundwater* (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)

Gallardo A H, Marui A, Takeda S and Okuda F 2009 Groundwater supply under land subsidence constrains in the Nobi Plain *Geosci. J.* 13 151–9

Gallegos J J, Hu B and Davis H 2013 Simulating flow in karst aquifers at laboratory and sub-regional scales using MODFLOW-CPF *Hydrogeology* 21 1749–60

Galloway D L and Burbey T J 2011 Review: regional land subsidence accompanying groundwater extraction *Hydrogeol. J.* 19 1459–86
Gambolati G, Putti M and Paniconi C 1999 *Three-Dimensional Model of Coupled Density-Dependent Flow and Miscible Salt Transport* (Berlin: Springer) pp 315–62

Ghasemizadeh R, Hellweger F, Butscher C, Padilla I, Vesper D, Field M and Alshawabkeh A 2012 Review: groundwater flow and transport modeling of karst aquifers, with particular reference to the North Coast Limestone aquifer system of Puerto Rico *Hydrogeol. J.* 20 1441–61

Gillespie J, Nelson S T, Mayo A L and Tingey D G 2012 Why conceptual groundwater flow models matter: a trans-boundary example from the arid Great Basin, western USA *Hydrogeol. J.* 20 1133–47

Giuliani M, Li Y, Castelletti A and Gandolfi C 2016 A coupled human-natural systems analysis of irrigated agriculture under changing climate *Water Resour. Res.* 52 6928–47

Gleeson T 2020 Personal communicat. (17 April, 2020)

Gleeson T, Alley W M, Allen D M, Sophocleous M A, Zhou Y, Taniguchi M and Vandersteen J 2012 Towards sustainable groundwater use: setting long-term goals, backcasting, and managing adaptively *Ground Water* 50 19–26

Gleeson T, Cuthbert M, Ferguson G and Perrone D 2020 Global groundwater sustainability, resources, and systems in the anthropocene *Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci.* 48 431–63

Gleeson T and Richter B 2018 How much groundwater can we pump and protect environmental flows through time? Presumptive standards for conjunctive management of aquifers and rivers *River Res. Appl.* 34 83–92

Gleeson T, Vandersteen J, Sophocleous M A, Taniguchi M, Alley W M, Allen D M and Zhou Y X 2010 Groundwater sustainability strategies *Nat. Geosci.* 3 378–9

Global Water Partenership 2000 *Integrated Water Resources Management Global Water Partnership Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Global Water Partnership* (https://www.gwpforum.org)

Gober P, Kirkwood C W, Balling R C, Ellis A W and Deitrick S 2010 Water planning under climatic uncertainty in phoenix: why we need a new paradigm *Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.* 100 356–72

Gober P, Sampson D A, Quay R, White D D and Chow W T L 2016 Urban adaptation to mega-drought: anticipatory water modeling, policy, and planning for the urban Southwest *Sustain. Cities Soc.* 27 497–504

Gober P A 2018 *Building Resilience for Uncertain Water Futures* (Berlin: Springer)

Gober P A, Strickert G E, Clark D A, Chun K P, Payton D and Bruce K 2014 Divergent perspectives on water security: bridging the policy debate *Prof. Geogr.* 67 37–41

Gohar A A, Cashman A and Ward F A 2019 Managing food and water security in Small Island States: new evidence from economic modelling of climate stressed groundwater resources *J. Hydrol.* 569 239–51

Goldscheider N *et al* 2020 Global distribution of carbonate rocks and karst water resources. *Hydrogeol J.* 28 1661–77

Gorelick S, Zheng C and Section S 2015 Global change and the groundwatermanagement challenge Steven *Water Resour. Res* 3031–51

Grabert V K, Narasimhan T N, Kretsinger Grabert V and Narasimhan T N 2006 California’s evolution toward integrated regional water management: a long-term view *Hydrogeol. J.* 14 407–23

Gregersen J B, Gijsbers P J A and Westen S J P 2007 OpenMI: open modelling interface *J. Hydroinformatics* 9 175–91

Griffioen J, van Wensem J, Oomes J L M, Barends F, Breunese J, Bruining H, Olsthoom T, Stams A J M and van der Stoel A E C 2014 A technical investigation on tools and concepts for sustainable management of the subsurface in The Netherlands *Sci. Total Environ.* 485 810–9

Guillaume J H A and El Sawah S 2014 Fostering assumption-based stress-test thinking in managing groundwater systems: learning to avoid failures due to basic dynamics *Hydrogeol. J.* 22 1507–23

Guillaume J H A, Hunt R J, Comunian A, Blakers R S and Fu B 2016 Methods for exploring uncertainty in groundwater

management predictions *Integrated Groundwater Management: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges* (Berlin: Springer) pp 711–37

Guillaume J H A, Qureshi M E and Jakeman A J 2012 A structured analysis of uncertainty surrounding modeled impacts of groundwater-extraction rules *Hydrogeol. J.* 20 915–32

GWD 2006 *Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC* (https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/groundwater/framework.htm)

Ha T P, Dieperink C, Tri V P D, Otter H S and Hoekstra P 2018b Governance conditions for adaptive freshwater management in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta *J. Hydrol.* 557 116–27

Hamel P and Bryant B P 2017 Uncertainty assessment in ecosystem services analyses: seven challenges and practical responses *Ecosyst. Serv.* 24 1–15

Han S J, Tian F Q, Liu Y and Duan X H 2017 Socio-hydrological perspectives of the co-evolution of humans and groundwater in Cangzhou, North China Plain *Hydrol. Earth Syst.* 21 3619–33

Harou J J and Lund J R 2008 Ending groundwater overdraft in hydrologic-economic systems *Hydrogeol. J.* 16 1039–55

Harou J J, Pulido-Velazquez M, Rosenberg D E, Medellín-Azuara J, Lund J R and Howitt R E 2009 Hydro-economic models: concepts, design, applications, and future prospects *J. Hydrol.* 375 627–43

Hata Y 1998 Review and evaluation of previous concepts and methods for the determination of extractable groundwater yield *Earth Sci.* 52 251–61

Heink U *et al* 2015 Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: challenges and opportunities *Sci. Public Policy* 42 676–89

Henriksen H J and Barlebo H C 2008 Reflections on the use of Bayesian belief networks for adaptive management *J. Environ. Manage.* 88 1025–36

Henriksen H J, Troldborg L, Hojberg A L, Refsgaard J C, Højberg A L and Refsgaard J C 2008 Assessment of exploitable groundwater resources of Denmark by use of ensemble resource indicators and a numerical groundwater-surface water model *J. Hydrol.* 348 224–40

Heße F, Comunian A and Attlinger S 2019 What we talk about when we talk about uncertainty. Toward a unified, data-driven framework for uncertainty characterization in hydrogeology *Front. Earth Sci.* 7 118

Hill M C 2006 The practical use of simplicity in developing ground water models *Ground Water* 44 775–81

Hill M C, Kavetski D, Clark M, Ye M, Arabi M, Lu D, Foglia L and Mehl S 2016 Practical use of computationally frugal model analysis methods *Groundwater* 54 159–70

Hinsby K, Condesso de Melo M T and Dahl M 2008 European case studies supporting the derivation of natural background levels and groundwater threshold values for the protection of dependent ecosystems and human health *Sci. Total Environ.* 401 1–20

Holding S, Allen D M, Foster S, Hsieh A, Larocque I, Klassen J and Van Pelt S C 2016 Groundwater vulnerability on small islands *Nat. Clim. Chang.* 6 1100–3

