[84] Battin TJ, Lauerwald R, Bernhardt ES, Bertuzzo E, Gener LG, Hall RO, et al. River ecosystem metabolism and carbon biogeochemistry in a changing world. Nature 2023;613:449–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05500-8.

[85] Calamita E, Siviglia A, Gettel GM, Franca MJ, Winton RS, Teodoru CR, et al. Unaccounted CO2 leaks downstream of a large tropical hydroelectric reservoir. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2021;118:e2026004118. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.2026004118.

[86] Ziliotto F, Basilio Hazas M, Rolle M, Chiogna G. Mixing enhancement mechanisms in aquifers affected by hydropкеaking: insights from flow-through laboratory experiments. Geophys Res Lett 2021;48:e2026GL095336. https://doi.org/ 10.1029/2021GL095336.

[87] Song X, Chen X, Zachara JM, Gomez-Velez JD, Shuai P, Ren H, et al. River dynamics control transit time distributions and biogeochemical reactions in a dam-regulated River corridor. Water Resour Res 2020;56:e2019WR026470. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026470.

[88] Vanzo D, Zolezzi G, Siviglia A. Eco-hydraulic modelling of the interactions between hydropкеaking and river morphology. Ecohydrology 2016;9:421–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1647.

[89] Béjar M, Gibbins CN, Vericat D, Batalla RJ. Effects of suspended sediment transport on invertebrate drift. River Res Appl 2017;33:1655–66. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/rra.3146.

[90] Tuhtan JA, Noack M, Wieprecht S. Estimating stranding risk due to hydropкеaking for juvenile European grayling considering river morphology. KSCE J Civ Eng 2012;16:197–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-012-0002-5.

[91] Hauer C, Holzapfel P, Tonolla D, Habersack H, Zolezzi G. In situ measurements of fine sediment infiltration (FSI) in gravel-bed rivers with a hydropкеaking flow regime. Earth Surf Process Landforms 2019;44:433–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ esp.4505.

[92] Hauer C, Holzapfel P, Habersack H, Tonolla D. Hydrologische, morphologische und sedimentologische Analysen als Grundlage für die Konzipierung von Schwall-Sunk-Maßnahmen — fallbeispiel Alpenrhein. Wasserwirtschaft 2016;16–22.

[93] Hauer C, Holzapfel P, Tonolla D, Habersack H. Diskussion hydrologischer, morphologischer und sedimentologischer Kriterien für die Implementierung möglicher Schwall-Sunk-Maßnahmen. Wasserwirtschaft 2016;1:23–8.

[94] Kondolf GM. PROFILE: hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environ Manag 1997;21:533–51.

[95] Wohl E, Bledsoe BP, Jacobson RB, Poff NL, Rathburn SL, Walters DM, et al. The natural sediment regime in rivers: broadening the foundation for ecosystem management. Bioscience 2015;65:358–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/ biv002.

[96] Vericat D, Ville F, Paulau-Ibars A, Batalla RJ. Effects of hydropкеaking on bed mobility: evidence from a Pyrenean River. Water 2020;12:178. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w12010178.

[97] López R, Ville F, Garcia C, Batalla RJ. Vericat D. Bed-material entrainment in a mountain river affected by hydropкеaking. Sci Total Environ 2023;856:159065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159065.

[98] Loire R, Piégay H, Malavoi J-R, Kondolf GM, Béche LA. From flushing flows to (eco)morphogenic releases: evolving terminology, practice, and integration into river management. Earth Sci Rev 2021;213:103475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. earscirev.2020.103475.

[99] Mürle U, Ortlepp J, Zahner. Effects of experimental flooding on river morphology, structure and riparian vegetation: the River Spöl, Swiss National Park. Aquat Sci 2003;65:191–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-003-0665-6.

[100] Poff NLR, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, et al. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 1997;47:769–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313099.

[101] Bunn SE, Arthington AH. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 2002;30:492–507. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0.

[102] Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshw Biol 2010;55:194–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2427.2009.02272.x.

[103] Hayes DS, Brändle JM, Seliger C, Zeiringer B, Ferreira T, Schmutz S. Advancing towards functional environmental flows for temperate floodplain rivers. Sci Total Environ 2018;633:1089–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.221.

