Panta Rhei Article Collection

The Scientific Decade 2013–2022 of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) “Panta Rhei – Everything Flows” is dedicated to increasing our knowledge of interactions and feedbacks between hydrology and society. Research is focused on processes and drivers of change in the water cycle with a strong consideration of the interactions with the changing human system. The general objective is to improve our descriptions and predictions of water resources dynamics to support sustainable societal development under global conditions (Montmari et al. 2013, McMilan et al. 2016). Read the full editorial here.

Below you can read a collection of research articles, reviews and opinion papers from the Panta Rhei Scientific Decade 2013-2022, which are currently FREE to access.

Title	Author	Volume	Issue
Scientific debate of Panta Rhei research – how to advance our knowledge of changes in hydrology and society?	Heidi Kreibich, Tobias Krueger, Anne Van Loon, et al.	62	3
Prediction in a socio-hydrological world	V. Srinivasan, M. Sanderson, M. Garcia, et al.	62	3
What is the role of the model in socio-hydrology? Discussion of “Prediction in a socio-hydrological world”	Lieke Anna Melsen, Jeroen Vos & Rutgerd Boelens	63	9
Moving socio-hydrologic modelling forward: unpacking hidden assumptions, values and model structure by engaging with stakeholders: reply to “What is the role of the model in socio-hydrology?”	V. Srinivasan, M. Sanderson, M. Garcia, et al.	63	9
The role of experimental work in hydrological sciences – insights from a community survey	Theresa Blume, Ilja van Meerveld & Markus Weiler	62	3
A need for incentivizing field hydrology, especially in an era of open data: discussion of “The role of experimental work in hydrological sciences – insights from a community survey”	Scott T. Allen & Wouter R. Berghuijs	63	8
Incentives for field hydrology and data sharing: collaboration and compensation: reply to “A need for incentivizing field hydrology, especially in an era of open data”	Theresa Blume, Ilja van Meerveld & Markus Weiler	63	8
Reporting negative results to stimulate experimental hydrology: discussion of “The role of experimental work in hydrological sciences – insights from a community survey"	Tim van Emmerik, Andrea Popp, Anna Solcerova, et al.	63	8
Why and when it is useful to publish and share inconclusive results and failures: reply to “Reporting negative results to stimulate experimental hydrology”	Theresa Blume, Ilja van Meerveld & Markus Weiler	63	8
Perceptual models of uncertainty for socio-hydrological systems: a flood risk change example	Ida K. Westerberg, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Keith J.Beven, et al.	62	11
Discussion of “Perceptual models of uncertainty for socio-hydrological systems: a flood risk change example"	Maurits W. Ertsen	63	13-14
Reply to Discussion of “Perceptual models of uncertainty for socio-hydrological systems: a flood risk change example"	Ida K. Westerberg, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Keith J. Beven, et al.	63	13-14
Challenges in operationalizing the water–energy–food nexus	J. Liu, H. Yang, C. Cudennec, et al.	62	11
Discussion of “Challenges in operationalizing the water–energy–food nexus”	Alexandra Nauditt	63	12
Discussion of “Challenges in operationalizing the water–energy–food nexus"	Olli Varis & Marko Keskinen	63	12
Epistemological dimensions of the water–energy–food nexus approach: reply to discussions of “Challenges in operationalizing the water–energy–food nexus"	C. Cudennec, J. Liu, J. Qi, et al.	63	12
How to improve attribution of changes in drought and flood impacts	Heidi Kreibich, Veit Blauhut, Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts, et al.	64	1