Howard J and Merrifield M 2010 Mapping groundwater dependent ecosystems in California *PLoS One* 5 e11249

HRS Chapter 174C 1987 *State Water Code* (http://www.hawaii.edu/ohelo/statutes/HRS174C/HRS174C.html)

Hsu K C, Yeh H F, Chen Y C, Lee C H, Wang C H and Chiu F S 2012 Basin-scale groundwater response to precipitation variation and anthropogenic pumping in Chih-Ben watershed, Taiwan *Hydrogeol. J.* 20 499–517

Hu Y K, Moiwo J P, Yang Y H, Han S M and Yang Y M 2010 Agricultural water-saving and sustainable groundwater management in Shijiazhuang Irrigation District, North China Plain *J. Hydrol.* 393 219–32

Huang Y, Scanlon B R, Nicot J P, Reedy R C, Dutton A R, Kelley V A and Deeds N E 2012 Sources of groundwater
pumpage in a layered aquifer system in the Upper Gulf
Coastal Plain, USA *Hydrogeol.* J. 20 783–96

Hughes J D, Langevin C D and Banta E R 2017 Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 framework *U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Report 6–A57*

Hugman R, Stigter T, Costa L and Monteiro J P 2017 Numerical modelling assessment of climate-change impacts and mitigation measures on the Querenca-Silves coastal aquifer (Algarve, Portugal) *Hydrogeol.* J. 25 2105–21

Hugman R, Stigter T Y and Monteiro J P 2013 The importance of temporal scale when optimising abstraction volumes for sustainable aquifer exploitation: A case study in semi-arid South Portugal *J. Hydrol.* 490 1–10

Hugman R, Stigter T Y, Monteiro J P, Costa L and Nunes L M 2015 Modeling the spatial and temporal distribution of coastal groundwater discharge for different water use scenarios under epistemic uncertainty: case study in South Portugal *Environ. Earth Sci.* 73 2657–69

Hyndman D W et al 2017 Quantifying changes in water use and groundwater availability in a megacity using novel integrated systems modeling *Geophys. Res. Lett.* 44 8359–68

IFC 2007 *Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook for Companies Doing Business in Emerging Markets*
(Washington, DC: IFC)

IPCC 2000 *Special Report on Emissions Scenarios,*
*Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change*

IUCN 2016 *Spring: Managing Groundwater Sustainability*, ed M Smith, K Cross, M Paden and P Laban Vol. 11 (Switzerland: Gland)

Jackson S, Tan P L and Nolan S 2012 Tools to enhance public participation and confidence in the development of the Howard East aquifer water plan, Northern Territory *J. Hydrol.* 474 22–28

Jafari H, Shirafkan M, Bagheri R and Karami G H 2018 Assessing sustainability of the Bahabad Aquifer, Central Iran *Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res.* 16 2585–602

Jang C S, Liu C W, Chen S K and Lin W S 2012 Using a mass balance model to evaluate groundwater budget of seawater-intruded island aquifers *J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.* 48 61–73

Javadi A A, Abd-Elhamid H F and Farmani R 2012 A simulation-optimization model to control seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers using abstraction/recharge wells *Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.* 36 1757–79

Jaynes E T 1990 Probability Theory as Logic *Maximum-Entropy and Bayesian Methods*, ed P F Fougère (Berling: Springer) pp 1–16

Jaynes E T 2003 *Probability Theory: The Logic of Science*, ed GL Bretthorst (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Jódar J, Lamban L J, Medina A and Custodio E 2014 *J. Hydrol.* 519 3275–89

Johnston R J, Swallow S K, Allen C W and Smith L A 2002 Designing multidimensional environmental programs: assessing tradeoffs and substitution in watershed management plans *Water Resour. Res.* 38 4-1-4-12

Jorgensen L F, Villholth K G and Refsgaard J C 2017 Groundwater management and protection in Denmark: a review of pre-conditions, advances and challenges *Int. J. Water Resour. Dev.* 33 868–89

Kahil M T, Ward F A, Albiac J, Eggleston J and Sanz D 2016 Hydro-economic modeling with aquifer-river interactions to guide sustainable basin management *J. Hydrol.* 539 510–24

Kalf F R P and Woolley D R 2005 Applicability and methodology of determining sustainable yield in groundwater systems *Hydrogeol.* J. 13 295–312

Kamali A and Niksokhan M H 2017 Multi-objective optimization for sustainable groundwater management by developing of coupled quantity-quality simulation-optimization model *J. Hydroinf.* 19 973–92

Katic P and Quentin Grafton R 2011 Optimal groundwater extraction under uncertainty: resilience versus economic payoffs *J. Hydrol.* 406 215–24

Ketabchi H and Ataie-Ashtiani B 2015 Review: coastal groundwater optimization-advances, challenges, and practical solutions *Hydrogeol. J.* 23 1129–54

Ketabchi H, Mahmoodzadeh D, Ataie-Ashtiani B and Simmons C T 2016 Sea-level rise impacts on seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers: review and integration *J. Hydrol.* 535 235–55

Kim N W, Chung I M, Won Y S and Arnold J G 2008 Development and application of the integrated SWAT-MODFLOW model *J. Hydrol.* 356 1–16

Kiparsky M 2016 Unanswered questions for implementation of the sustainable groundwater management act *Calif. Agric.* 70 165–8

Kitanidis P K 2015 Persistent questions of heterogeneity, uncertainty, and scale in subsurface flow and transport *Water Resour. Res.* 51 5888–904

Klóve B *et al* 2011 Groundwater dependent ecosystems. Part I: hydroecological status and trends *Environ. Sci. Policy* 14 770–81

Klóve B *et al* 2014 Climate change impacts on groundwater and dependent ecosystems *J. Hydrol.* 518 250–66

Knuppe K and Pahl-Wostl C 2011 A framework for the analysis of governance structures applying to groundwater resources and the requirements for the sustainable management of associated ecosystem services *Water Resour. Manag.* 25 3387–411

Knüppe K, Pahl-Wostl C, Vinke-de Kruijf J, Knuppe K, Pahl-Wostl C and Vinke-de Kruijf J 2016 Sustainable groundwater management: a comparative study of local policy changes and ecosystem services in South Africa and Germany *Environ. Policy Gov.* 26 59–72

Kollet S J and Maxwell R M 2008 Capturing the influence of groundwater dynamics on land surface processes using an integrated, distributed watershed model *Water Resour. Res.* 44 W02402

Konikow L F and Kendy E 2005 Groundwater depletion: A global problem *Hydrogeol. J.* 13 317–20

Konikow L F and Leake S A 2014 Depletion and capture: revisiting “the source of water derived from wells” *Groundwater* 52 100–11

Kourakos G and Mantoglou A 2008 Remediation of heterogeneous aquifers based on multiobjective optimization and adaptive determination of critical realizations *Water Resour. Res.* 44 W12408

Kumar M D 2016 Distressed Elephants: policy Initiatives for Sustainable Groundwater Management in India *IIM Kozhikode Soc. Manag. Rev.* 5 51–62

Kumar M D, Scott C A and Singh O P 2011 Inducing the shift from flat-rate or free agricultural power to metered supply: implications for groundwater depletion and power sector viability in India *J. Hydrol.* 409 382–94

Kumar S, Pavelic P, George B, Venuogopal K and Nawarathna B 2013 Integrated modeling framework to evaluate conjunctive use options in a canal irrigated area *J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.* 139 766–74