[104] Saltveit SJ, Halleraker JH, Arnekleiv JV, Harby A. Field experiments on stranding in juvenile atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) during rapid flow decreases caused by hydropкеaking. Regul Rivers Res Manag 2001;17: 609–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.652.

[105] Bruno MC, Cashman MJ, Maiolini B, Biffi S, Zolezzi G. Responses of benthic invertebrates to repeated hydropкеaking in semi-natural flume simulations. Ecohydrology 2016;9:68–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1611.

[106] Schülting L, Feld CK, Graf W. Effects of hydro- and thermopeaking on benthic macroinvertebrate drift. Sci Total Environ 2016;573:1472–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.022.

[107] Auer S, Zeiringer B, Führer S, Tonolla D, Schmutz S. Effects of river bank heterogeneity and time of day on drift and stranding of juvenile European grayling (Thymallus thymallus L.) caused by hydropкеaking. Sci Total Environ 2017;575:1515–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.029.

[108] Bejarano MD, Sordo-Ward Å, Alonso C, Jansson R, Nilsson C. Hydropкеaking affects germination and establishment of riverbank vegetation. Ecol Appl 2020; 30:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2076.

[109] Tonolla D, Dossi F, Kastenhofer O, Doering M, Hauer C, Graf W, et al. Effects of hydropкеaking on drift, stranding and community composition of

macroinvertebrates: a field experimental approach in three regulated Swiss rivers. River Res Appl 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4019.

[110] Holzapfel P, Leitner P, Habersack H, Graf W, Hauer C. Evaluation of hydropкеaking impacts on the food web in alpine streams based on modelling of fish- and macroinvertebrate habitats. Sci Total Environ 2017;575:1489–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.016.

[111] Bruno MC, Siviglia A, Carolli M, Maiolini B. Multiple drift responses of benthic invertebrates to interacting hydropкеaking and thermopeaking waves. Ecohydrology 2013;6:511–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1275.

[112] Capra H, Plichard L, Bergé J, Pella H, Ovidio M, McNeil E, et al. Fish habitat selection in a large hydropкеaking river: strong individual and temporal variations revealed by telemetry. Sci Total Environ 2017;578:109–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.155.

[113] Hayes DS, Moreira M, Boavida I, Haslauer M, Unfer G, Zeiringer B, et al. Life stage-specific hydropкеaking flow rules. Sustainability 2019;11:1547. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11061547.

[114] Boavida I, Caetano L, Pinheiro AN. E-flows to reduce the hydropкеaking impacts on the Iberian barbel (Luciobarbus bocagei) habitat. An effectiveness assessment based on the COSH tool application. Sci Total Environ 2020;699:134209. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134209.

[115] Baladrón A, Bejarano MD, Sarneel JM, Boavida I. Trapped between drowning and desiccation: riverine plants under hydropкеaking. Sci Total Environ 2022;829: 154451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154451.

[116] Cashman MJ, Harvey GL, Wharton G, Bruno MC. Wood mitigates the effect of hydropкеaking scour on periphyton biomass and nutritional quality in semi- natural flume simulations. Aquat Sci 2017;79:459–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00027-016-0510-3.

[117] Wohl E. Connectivity in rivers. Prog Phys Geogr Earth Environ 2017;41:345–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133317714972.

[118] Kennedy TA, Muehlbauer JD, Yackulic CB, Lytle DA, Miller SW, Dibble KL, et al. Flow management for hydropower extirpates aquatic insects, undermining river food webs. Bioscience 2016;66:561–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw059.

[119] Larrieu KG, Pasternack GB. Automated analysis of lateral river connectivity and fish stranding risks. Part 2: juvenile Chinook salmon stranding at a river rehabilitation site. Ecohydrology 2021;14:e2303. https://doi.org/10.1002/ eco.2303.

[120] Hayes DS, Auer S, Fauchery E, Graf D, Hasler T, Mameri D, et al. The interactive effect of river bank morphology and daytime on downstream displacement and stranding of cyprinid larvae in hydropкеaking conditions. Echodyl Hydrobiol 2023;23:152–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2022.12.001.