Kuniansky E L 2016 Simulating groundwater flow in karst aquifers with distributed parameter models-Comparison of porous-equivalent media and hybrid flow approaches *U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report* 2016-5116 pp 1–14

Kusters K, Buck L, de Graaf M, Minang P, van Oosten C and Zagt R 2017 Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi-stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives *Environ. Manage.* 62 170–81

Lal A and Datta B 2019 Multi-objective groundwater management strategy under uncertainties for sustainable control of saltwater intrusion: solution for an island country in the South Pacific *J. Environ. Manage.* 234 115–30

Langevin C D 2009 *SEAWAT: A Computer Program for Simulation of Three-Dimensional Variable-Density Ground-Water Flow and Transport: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS*
2009-3047 p 2 (https://www.usgs.gov/software/seawat-a-computer-program-simulation-three-dimensional-variable-density-ground-water-flow)

Langridge R and Daniels B 2017 Accounting for climate change and drought in implementing sustainable groundwater management *Water Resour. Manag.* **31** 3287–98

Lapworth D J *et al* 2019 Developing a groundwater watch list for substances of emerging concern: A European perspective *Environ. Res. Lett.* **14** 035004

Larson K L, Wiek A and Withycombe Keeler L 2013 A comprehensive sustainability appraisal of water governance in Phoenix, AZ *J. Environ. Manage.* **116** 58–71

Lathashri U A and Mahesha A 2016 Groundwater sustainability assessment in coastal aquifers *J. Earth Syst. Sci.* **125** 1103–18

Lauer S, Sanderson M R, Manning D T, Suter J F, Hrozencik R A, Guerrero B and Golden B 2018 Values and groundwater management in the Ogallala Aquifer region *J. Soil Water Conserv.* **73** 593–600

Leblanc M, Tweed S, Van Dijk A and Timbal B 2012 A review of historic and future hydrological changes in the Murray-Darling Basin *Glob. Planet. Change* **80–81** 226–46

Lecca G 2000 *Implementation and testing of the CODESA-3D model for density-dependent ow and transport problems in porous media Environment Area*

Leduc C, Pulido-Bosch A and Remini B 2017 Anthropization of groundwater resources in the Mediterranean region: processes and challenges *Hydrogeol. J.* **25** 1529–47

Lee C H 1915 The determination of safe yield of underground reservoirs of the closed-basin type *Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.* **98** 148–218

Lee E, Ha K, Ngoc N T M, Surinkum A, Jayakumar R, Kim Y and Hassan K B 2017 Groundwater status and associated issues in the Mekong-Lancang River Basin: international collaborations to achieve sustainable groundwater resources *J. Groundw. Sci. Eng.* **5** 14–30

Lele S 2017 Sustainable development goal 6: watering down justice concerns *Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water* **4** e1224

Levangie D 2008 Science supporting policy: the case for flow quantity (https://scholarworks.umass.edu/wrrc_conf/49/)

Li F W, Feng P, Zhang W and Zhang T 2013 An integrated groundwater management mode based on control indexes of groundwater quantity and level *Water Resour. Manag.* **27** 3273–92

Li J Y, Michael H A, Duke J M, Messer K D and Suter J F 2014 Behavioral response to contamination risk information in a spatially explicit groundwater environment: experimental evidence *Water Resour. Res.* **50** 6390–405

Lijzen J P A, Otte P and van Dreumel M 2014 Towards sustainable management of groundwater: policy developments in The Netherlands *Sci. Total Environ.* **485–486** 804–9

Lin H, Richards D, Yeh G, Cheng J and Cheng H 1997 *FEMWATER: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Computer Model for Simulating Density-Dependent Flow and Transport in Variably Saturated Media* (https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a327967.pdf)

Liu C C K 2007 RAM2 Modeling and the Determination of Sustainable Yields of Hawaii Basal Aquifers (Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa)

Liu C C K and Dai J J 2012 Seawater intrusion and sustainable yield of basal aquifers *J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.* **48** 861–70

Liu C W, Lin C N, Jang C S, Chen C P, Chang J F, Fan C C and Lou K H 2006 Sustainable groundwater management in Kinmen Island *Hydrol. Process.* **20** 4363–72

Liu D, Tian F, Lin M and Sivapalan M 2015 A conceptual socio-hydrological model of the co-evolution of humans and water: case study of the Tarim River basin, western China *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **19** 1035–54

Liu J, Rich K and Zheng C 2008 Sustainability analysis of groundwater resources in a coastal aquifer, Alabama *Environ. Geol.* **54** 43–52

Livingston M L and Garrido A 2004 Entering the policy debate: an economic evaluation of groundwater policy in flux *Water Resour. Res.* **40** 1–11

Llamas M R, Custodio E, de la Hera A and Fornés J M 2015 Groundwater in Spain: increasing role, evolution, present and future *Environ. Earth Sci.* **73** 2567–78

Loaiciga H A 2008 Aquifer storage capacity and maximum annual yield from long-term aquifer fluxes *Hydrogeol. J.* **16** 399–403

Lu W, Yang Q, Martín J D and Juncosa R 2013 Numerical modelling of seawater intrusion in Shenzhen (China) using a 3D density-dependent model including tidal effects *J. Earth Syst. Sci.* **122** 451–65

Lu D, Ye M, Neuman S P and Xue L 2012 Multimodel Bayesian analysis of data-worth applied to unsaturated fractured tuffs *Adv. Water Res.* **35** 69–82

Lund J R 2015 Integrating social and physical sciences in water management *Water Resour. Res.* **51** 5905–18

Macewan D, Cayar M, Taghavi A, Mitchell D, Hatchett S and Howitt R 2017 Hydroeconomic modeling of sustainable groundwater management *Water Resour. Res.* **53** 2384–403

Mackenzie J, Tan P L, Hoverman S and Baldwin C 2012 The value and limitations of participatory action research methodology *J. Hydrol.* **474** 11–21

Maier H R R, Guillaume J H A H A, van Delden H, Riddell G A A, Haasnoot M and Kwakkel J H H 2016 An uncertain future, deep uncertainty, scenarios, robustness and adaptation: how do they fit together? *Environ. Model. Softw.* **81** 154–64

Maimone M 2004 Defining and managing sustainable yield *Ground Water* **42** 809–14

Manda A K and Klein W A 2014 Rescuing degrading aquifers in the Central Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USA): just process, effective groundwater management policy, and sustainable aquifers *Water Resour. Res.* **50** 5662–77

Mays L W 2013 Groundwater resources sustainability: past, present, and future *Water Resour. Manag.* **27** 4409–24

Mckay J M 2011 Australian water allocation plans and the sustainability objective—conflicts and conflict-resolution measures *Hydrol. Sci. J.* **56** 615–29

Mckenzie E, Posner S, Tillmann P, Bernhardt J R, Howard K and Rosenthal A 2014 Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning *Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy* **32** 320–40

Mclaughlin D and Kinzelbach W 2015 Food security and sustainable resource management *Water Resour. Res.* **51** 4966–85

MDBA 2019 *Water resource plans, Murray-Darling Basin Authority* (https://www.mdba.gov.au/basin-plan-roll-out/water-resource-plans)

Menció A *et al* 2017 Groundwater dependence of coastal lagoons: the case of La Pletera salt marshes (NE Catalonia) *J. Hydrol.* **552** 793–806

Meyer P D, Ye M, Rockhold M L, Neuman S P and Cantrell K J 2007 Combined estimation of hydrogeologic conceptual model, parameter, and scenario uncertainty with application to uranium transport at the Hanford Site 300 area, NUREG/CR-6940 (PNNL-16396) (Washington, DC: U.S. NRC)