[121] Lewandowski J, Arnon S, Banks E, Batelaan O, Betterle A, Broecker T, et al. Is the hyporheic zone relevant beyond the scientific community? Water 2019;11:2230. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112230.

[122] Merchán-Rivera P, Basilio Hazas M, Marcolini G, Chiogna G. Propagation of hydropкеaking waves in heterogeneous aquifers: effects on flow topology and uncertainty quantification. Int J Geom 2022;13:11. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13137-022-00202-9.

[123] Antonetti M, Hoppler L, Tonolla D, Vanzo D, Schmid M, Doering M. Integrating two-dimensional water temperature simulations into a fish habitat model to improve hydro- and thermopeaking impact assessment. River Res Appl 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4043.

[124] Auer S, Hayes DS, Führer S, Zeiringer B, Schmutz S. Effects of cold and warm thermopeaking on drift and stranding of juvenile European grayling (Thymallus thymallus). River Res Appl 2023;39:401–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4077.

[125] Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Lévéque C, et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev Camb Phil Soc 2006;81:163–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1464793105006950.

[126] Côté IM, Darling ES, Brown CJ. Interactions among ecosystem stressors and their importance in conservation. Proc Biol Sci 2016;283:20152592. https://doi.org/ 10.1098/rspb.2015.2592.

[127] Hastik R, Basso S, Geitner C, Haida C, Poljanec A, Portaccio A, et al. Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48: 608–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.004.

[128] Grizzetti B, Lanzanova D, Liquepe C, Reynaud A, Cardoso AC. Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environ Sci Pol 2016;61: 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.008.

[129] Hayes DS, Muhar S, Popp S, Becsi R, Mühlmann H, Ofenböck G, et al. Evaluierung kultureller Ökosystemleistungen renaturierter Fließgewässer. Österreichische Wasser- Abfallwirtsch 2022;74:486–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00506-022- 00895-0.

[130] Venus TE, Smialek N, Pander J, Harby A, Geist J. Evaluating cost trade-offs between hydropower and fish passage mitigation. Sustainability 2020;12:8520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208520.

[131] Mayeda AM, Boyd AD. Factors influencing public perceptions of hydropower projects: a systematic literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;121: 109713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109713.

[132] Aas Ø, Onstad O. Strategic and temporal substitution among anglers and white-water kayakers: the case of an urban regulated river. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 2013;1–2:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jort.2013.04.002.

[133] Carolli M, Zolezzi G, Geneletti D, Siviglia A, Caroli F, Cainelli O. Modelling white-water rafting suitability in a hydropower regulated Alpine River. Sci Total Environ 2017;579:1035–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.049.
[134] Pisaturo GR, Righetti M, Castellana C, Larcher M, Menapace A, Premstaller G. A procedure for human safety assessment during hydropowering events. Sci Total Environ 2019;661:294-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.158.

[135] Ruokamo E, Juutinen A, Ashraf F, Haghighi AT, Hellstein S, Huuki H, et al. Estimating the economic value of hydropowering externalities in regulated rivers. 2022. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs.2068765/v1.

[136] European Commission. Energy roadmap 2050, 2011. MEMO/11/91.

[137] European Union. Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond European Parliament resolution of 5 July 2011 on energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond (2011/2034(INI)). Ergänzung zu Endbericht: suremma, Sustainable River Management - energiewirtschaftliche und umweltrelevante Bewertung möglicher schwalldämpfender Maßnahmen. 2017.

[138] Neubarth J. Technischer Bericht C - die Rolle der Speicherwasserkraft im österreichischen und europäischen Stromversorgungssystem. Ergänzung zu Endbericht: suremma, Sustainable River Management - energiewirtschaftliche und umweltrelevante Bewertung möglicher schwalldämpfender Maßnahmen. 2017.

[139] Ashraf FB, Haghighi AT, Riml J, Alfredsen K, Koskela JJ, Kløve B, et al. Changes in short term river flow regulation and hydropowering in Nordic rivers. Sci Rep 2018; 8:17232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35406-3.