Meyland S J 2011 Examining safe yield and sustainable yield for groundwater supplies and moving to managed yield as water resource limits become a reality *WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.* **145** 813–23

Michael H A, Post V E A, Wilson A M and Werner A D 2017 Science, society, and the coastal groundwater squeeze *Water Resour. Res.* **53** 2610–7

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 *Millennium ecosystem assessment* (https://www.islandpress.org)

Milly A P C D, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M, Hirsch R M, Zbigniew W, Lettenmaier D P, Stouffer R J and Milly P C D
2008 Stationarity Is Dead: stationarity Whither Water Management? *Science* **319** 573–4

Milly P C D, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M, Hirsch R M, Kundzewicz Z W, Lettenmaier D P, Stouffer R J, Dettinger M D and Krysanova V 2015 On Critiques of “stationarity is Dead: whither Water Management?” *Water Resour. Res.* **51**

Milne-Home W 2016 Sustainable groundwater management: policy and practice *Green Technol. Sustain. Water Manag.* **107–46**

Mink J F 1981 Determination of Sustainable Yields in Basal Aquifer *Groundwater in Hawaii-A Century of Progress* (Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa) pp 101–16

Miro M E and Famiglietti J S 2018 A framework for quantifying sustainable yield under California's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) *Sustain. Water Resour. Manag.* **5** 1165–77

Mitchell M, Curtis A, Sharp E and Mendham E 2012 Directions for social research to underpin improved groundwater management *J. Hydrol.* **448** 223–31

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J and Altman D G 2009 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement *BMJ* **339** b2535

Molina J L, Martos-Rosillo S, Martin-Montanes C and Pierce S 2012 The social sustainable aquifer yield: an indicator for the analysis and assessment of the integrated aquifers management *Water Resour. Manag.* **26** 2951–71

Molle F 2011 Aquifer safe yield: hard science or boundary concept? *Ground Water 2011 Conf.* (Orléans, France) pp 2 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303786841_Aquifer_safe yield_hard_science_or_boundary_concept)

Montanari A *et al* 2015 Fifty years of water resources research: legacy and perspectives for the science of hydrology *Water Resour. Res.* **51** 6797–803

Montanari A *et al* 2013 “Panta Rhei-Everything Flows”: change in hydrology and society-The IAHS Scientific Decade 2013-2022 *Hydrol. Sci. J.* **58** 1256–75

Muchingami I, Chuma C, Gumbo M, Hlatwayo D and Mashingaidze R 2019 Review: approaches to groundwater exploration and resource evaluation in the crystalline basement aquifers of Zimbabwe *Hydrogeol. J.* **27** 915–28

Mulligan K B, Brown C, Yang Y-C E and Ahlfeld D P 2014 Assessing groundwater policy with coupled economic-groundwater hydrologic modeling *Water Resour. Res.* **50** 2257–75

Mustafa S M T, Moudud Hasan M, Saha A K, Rannu R P, Van Uytven E, Willems P and Huysmans M 2019 Multi-model approach to quantify groundwater-level prediction uncertainty using an ensemble of global climate models and multiple abstraction scenarios *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **23** 2279–303

Mustafa S M T, Nossent J, Ghysels G and Huysmans M 2018 Estimation and impact assessment of input and parameter uncertainty in predicting groundwater flow with a fully distributed model *Water Resour. Res.* **54** 6585–608

Nastev M, Lefebvre R, Rivera A and Martel R 2006 Quantitative assessment of regional rock aquifers, south-western Quebec, Canada *Water Resour. Manag.* **20** 1–18

Nearing G S, Tian Y, Gupta H V, Clark M P, Harrison K W and Weijs S V 2016 A philosophical basis for hydrological uncertainty *Hydrol. Sci. J.* **61** 1666–78

Neuman S P 2005 Trends, prospects and challenges in quantifying flow and transport through fractured rocks *Hydrogeol. J.* **13** 124–47

Neuman S P, Xue L, Ye M and Lu D 2012 Bayesian analysis of data-worth considering model and parameter uncertainties *Adv. Water Res.* **36** 75–85

NGC 2004 National groundwater committee, knowledge gaps for groundwater reform Proc. from Workshop (Canberra, Australia, 12–13 November 2003)

Nocchi M and Salleolini M 2013 A 3D density-dependent model for assessment and optimization of water management policy in a coastal carbonate aquifer exploited for water supply and fish farming *J. Hydrol.* **492** 200–18

Noel J E and Howitt R E 1982 Conjunctive multibasin management: an optimal control approach *Water Resour. Res.* **18** 753–63

Noel P H and Cai X 2017 On the role of individuals in models of coupled human and natural systems: lessons from a case study in the Republican River Basin *Environ. Model. Softw.* **92** 1–16

Ohdedar B 2017 Groundwater law, abstraction, and responding to climate change: assessing recent law reforms in British Columbia and England *Water Int.* **42** 691–708

Oki D S and Meyer W 2001 *Analytical Versus Numerical Estimates of Water-Level Declines Caused by Pumping, and a Case Study of the Iao Aquifer, Maui, Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4244* **31** (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri20004244)

Ostad-Ali-Askari K, Ghorbanizadeh Kharazi H, Shayannejad M and Zareian M J 2019 Effect of management strategies on reducing negative impacts of climate change on water resources of the Isfahan-Borkhar aquifer using MODFLOW River Res. Appl. **35** 611–31

Ostrom E 1990 *Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Oude Essink G 1998. MOC3D adapted to simulate 3D density-dependent groundwater flow *Proc. MODFLOW'98 Conf.* pp 291–303

Owen D, Cantor A, Nylen N G, Harter T and Kiparsky M 2019 California groundwater management, science-policy interfaces, and the legacies of artificial legal distinctions *Environ. Res. Lett.* **14** 045016

Pacheco Castro R B, Ye M, Tao X, Wang H and Zhao J 2020 Laboratory Experiments for Calibrating Flow Exchange Coefficient of MODFLOW CFP1 *Eurokarst 2018, Besancon: Advances in the Hydrogeology of Karst and Carbonate Reservoirs*, ed C Bertrand, P Renard, S Denimal and M Steinmann (Berlin: Springer) pp 151–8

Pande S and Sivapalan M 2017 Progress in socio-hydrology: a meta-analysis of challenges and opportunities *Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water* **4** e1193

Pandey V P, Shrestha S, Chapagain S K and Kazama F 2011 A framework for measuring groundwater sustainability *Environ. Sci. Policy* **14** 396–407

Passarello M C, Pierce S A and Sharp J M 2014 Uncertainty and urban water recharge for managing groundwater availability using decision support *Water Sci. Technol.* **70** 1888–96

Pereau J C and Pryet A 2018 Environmental flows in hydro-economic models *Hydrogeol. J.* **26** 2205–12

Pham H V and Tsai F T C 2015 Bayesian experimental design for identification of model propositions and conceptual model uncertainty reduction *Adv. Water Resour.* **83** 148–59

Pholkern K, Saraphirom P, Cloutier V and Srisuk K 2019 Use of alternative hydrogeological conceptual models to assess the potential impact of climate change on groundwater sustainable yield in central Huai Luang Basin, Northeast Thailand *Water* **11** 241

Pierce S A, Sharp J M and Garcia-Fresca B 2006 Evaluating groundwater allocation alternatives in an urban setting using a geographic information system data model and economic valuation techniques *Urban Groundwater, Meeting the Challenge IAH Selected Papers on Hydrogeology*, ed K W F Howard (London: CRC Press) pp 196–211