[140] Greimel F, Neubarth J, Fuhrmann M, Führer S, Habersack H, Haslauer M, et al. SuREmMa, Sustainable River Management - energiewirtschaftliche und umweltrelevante Bewertung möglicher schwalldämpfender Maßnahmen. Vienna: Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft; 2017.

[141] Neubarth J. Technischer Bericht III – erweiterte energiewirtschaftliche Bewertung möglicher Maßnahmen zur Minderung von negativen schwall- und sunkbedingten ökologischen Auswirkungen. Ergänzung zu Endbericht: SuREmMa+ Entwicklung einer Methode zur ökologischen und energiewirtschaftlichen Bewertung von Maßnahmen zur Minderung von negativen schwall- und sunkbedingten ökologischen Auswirkungen. 2020.

[142] Oladosu GA, Werble J, Tingen W, Witt A, Mobley M, O'Connor P. Costs of mitigating the environmental impacts of hydropower projects in the United States. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;135:110121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110121.

[143] Venus TE, Sauer J. Certainty pays off: the public's value of environmental monitoring. Ecol Econ 2022;191:107220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107220.

[144] Kampa E. Policy framework for hydropower mitigation. In: Rutschmann P, Kampa E, Wolter C, Albayrak I, David L, Stoltz U, et al., editors. Novel developments for sustainable hydropower. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99138-1.

[145] European Commission. CIS Guidance Document No. 37. Steps for defining and assessing ecological potential for improving comparability of Heavily Modified Water Bodies. European Commission; 2020. https://www.ecologic.eu/17302#:~:text=The%20CIS%20Guidance%20Document%20No,Water%20Framework%20Directive%20(WFD).

[146] Halleraker J.H., van de Bund W., Bussettini M., Gosling R., Döbbelt-Grüne S., Hensman J., et al. Working Group ECOSTATE report on common understanding of using mitigation measures for reaching good Ecological Potential for heavily modified water bodies - Part 1: impacted by water storage. 2016. doi:10.2760/649695.

[147] Nielsen N, Szabo-Meszaros M. A roadmap for best practice on management of hydropower and fish. 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.780568.

[148] Greimel F, Neubarth J, Fuhrmann M, Zoltan L, Zeiringer B, Schülting L, et al. Forschungsbericht SuREmMa+: entwicklung einer Methode zur ökologischen und energiewirtschaftlichen Bewertung von Maßnahmen zur Minderung von negativen schwall- und sunkbedingten ökologischen Auswirkungen. Vienna, Austria: Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Regionen und Tourismus; 2021.

[149] International Hydropower Association. The hydropower sustainability standard. 2022.

[150] World Bank Group. Good practice handbook: environmental flows for hydropower projects. Guidance for the private sector in emerging markets. 2018.

[151] European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (taxonomy). 2021.

[152] Moreira M, Hayes DS, Boavida I, Schletterer M, Schmutz S, Pinheiro A. Ecologically-based criteria for hydropowering mitigation: a review. Sci Total Environ 2019;657:1508-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.107.

[153] European Commission. A. European Green Deal. Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/prioritises-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.

[154] European Commission. Nature restoration law. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en.

[155] Halleraker JH, Kenawi MS, L'Abée-Lund JH, Bakken TH, Alfredsen K. Assessment of flow ramping in water bodies impacted by hydropower operation in Norway – is hydropower with environmental restrictions more sustainable? Sci Total Environ 2022;832:154776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154776.

[156] L'Abée-Lund JH, Otero J. Hydropowering in small hydropower in Norway—compliance with license conditions? River Res Appl 2018;34:372-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3258.

[157] Jones NE. The dual nature of hydropowering rivers: is ecopeaking possible? River Res Appl 2014;30:521-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2653.

[158] Köhler B, Ruud A. How are environmental measures realized in European hydropower? A case study of Austria, Switzerland and Sweden. HydroCen Report 2019;6. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2603532.

[159] Bruder A, Tonolla D, Schweizer SP, Vollenweider S, Langhans SD, Wüest A. A conceptual framework for hydropowering mitigation. Sci Total Environ 2016; 568:1204-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.032.