Pierce S A, Sharp J M, Guillaume J H A, Mace R E and Eaton D J 2013 Aquifer-yield continuum as a guide and typology for science-based groundwater management *Hydrogeol. J.* **21** 331–40

Pinault J-L, Doerfliger N, Ladouche B and Bakalowicz M 2004 Characterizing a coastal karst aquifer using an inverse modeling approach: the saline springs of Thau, southern France *Water Resour. Res.* **40**
Pinault J-L, Pauwels H and Cann C 2001 Inverse modeling of the hydrological and the hydrochemical behavior of hydrosystems: application to nitrate transport and denitrification *Water Resour. Res.* **37** 2179–90

Pinault J-L and Schomburgk S 2006 Inverse modeling for characterizing surface water/groundwater exchanges *Water Resour. Res.* **42** W08414

Piscopo V, Di Luca S, Dimasi M and Lotti F 2019 Sustainable yield of a hydrothermal area: from theoretical concepts to the practical approach *Groundwater* **57** 337–48

Posner S M, Mckenzie E and Ricketts T H 2016 Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge *Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.* **113** 1760–5

Post V E A, Bosserelle A L, Galvis S C, Sinclair P J and Werner A D 2018 On the resilience of small-island freshwater lenses: evidence of the long-term impacts of groundwater abstraction on Bonriki Island, Kiribati *J. Hydrol.* **564** 133–48

Praveena S M, Abdullah M H, Bidin K and Aris A Z 2012 Sustainable groundwater management on the small island of Manukan, Malaysia *Environ. Earth Sci.* **66** 719–28

Praveena S M and Aris A Z 2010 Groundwater resources assessment using numerical model: A case study in low-lying coastal area *Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.* **7** 135–46

Provost A M and Voss C I 2019 SUTRA, a model for saturated-unsaturated, variable-density groundwater flow with solute or energy transport—Documentation of generalized boundary conditions, a modified implementation of specified pressures and concentrations or temperatures, and the lake (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/tm6A52)

Pulido-Velazquez D, Renau-Prunonosa A, Llopis-Albert C, Morell I, Collados-Lara A J, Senent-Aparicio J and Baena-Ruiz L 2018 Integrated assessment of future potential global change scenarios and their hydrological impacts in coastal aquifers - a new tool to analyse management alternatives in the Plana Oropesa-Torreblanca aquifer *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **22** 3053–74

Pulido-Velazquez M, Pena-Haro S, Garcia-Prats A, Mocholi-Almudever A F, Henriquez-Dole L, Macian-Sorribes H and Lopez-Nicolas A 2015 Integrated assessment of the impact of climate and land use changes on groundwater quantity and quality in the Mancha Oriental system (Spain) *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **19** 1677–93

Qahman K, Larabi A, Ouazar D, Naji A and Cheng A H D 2005 Optimal and sustainable extraction of groundwater in coastal aquifers *Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess.* **19** 99–110

Qin H, Cao G, Kristensen M, Refsgaard J C, Rasmussen M O, He X, Liu J, Shu Y and Zheng C 2013 Integrated hydrological modeling of the North China Plain and implications for sustainable water management *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **17** 3759–78

Quevauviller P, Batelaan O and Hunt R J 2016 Groundwater Regulation and Integrated Water Planning *Integrated Groundwater Management*, ed A J Jakeman, O Barreteau, R J Hunt, J-D Rinaudo and A Ross (Berlin: Springer) pp 197–227

Rajabi M M, Ataie-Ashtiani B and Simmons C T 2018 Model-data interaction in groundwater studies: review of methods, applications and future directions *J. Hydrol.* **567** 457–77

Ramesh H and Mahesha A 2008 Simulation of Varada aquifer system for sustainable groundwater development *J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.* **134** 387–99

Ranjan R 2013 Mathematical modeling of drought resilience in agriculture *Nat. Resour. Model.* **26** 237–58

Rasmussen P, Sonnenborg T O, Goncear G and Hinsby K 2013 Assessing impacts of climate change, sea level rise, and drainage canals on saltwater intrusion to coastal aquifer *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **17** 421–43

Reddy R V, Reddy S M and Rout S K 2014 *Groundwater governance: A tale of three participatory models in Andhra Pradesh, India* vol 7 (https://www.water-alternatives.org)

Refsgaard J C, Højberg A L, Møller I, Hansen M and Søndergaard V 2010 Groundwater modeling in integrated water resources management-visions for 2020 *Ground Water* **48** 633–48

Refsgaard J C and Storm B 1995 Mike she *Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology* ed V P Singh (Colorado: Water Resources Publication) pp 809–46

Regan R S, Niswonger R G, Markstrom S L, Maples S R and Barlow P M 2018 GSFLOW version 1.2.2: coupled Groundwater and Surface-water FLOW model *U.S. Geological Survey Software Release*

Reichert P, Langhans S D, Lienert J and Schuwirth N 2015 The conceptual foundation of environmental decision support *J. Environ. Manage.* **154** 316–32

Reimann T, Giese M, Geyer T, Liedl R, Maréchal J C and Shoemaker W B 2014 Representation of water abstraction from a karst conduit with numerical discrete-continuum models *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **18** 227–41

Rejani R, Jha M K and Panda S N 2009 Simulation-optimization modelling for sustainable groundwater management in a coastal basin of Orissa, India *Water Resour. Manag.* **23** 235–63

Rejman W 2007 EU water framework directive versus real needs of groundwater management *Water Resour. Manag.* **21** 1363–72

Renau-Prunonosa A, Morell I and Pulido-Velazquez D 2016 A methodology to analyse and assess pumping management strategies in coastal aquifers to avoid degradation due to seawater intrusion problems *Water Resour. Manag.* **30** 4823–37

Rinaudo J-D, Moreau C and Garin P 2016 Social Justice and Groundwater Allocation in Agriculture: A French Case Study *Integrated Groundwater Management*, ed A J Jakeman, O Barreteau, R J Hunt, J-D Rinaudo and A Ross (Berlin: Springer) pp 273–93

Robertson W M, Allen J T, Wolaver B D and Sharp J M 2019 Aridland spring response to mesoscale precipitation: implications for groundwater-dependent ecosystem sustainability *J. Hydrol.* **570** 850–62

Rodell M, Famiglietti J S, Wiese D N, Reager J T, Beaudoing H K, Landerer F W and Lo M H 2018 Emerging trends in global freshwater availability *Nature* **557** 651–9

Rohde M M, Froend R and Howard J 2017 A global synthesis of managing groundwater dependent ecosystems under sustainable groundwater policy *Ground Water* **55** 293–301

Rohde M M, Matsumoto S, Howard J, Liu S, Riege L and Remson E J 2018 *Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: Guidance for Preparing Groundwater Sustainability Plans* (San Francisco, CA: The Nature Conservancy)

Ronayne M J, Roudebush J A and Stednick J D 2017 Analysis of managed aquifer recharge for retiming streamflow in an alluvial river *J. Hydrol.* **544** 373–82

Roobavannan M, Van Emmerik T H M, Elshafei Y, Kandasamy J, Sanderson M R, Vigneswaran S, Pande S and Sivapalan M 2018 Norms and values in sociohydrological models *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **22** 1337–49

Ross A 2016 Groundwater Governance in Australia, the European Union and the Western USA *Integrated Groundwater Management: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges*, ed A J Jakeman, O Barreteau, R J Hunt, J-D Rinaudo and A Ross (Berlin: Springer) pp 145–71

Ross A and Martinez-Santos P 2010 The challenge of groundwater governance: case studies from Spain and Australia *Reg. Environ. Chang.* **10** 299–310

Rotzoll K and Fletcher C H 2013 Assessment of groundwater inundation as a consequence of sea-level rise *Nat. Clim. Chang.* **3** 477–81

Rudestam K, Brown A and Langridge R 2018 Exploring “Deep Roots”: politics of Place and Groundwater Management Practices in the Pajaro Valley, California *Soc. Nat. Resour.* **31** 291–305

Rudestam K and Langridge R 2014 Sustainable yield in theory and practice: bridging scientific and mainstream vernacular *Ground Water* **52** 90–99

Ruiz-Constan A et al 2018 SAR interferometrymonitoring of subsidence in a detritic basin related to water depletion in
the underlying confined carbonate aquifer (Torremolinos, southern Spain) *Sci. Total Environ.* **636** 670–87

Saha D and Ray R K 2019 Groundwater Resources of India: potential, Challenges and Management *Groundwater Development and Management* (Berlin: Springer) pp 19–42

Sahoo S and Jha M K 2017 Numerical groundwater-flow modeling to evaluate potential effects of pumping and recharge: implications for sustainable groundwater management in the Mahanadi delta region, India *Hydrogeol. J.* **25** 2489–511

Sakiyan J and Yazicigil H 2004 Sustainable development and management of an aquifer system in western Turkey *Hydrogeol. J.* **12** 66–80

Salem G S A, Kazama S, Komori D, Shahid S and Dey N C 2017 Optimum abstraction of groundwater for sustaining groundwater level and reducing irrigation cost *Water Resour. Manag.* **31** 1947–59

Sanderson M R and Curtis A L 2016 Culture, climate change and farm-level groundwater management: an Australian case study *J. Hydrol.* **536** 284–92

Santos P M and Andreu J M 2010 Lumped and distributed approaches to model natural recharge in semiarid karst aquifers *J. Hydrol.* **388** 389–98

Sarma D and Xu Y X 2014 An approach to sustainable rural water supply in semi-arid Africa with a case study from Namibia *Hydrogeol. J.* **22** 1681–92

SBC 2014 SBC (State of British Columbia) *Water Sustainability Act* [SBC 2014] Chapter 15 (http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/14015)

Scanlon B R, Mace R E, Barrett M E and Smith B 2003 Can we simulate regional groundwater flow in a karst system using equivalent porous medium models? Case study, barton springs Edwards aquifer, USA *J. Hydrol.* 137–58

Scanlon B R, Reedy R C, Faunt C C, Pool D and Uhlman K 2016 Enhancing drought resilience with conjunctive use and managed aquifer recharge in California and Arizona *Environ. Res. Lett.* **11** 035013

Scanlon B R, Reedy R C and Tachovsky J A 2007 Semiarid unsaturated zone chloride profiles: archives of past land use change impacts on water resources in the southern High Plains, United States *Water Resour. Res.* **43** W06423

Scheidt C, Li L and Caers J 2018 *Quantifying Uncertainty in Subsurface Systems* (New York: Wiley)

Scherberg J, Baker T, Selker J S and Henry R 2014 Design of managed aquifer recharge for agricultural and ecological water supply assessed through numerical modeling *Water Resour. Manag.* **28** 4971–84

Schoups G, Addams C L, Minjares J L and Gorelick S M 2006 Sustainable conjunctive water management in irrigated agriculture: model formulation and application to the Yaqui Valley, Mexico *Water Resour. Res.* **42** W10417

Sedki A and Ouazar D 2011 Simulation-optimization modeling for sustainable groundwater development: a moroccan coastal aquifer case study *Water Resour. Manag.* **25** 2855–75

Seward P 2010 Challenges Facing Environmentally Sustainable Ground Water Use in South Africa *Ground Water* **48** 239–45

Seward P and Xu Y 2019 The case for making more use of the Ostrom design principles in groundwater governance research: a South African perspective *Hydrogeol. J.* **27** 1017–30

Seward P, Xu Y and Brendonck L 2006 Sustainable groundwater use, the capture principle, and adaptive management *Water SA.* **32** 473–82

Sheng Z P 2013 Impacts of groundwater pumping and climate variability on groundwater availability in the Rio Grande Basin *Ecosphere* **4** 1–25

Shi F Z, Chi B M, Zhao C Y, Yang T, de la Paix M J, Lu Y, Gao S Q, de la Paix M J, Lu Y and Sq G 2012 Identifying the sustainable groundwater yield in a Chinese semi-humid basin *J. Hydrol.* **452** 14–24

Shoemaker W B, Kuniansky E L, Birk S, Bauer S and Swain E D 2008 Documentation of a conduit flow process (CFP) for MODFLOW-2005 *U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods* 6-A24 pp 50

Shu Y Q, Villholth K G, Jensen K H, Stisen S and Lei Y P 2012 Integrated hydrological modeling of the North China Plain: options for sustainable groundwater use in the alluvial plain of Mt. Taihang *J. Hydrol.* **464** 79–93

Siebert S, Burke J, Faures J M, Frenken K, Hoogeveen J, Döll P and Portmann F T 2010 Groundwater use for irrigation - A global inventory *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **14** 1863–80

Sikdar P K 2019 Problems and Challenges for Groundwater Management in South Asia *Groundwater Development and Management* (Berlin: Springer) pp 1–18

Singh A 2014 Optimization modelling for seawater intrusion management *J. Hydrol.* **508** 43–52

Singh A 2015 Managing the environmental problem of seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers through simulation-optimization modeling *Ecol. Indic.* **48** 498–504

Sivapalan M and Blöschl G 2015 Time scale interactions and the coevolution of humans and water *Water Resour. Res.* **51** 6988–7022

Sivapalan M, Konar M, Srinivasan V, Chhatre A, Wutich A, Scott C A, Wescoat J L and Rodríguez-Iturbe I 2014 Socio-hydrology: use-inspired water sustainability science for the Anthropocene *Earth's Futur* **2** 225–30

Smith A, Walker G and Turner J 2010 Aquifer sustainability factor: a review of previous estimates (https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?list=BRO&pid=csiro:EP104584&expert=false, RECENT&n=8&rpp=50&page=1™9&dr=all&dc4 Creater=turner, jeffrey)

Sophocleous M 2000 From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources - the Kansas experience *J. Hydrol.* **235** 27–43

Sophocleous M 2005 Groundwater recharge and sustainability in the high plains aquifer in Kansas, USA *Hydrogeol. J.* **13** 351–65

Sophocleous M 2007 The science and practice of environmental flows and the role of hydrogeologists *Ground Water* **45** 393–401

Sophocleous M 2010 Review: groundwater management practices, challenges, and innovations in the High Plains aquifer, USA-lessons and recommended actions *Hydrogeol. J.* **18** 559–75

Sophocleous M 2012 The evolution of groundwater management paradigms in Kansas and possible new steps towards water sustainability *J. Hydrol.* **414** 550–9

Sproat D K 2009 *Ola I Ka Wai: A Legal Primer for Water Use and Management in Hawai'i* (Honolulu: Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law) (www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/https://www.law.hawaii.edu/files/content/news/18470/WaterPrimer.pdf)

Sreekanth J and Datta B 2015 Review: simulation-optimization models for the management and monitoring of coastal aquifers *Hydrogeol. J.* **23** 1155–66