[160] Pracheil BM, McManamay RA, Parish ES, Curd SL, Smith BT, DeRolph CR, et al. A checklist of river function indicators for hydropower ecological assessment. Sci Total Environ 2019;687:1245-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.049.

[161] Halleraker JH, Natvik EV, Vaskinn K, L'Abée-Lund JH, Alfredsen K. By-pass valves in hydropower plants: An ecologically important measure to mitigate stranding in rivers due to emergency turbine flow shutdown. River Res Appl 2023;39:588-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4113.

[162] Olivares MA, Haas J, Palma-Behnke R, Benavides C. A framework to identify Pareto-efficient subdayly environmental flow constraints on hydropower reservoirs using a grid-wide power dispatch model. Water Resour Res 2015;51:3664-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016215.

[163] Anindito Y, Haas J, Olivares M, Nowak W, Kern J. A new solution to mitigate hydropowering? Batteries versus re-regulation reservoirs. J Clean Prod 2019;210:477-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.JCLEPRO.2018.11.040.

[164] Román A, García de Jalón D, Alonso C. Could future electric vehicle energy storage be used for hydropowering mitigation? An eight-country viability analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;149:760-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.04.032.

[165] Rutschmann P, Kampa E, Wolter C, Albayrak I, David L, Stoltz U, et al., editors. Novel developments for sustainable hydropower. Springer Nature; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99138-8.

[166] Liu J, Zuo J, Sun Z, Zillante G, Chen X. Sustainability in hydropower development—a case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:230-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.036.

[167] Best J. Anthropogenic stresses on the world's big rivers. Nat Geosci 2019;12:7-21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0262-x.

[168] Droujko J, Molnar P. Open-source, low-cost, in-situ turbidity sensor for river network monitoring. Sci Rep 2022;12:10341. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14228-4.

[169] Ross MRV, Topp SN, Appling AP, Yang X, Kuhn C, Butman D, et al. AquaSat: a data set to enable remote sensing of water quality for inland waters. Water Resour Res 2019;55:10012-25. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024883.

[170] Bauer P, Stevens B, Hazeleger W. A digital twin of Earth for the green transition. Nat Clim Change 2021;11:80-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00986-y.

[171] Sivapalan M, Savenije HHG, Blöschl G. Socio-hydrology: a new science of people and water. Hydrol Process 2012;26:1270-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8426.

[172] Murray AB, Knaapen MaF, Tal M, Kirwan ML. Biomorphodynamics: physical-biological feedbacks that shape landscapes. Water Resour Res 2008;44. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006410.

[173] Bertoldi W, Gurnell A, Surian N, Tockner K, Zanoni L, Ziliani L, et al. Understanding reference processes: linkages between river flows, sediment dynamics and vegetated landforms along the Tagliamento River. Italy. River Research and Applications 2009;25:501-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1233.

[174] Ashmore P. Towards a sociogeomorphology of rivers. Geomorphology 2015;251:149-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j geomorph.2015.02.020.

[175] Hein T, Hauer C, Schmid M, Stöglehner G, Stumm C, Ertl T, et al. The coupled socio-ecohydrological evolution of river systems: towards an integrative perspective of river systems in the 21st century. Sci Total Environ 2021;801:149619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149619.

[176] Kougias I, Aggidis G, Avellan F, Deniz S, Lundin U, Moro A, et al. Analysis of emerging technologies in the hydropower sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;113:109257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109257.
[134] Pisaturo GR, Righetti M, Castellana C, Larcher M, Menapace A, Premstaller G. A procedure for human safety assessment during hydropowering events. Sci Total Environ 2019;661:294-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.158.

[135] Ruokamo E, Juutinen A, Ashraf F, Haghighi AT, Hellstein S, Huuki H, et al. Estimating the economic value of hydropowering externalities in regulated rivers. 2022. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs.2068765/v1.

[136] European Commission. Energy roadmap 2050, 2011. MEMO/11/91.

[137] European Union. Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond European Parliament resolution of 5 July 2011 on energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond (2011/2034(INI)). Ergänzung zu Endbericht: suremma, Sustainable River Management - energiewirtschaftliche und umweltrelevante Bewertung möglicher schwalldämpfender Maßnahmen. 2017.

[138] Neubarth J. Technischer Bericht C - die Rolle der Speicherwasserkraft im österreichischen und europäischen Stromversorgungssystem. Ergänzung zu Endbericht: suremma, Sustainable River Management - energiewirtschaftliche und umweltrelevante Bewertung möglicher schwalldämpfender Maßnahmen. 2017.

[139] Ashraf FB, Haghighi AT, Riml J, Alfredsen K, Koskela JJ, Kløve B, et al. Changes in short term river flow regulation and hydropowering in Nordic rivers. Sci Rep 2018; 8:17232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35406-3.

[140] Greimel F, Neubarth J, Fuhrmann M, Führer S, Habersack H, Haslauer M, et al. SuREmMa, Sustainable River Management - energiewirtschaftliche und umweltrelevante Bewertung möglicher schwalldämpfender Maßnahmen. Vienna: Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft; 2017.

[141] Neubarth J. Technischer Bericht III – erweiterte energiewirtschaftliche Bewertung möglicher Maßnahmen zur Minderung von negativen schwall- und sunkbedingten ökologischen Auswirkungen. Ergänzung zu Endbericht: SuREmMa+ Entwicklung einer Methode zur ökologischen und energiewirtschaftlichen Bewertung von Maßnahmen zur Minderung von negativen schwall- und sunkbedingten ökologischen Auswirkungen. 2020.

[142] Oladosu GA, Werble J, Tingen W, Witt A, Mobley M, O'Connor P. Costs of mitigating the environmental impacts of hydropower projects in the United States. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;135:110121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110121.

[143] Venus TE, Sauer J. Certainty pays off: the public's value of environmental monitoring. Ecol Econ 2022;191:107220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107220.

[144] Kampa E. Policy framework for hydropower mitigation. In: Rutschmann P, Kampa E, Wolter C, Albayrak I, David L, Stoltz U, et al., editors. Novel developments for sustainable hydropower. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99138-8_1.

[145] European Commission. CIS Guidance Document No. 37. Steps for defining and assessing ecological potential for improving comparability of Heavily Modified Water Bodies. European Commission; 2020. https://www.ecologic.eu/17302#:~:text=The%20CIS%20Guidance%20Document%20No,Water%20Framework%20Directive%20(WFD).

[146] Halleraker J.H., van de Bund W., Bussettini M., Gosling R., Döbbelt-Grüne S., Hensman J., et al. Working Group ECOSTAT report on common understanding of using mitigation measures for reaching good Ecological Potential for heavily modified water bodies - Part 1: impacted by water storage. 2016. doi:10.2760/649695.

[147] Nielsen N, Szabo-Meszaros M. A roadmap for best practice on management of hydropower and fish. 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.780568.

[148] Greimel F, Neubarth J, Fuhrmann M, Zoltan L, Zeiringer B, Schülting L, et al. Forschungsbericht SuREmMa+: entwicklung einer Methode zur ökologischen und energiewirtschaftlichen Bewertung von Maßnahmen zur Minderung von negativen schwall- und sunkbedingten ökologischen Auswirkungen. Vienna, Austria: Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Regionen und Tourismus; 2021.

[149] International Hydropower Association. The hydropower sustainability standard. 2022.

[150] World Bank Group. Good practice handbook: environmental flows for hydropower projects. Guidance for the private sector in emerging markets. 2018.

[151] European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (taxonomy). 2021.

[152] Moreira M, Hayes DS, Boavida I, Schletterer M, Schmutz S, Pinheiro A. Ecologically-based criteria for hydropowering mitigation: a review. Sci Total Environ 2019;657:1508-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.107.

[153] European Commission. A. European Green Deal. Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/prioritises-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.

[154] European Commission. Nature restoration law. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en.

[155] Halleraker JH, Kenawi MS, L'Abée-Lund JH, Bakken TH, Alfredsen K. Assessment of flow ramping in water bodies impacted by hydropower operation in Norway – is hydropower with environmental restrictions more sustainable? Sci Total Environ 2022;832:154776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154776.