Srinivasan V, Konar M and Sivapalan M 2017 A dynamic framework for water security *Water Secur.* **1** 12–20

Srinivasan V and Kulkarni S 2014 Examining the emerging role of groundwater in water inequity in India *Water Int.* **39** 172–86

Stigter T Y, Monteiro J P, Nunes L M, Vieira J, Cunha M C, Ribeiro L, Nascimento J and Lucas H 2009 Screening of sustainable groundwater sources for integration into a regional drought-prone water supply system *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **13** 1185–99

Susnik J, Molina J L, Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia L S, Savic D A and Kapelan Z 2013 Comparative analysis of system dynamics and object-oriented bayesian networks modelling for water systems management *Water Resour. Manag.* **27** 819–41

Tallis H and Lubchenco J 2014 Working together: A call for inclusive conservation *Nature* **515** 27–28
Tan P L, Bowmer K H and Mackenzie J 2012 Deliberative tools for meeting the challenges of water planning in Australia J. *Hydrol.* **474** 2–10

Taylor R G *et al* 2013 Ground water and climate change Nat. Clim. Chang. **3** 322–9

Theis C V 1940 The source of water derived from wells essential factors controlling the response of an aquifer to development Civ. Eng. **10** 277–80

Thomas B F 2019 Sustainability indices to evaluate groundwater adaptive management: a case study in California (USA) for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act *Hydrogeol. J.* **27** 239–48

Thomas B F and Famiglietti J S 2015 Sustainable groundwater management in the arid Southwestern US: coachella Valley, California Water Resour. Manag. **29** 4411–26

Thomas H E and Harold E 1951 *The Conservation of Ground Water: A Survey of the Present Ground-water Situation in the United States* (New York: McGraw-Hill)

Thompson S E, Sivapalan M, Harman C J, Srinivasan V, Hipsey M R, Reed P, Montanari A and Blöschl G 2013 Developing predictive insight into changing water systems: use-inspired hydrologic science for the anthropocene *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **17** 5013–39

Tian Y, Zheng Y, Zheng C M, Xiao H L, Fan W J, Zou S B, Wu B, Yao Y Y, Zhang A J and Liu J 2015 Exploring scale-dependent ecohydrological responses in a large endorheic river basin through integrated surface water-groundwater modeling *Water Resour. Res.* **51** 4065–85

Tihansky A B 1999 Sinkholes, West-Central Florida: A link between surface water and ground water *Land Subsidence in the United States*, ed D Galloway, D R Jones and S E Ingebritsen (Tampa, USA: U.S. Geological Survey) pp 121–40

Timani B and Peralta R 2015 Multi-model groundwater-management optimization: reconciling disparate conceptual models *Hydrogeol. J.* **23** 1067–87

Tortajada C, Kastner M J, Buurman J and Biswas A K 2017 The California drought: coping responses and resilience building *Environ. Sci. Policy* **78** 97–113

Trefry M G and Muffels C 2007 FEFLOW: A finite-element ground water flow and transport modeling tool *Ground Water* **45** 525–8

Tsai F T-C and Elshall A S 2013 Hierarchical Bayesian model averaging for hydrostratigraphic modeling: uncertainty segregation and comparative evaluation *Water Resour. Res.* **49** 5520–36

Tuinstra J and van Wensem J 2014 Ecosystem services in sustainable groundwater management *Sci. Total Environ.* **485**–6

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1973 *Water Quality Criteria 1972* (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office)

Uddameri V, Hernandez E A and Estrada F 2014 A fuzzy simulation–optimization approach for optimal estimation of groundwater availability under decision maker uncertainty *Environ. Earth Sci.* **71** 2559–72

UN FAO 2016 *Shared global Vision for Groundwater Governance 2030 and a Call-for-Action 2030* (Rome: Groundwater Governance)

Unsal B, Yagbasan O and Yazicigil H 2014 Assessing the impacts of climate change on sustainable management of coastal aquifers *Environ. Earth Sci.* **72** 2183–93

Unver O, Bhaduri A and Hoogeveen J 2017 Water-use efficiency and productivity improvements towards a sustainable pathway for meeting future water demand *Water Security* **1** 21–27

Urrutia J, Jodar J, Medina A, Herrera C, Chong G, Urqueta H and Luque J A 2018 Hydrogeology and sustainable future groundwater abstraction from the Agua Verde aquifer in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile *Hydrogeol. J.* **26** 1989–2007

US EPA 1994 *Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model: A (Set Includes, A- User's Guide for Version 3*

w/disks, B-Engineering Documentation for Version 3) No. EPA/600/R-94/168A

Vadiati M, Adamowski J and Beynaghi A 2018 A brief overview of trends in groundwater research: progress towards sustainability? *J. Environ. Manage.* **223** 849–51

Valderrama J M, Ibanez J, Alcala F J, Dominguez A, Yassin M and Puigdefabregas J 2011 The use of a hydrological-economic model to assess sustainability in groundwater-dependent agriculture in drylands *J. Hydrol.* **402** 80–91

van Kelley P, Mace R and Deeds P 2008 *Groundwater availability modeling—The Texas experience* (https://www.intera.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/the-water-report-august.pdf)

Vandenbohede A, Van Houtte E and Lebbe L 2009 Sustainable groundwater extraction in coastal areas: A Belgian example *Environ. Geol.* **57** 735–47

Velis M, Conti K I and Biermann F 2017 Groundwater and human development: synergies and trade-offs within the context of the sustainable development goals *Sustain. Sci.* **12** 1007–17

Vijay R and Mohapatra P K 2016 Hydrodynamic assessment of coastal aquifer against saltwater intrusion for city water supply of Puri, India *Environ. Earth Sci.* **75** 588

Villholth K G and Conti K I 2018 Groundwater governance: rationale, definition, current state and heuristic framework *Advances in Groundwater Governance* ed K G Villholth, E Lopez-Gunn, K Conti, A Garrido and J Van Der Gun (London: CRC Press) pp 3–31

Vogel R M, Lall U, Cai X, Rajagopalan B, Weiskel P K, Hooper R P and Matalas N C 2015 Hydrology: the interdisciplinary science of water *Water Resour. Res.* **51** 4409–30

von Brömssen M *et al* 2014 Hydrogeological investigation for assessment of the sustainability of low-arsenic aquifers as a safe drinking water source in regions with high-arsenic groundwater in Matlab, southeastern Bangladesh *J. Hydrol.* **518** 373–92

Vörösmarty C J *et al* 2010 Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity *Nature* **467** 555–61

Voss C I 2011a Editor's message: groundwater modeling fantasies-part 2, down to earth *Hydrogeol. J.* **19** 1455–8

Voss C I 2011b Editor's message: groundwater modeling fantasies-part 1, adrift in the details *Hydrogeol. J.* **19** 1281–4

Voss C I and Soliman S M 2014 The transboundary non-renewable Nubian Aquifer System of Chad, Egypt, Libya and Sudan: classical groundwater questions and parsimonious hydrogeologic analysis and modeling *Hydrogeol. J.* **22** 441–68

Voudouris K S 2006 Groundwater balance and safe yield of the coastal aquifer system in NEastern Korinthia, Greece *Appl. Geogr.* **26** 291–311

Vouillamoz J M, Hoareau J, Grammare M, Caron D, Nandagiri L and Legchenko A 2012 Quantifying aquifer properties and freshwater resource in coastal barriers: a hydrogeophysical approach applied at Sasithihlu (Karnataka state, India) *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **16** 4387–400