[156] L'Abée-Lund JH, Otero J. Hydropowering in small hydropower in Norway—compliance with license conditions? River Res Appl 2018;34:372-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3258.

[157] Jones NE. The dual nature of hydropowering rivers: is ecopeaking possible? River Res Appl 2014;30:521-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2653.

[158] Köhler B, Ruud A. How are environmental measures realized in European hydropower? A case study of Austria, Switzerland and Sweden. HydroCen Report 2019;6. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2603532.

[159] Bruder A, Tonolla D, Schweizer SP, Vollenweider S, Langhans SD, Wüest A. A conceptual framework for hydropowering mitigation. Sci Total Environ 2016; 568:1204-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.032.

[160] Pracheil BM, McManamay RA, Parish ES, Curd SL, Smith BT, DeRolph CR, et al. A checklist of river function indicators for hydropower ecological assessment. Sci Total Environ 2019;687:1245-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.049.

[161] Halleraker JH, Natvik EV, Vaskinn K, L'Abée-Lund JH, Alfredsen K. By-pass valves in hydropower plants: An ecologically important measure to mitigate stranding in rivers due to emergency turbine flow shutdown. River Res Appl 2023;39:588-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4113.

[162] Olivares MA, Haas J, Palma-Behnke R, Benavides C. A framework to identify Pareto-efficient subdaily environmental flow constraints on hydropower reservoirs using a grid-wide power dispatch model. Water Resour Res 2015;51: 3664-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016215.

[163] Anindito Y, Haas J, Olivares M, Nowak W, Kern J. A new solution to mitigate hydropowering? Batteries versus re-regulation reservoirs. J Clean Prod 2019;210: 477-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.JCLEPRO.2018.11.040.

[164] Román A, García de Jalón D, Alonso C. Could future electric vehicle energy storage be used for hydropowering mitigation? An eight-country viability analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;149:760-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.04.032.

[165] Rutschmann P, Kampa E, Wolter C, Albayrak I, David L, Stoltz U, et al., editors. Novel developments for sustainable hydropower. Springer Nature; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99138-8.

[166] Liu J, Zuo J, Sun Z, Zillante G, Chen X. Sustainability in hydropower development—a case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:230-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.036.

[167] Best J. Anthropogenic stresses on the world's big rivers. Nat Geosci 2019;12:7-21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0262-x.

[168] Droujko J, Molnar P. Open-source, low-cost, in-situ turbidity sensor for river network monitoring. Sci Rep 2022;12:10341. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14228-4.

[169] Ross MRV, Topp SN, Appling AP, Yang X, Kuhn C, Butman D, et al. AquaSat: a data set to enable remote sensing of water quality for inland waters. Water Resour Res 2019;55:10012-25. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024883.

[170] Bauer P, Stevens B, Hazeleger W. A digital twin of Earth for the green transition. Nat Clim Change 2021;11:80-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00986-y.

[171] Sivapalan M, Savenije HHG, Blöschl G. Socio-hydrology: a new science of people and water. Hydrol Process 2012;26:1270-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8426.

[172] Murray AB, Knaapen MaF, Tal M, Kirwan ML. Biomorphodynamics: physical-biological feedbacks that shape landscapes. Water Resour Res 2008;44. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006410.

[173] Bertoldi W, Gurnell A, Surian N, Tockner K, Zanoni L, Ziliani L, et al. Understanding reference processes: linkages between river flows, sediment dynamics and vegetated landforms along the Tagliamento River. Italy. River Research and Applications 2009;25:501-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1233.

[174] Ashmore P. Towards a sociogeomorphology of rivers. Geomorphology 2015;251: 149-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j geomorph.2015.02.020.

[175] Hein T, Hauer C, Schmid M, Stöglehner G, Stumm C, Ertl T, et al. The coupled socio-ecohydrological evolution of river systems: towards an integrative perspective of river systems in the 21st century. Sci Total Environ 2021;801: 149619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149619.

[176] Kougias I, Aggidis G, Avellan F, Deniz S, Lundin U, Moro A, et al. Analysis of emerging technologies in the hydropower sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;113:109257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109257.