Wada Y, Bierkens M F P, De Roo A, Dirmeyer P A, Famiglietti J S, Hanasaki N, Konar M, Liu J and Schmied H M 2017 Human-water interface in hydrological modelling: current status and future directions *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci* **21** 4169–93

Wagener T, Sivapalan M, Troch P A, Mcglynn B L, Harman C J, Gupta H V, Kumar P, Rao P S C, Basu N B and Wilson J S 2010 The future of hydrology: an evolving science for a changing world *Water Resour. Res.* **46** W05301

Walton W C and Mclane C F 2013 Aspects of groundwater supply sustainable yield *Ground Water* **51** 158–60

Wang Y, Zheng C and Ma R 2018 Review: safe and sustainable groundwater supply in China *Hydrogeol. J.* **26** 1301–24

Watson R T 2005 Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science-policy interface *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.* **360** 471–7

Werner A D, Bakker M, Post V E A, Vandenbohede A, Lu C, Ataie-Ashtiani B, Simmons C T and Barry D A 2013
Seawater intrusion processes, investigation and management: recent advances and future challenges *Adv. Water Resour.* **51** 3–26

Werner A D, Sharp H K, Galvis S C, Post V E A and Sinclair P 2017 Hydrogeology and management of freshwater lenses on atoll islands: review of current knowledge and research needs *J. Hydrol.* **551** 819–44

Wesselink A, Kooy M and Warner J 2017 Socio-hydrology and hydrosocial analysis: toward dialogues across disciplines *Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water* **4** e1196

WFD 2000 *Directive 2000/60/EC* (https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html)

Wheater H S and Gober P 2015 Water security and the science agenda *Water Resour. Res.* **51** 9127–40

White D D, Wutich A, Larson K L, Gober P, Lant T and Senneville C 2010 Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater *Sci. Public Policy* **37** 219–32

Wiek A and Larson K L 2012 Water, people, and sustainability-a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes *Water Resour. Manag.* **26** 3153–71

Williamson J 2005 *Bayesian Nets and Causality: Philosophical and Computational Foundations* (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Wöhling T, Schöniger A, Gayler S and Nowak W 2015 Bayesian model averaging to explore the worth of data for soil-plant model selection and prediction *Water Resour. Res.* **51** 2825–46

Womble P 2017 Multimodel groundwater analysis in U.S. courts: potential applications and limitations *Groundwater* **55** 630–4

Worthington S R H and Ford D C 2009 Self-Organized Permeability in Carbonate Aquifers *Ground Water* **47** 326–36

Wu B, Zheng Y, Tian Y, Wu X, Yao Y, Han F, Liu J and Zheng C 2014 Systematic assessment of the uncertainty in integrated surface water-groundwater modeling based on the probabilistic collocation method *Water Resour. Res.* **50** 5848–65

Wu X, Zheng Y, Wu B, Tian Y, Han F and Zheng C 2015 Optimizing conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater for irrigation to address human-nature water conflicts: A surrogate modeling approach *Agric. Water Manag.* **163** 380–92

Wurl J, Gamez A E, Ivanova A, Lamadrid M A I and Hernandez-Morales P 2018 Socio-hydrological resilience of an arid aquifer system, subject to changing climate and inadequate agricultural management: A case study from the Valley of Santo Domingo, Mexico *J. Hydrol.* **559** 486–98

Xu T, Valocchi A J, Ye M and Liang F 2017 Quantifying model structural error: efficient Bayesian calibration of a regional groundwater flow model using surrogates and a data-driven error model *Water Resour. Res.* **53** 4084–105

Xu Z X, Hu B X, Davis H and Cao J H 2015 Simulating long term nitrate-N contamination processes in the Woodville Karst Plain using CFPv2 with UMT3D *J. Hydrol.* **524** 72–88

Yamagata K, Butts M B, Grooss J, Clausen T H, Graham D N, Clausnitzer V, Gründler R and Monninkhoff B 2012 Investigating an OpenMI coupling of FEFLOW and MIKE SHE 34th *Hydrology and Water Resources Symp.* (Sydney: Engineers Australia) (https://www.openmi.org)

Yang Z Y, Wang W K, Wang Z, Jiang G H and Li W L 2016 Ecology-oriented groundwater resource assessment in the Tuwei River watershed, Shaanxi Province, China *Hydrogeol. J.* **24** 1939–52

Ye M, Pohlmann K F and Chapman J B 2008 Expert elicitation of recharge model probabilities for the Death Valley regional flow system *J. Hydrology* **354** 102–15

Ye M, Pohlmann K F, Chapman J B, Pohll G M and Reeves D M 2010 A model-averaging method for assessing groundwater conceptual model uncertainty *Ground Water* **48** 716–28

Yihdego Y and Drury L 2016 Mine water supply assessment and evaluation of the system response to the designed demand in a desert region, central Saudi Arabia *Environ. Monit. Assess.* **188** 619

Yin D, Shu L C, Xu C D, Wang Z L and Appiah-Adjei E K 2012 An approach for estimating sustainable yield of karst water in data sparse regions *Environ. Earth Sci.* **66** 399–407

Zagonari F 2010 Sustainable, EEFrom Brazil *Water Resour. Manag.* **24** 3731–56

Zaveri E, Grogan D S, Fisher-Vanden K, Frolking S, Lammers R B, Wrenn D H, Prusevich A and Nicholas R E 2016 Invisible water, visible impact: groundwater use and Indian agriculture under climate change *Environ. Res. Lett.* **11** 084005

Zellner M L 2007 Generating policies for sustainable water use in complex scenarios: an integrated land-use and water-use model of Monroe County, Michigan *Environment and Planning B* **34** 664–87

Zellner M L and Reeves H W 2012 Examining the contradiction in ‘sustainable urban growth’: an example of groundwater sustainability *J. Environ. Plan. Manag.* **55** 545–63

Zhang G, Lu D, Ye M, Gunzburger M and Webster C 2013 An adaptive sparse-grid high-order stochastic collocation method for Bayesian inference in groundwater reactive transport modeling *Water Resour. Res.* **49** 6871–92

Zhang J, Man J, Lin G, Wu L and Zeng L 2018 Inverse modeling of hydrologic systems with adaptive multifidelity markov chain monte carlo simulations *Water Resour. Res.* **54** 4867–86

Zhang L and Kennedy C 2006 Determination of sustainable yield in urban groundwater systems: beijing, China *J. Hydrol. Eng.* **11** 21–28

Zhang X, Ren L and Kong X 2016 Estimating spatiotemporal variability and sustainability of shallow groundwater in a well-irrigated plain of the Haihe River basin using SWAT model *J. Hydrol.* **541** 1221–40

Zhang Z, Hu H, Tian F, Yao X and Sivapalan M 2014 Groundwater dynamics under water-saving irrigation and implications for sustainable water management in an oasis: tarim River basin of western China *Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.* **18** 3951–67

Zhao J, Lin J, Wu J F, Yang Y and Wu J C 2016 Numerical modeling of seawater intrusion in Zhoushuizi district of Dalian City in northern China *Environ. Earth Sci.* **75** 805

Zhou P P, Li M and Lu Y D 2017 Study on the groundwater sustainable problem by numerical simulation in a multi-layered coastal aquifer system of Zhanjiang, China *J. Earth Syst. Sci.* **126** 102

Zhou Y X 2009 A critical review of groundwater budget myth, safe yield and sustainability *J. Hydrol.* **370** 207–13