Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 1–5

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Abiotic flows should be inherent part of ecosystem services

classification
E.S. van der Meulen a,n, L.C. Braat b, J.M. Brils a
a
Deltares, P.O. Box 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands
b
1931XH, 494, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although ecosystems comprise both biotic and abiotic structures and processes, the role of abiotic output
Received 19 October 2015 receives less attention and is addressed inconsistently in ecosystem services (ES) classification systems.
Received in revised form The authors explore the nature and position of abiotic ecosystem output from: 1) a theoretical per-
24 March 2016
spective on ecosystems, ecosystems services and natural capital; 2) a practical perspective on applying
Accepted 25 March 2016
the ES concept in environmental policy, spatial planning and ecosystem management. From a theoretical
Available online 4 April 2016
point of view, excluding abiotic flows in ES frameworks such as CICES is inconsistent with the principles
Keywords: of the ES concept. Consequently, abiotic flows with (high) societal relevance may in practice be neglected
Abiotic or selectively addressed; many of them are related to sediment and the subsurface part of ecosystems.
Biotic
This impedes the integration strength of the ES concept. Given the large contributions to the economy
Flows
and the societal costs of non-sustainable use of abiotic flows, it also impedes holistic, consistent and
CICES
Ecosystem services transparent information provision to decision makers. The authors urge to include abiotic flows as in-
Classification herent part in ecosystem services classification systems such as CICES. This makes the application of the
ES concept more holistic and consistent and will optimize it's integration power for practical planning
and decision making.
& 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction
An ecosystem is an interacting complex of biota and their
abiotic environment. Ecosystem services (ES) are the goods and
services that humans derive from ecosystems, actively or pas-
sively. Although ecosystems comprise biotic and abiotic elements,
the focus in ES assessment frameworks and classifications is
biased towards ES for which biota dominate as service providing
agents. The role of abiotic structures and processes gets less at-
tention and is addressed inconsistently in classification systems.
The classifications of ES used in the Millennium Ecosystem As-
sessment (MA, 2005) and in The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (TEEB, 2010) projects have not explicitly addressed
the position of services which are produced from abiotic structures
and processes in ecosystems. Brouwer et al. (2013) also observe
that most existing ecosystem assessments focused only on biotic
ES. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
(CICES; Haines-Young and Potchin, 2013) at first did not specify
the position of abiotic ecosystem outputs. However, in second
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: suzanne.vandermeulen@deltares.nl (E.S. van der Meulen).
instance the authors reacted to criticism with a satellite table, and
stated that ‘the long term goal should be a combined classification
that integrates outputs across ecosystems and from other natural
resources’.
The concept of Natural Capital (NC) relates ecosystem struc-
tures and processes to ES and NC accounting is making its way to
countries' economic accounting systems (Obst et al., 2015). In
descriptions of the NC concept, abiotic assets (structures) and
flows have already been incorporated (see e.g. Petersen and Go-
cheva, 2015; Brouwer et al., 2013). There is debate about the in-
clusion and position of energy sources (assets) and flows, such as
the sun and solar radiation respectively. The relevant point here is
that abiotic aspects of ecosystems are recognized as being part of
the wider concept of NC and are linked to ES and thus considered
potentially relevant for human welfare and wellbeing.
In this paper we explore the nature, position and contribution
of abiotic structures and processes in ES applications. We discuss
both depletable and non-depletable abiotic flows. Non-depletable
sun based energy flows (sunlight, wind, rain), moon based (tidal
energy) and geothermal energy are not produced by what is de-
fined in ecological textbooks as ecosystems (see e.g. Odum, 1971),
but their contributions to human society are to some extent
modified by the ecological structure in the biosphere and by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.007
2212-0416/& 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.
2 E.S. van der Meulen et al. / Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 1–5
humans, e.g. via land use.
We propose to include abiotic flows (goods and services) in
future versions of ES classification systems. We focus on the CICES
classification system since this is a commonly used international
reference. We discuss the nature and position of abiotic ecosystem
output from two perspectives: 1) a theoretical perspective on
ecosystems, ES and consistency in the concepts of ES and NC and
related classification systems; 2) the practical perspective of ap-
plying the ES concept in environmental policy, spatial planning
and ecosystem management.
2. Nature and position of abiotic flows in ecosystems from a
theoretical perspective
Ecosystems are a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and mi-
cro-organism communities together with the non-living en-
vironment, interacting as a functional unit (see e.g. Odum, 1971).
Abiotic (physico-chemical matter and energy flow) processes
have always been implicitly part of the ecosystem, as no biotic
process in ecosystems can take place without energy from sun,
moon or earth and without interaction between biota and their
abiotic environment. For example: photosynthesis of organic
molecules requires sunlight energy, water, carbon dioxide and
various soil or sediment chemicals which act as plant nutrients.
The combined forces of sun, wind and rain produce biomass via
the photosynthetic processes and also, often modulated by biotic
structures and processes, flows of useful abiotic materials such as
sand, clay and gravel derived from sediment. Sediment is an
essential, integral and dynamic part of river basins and provides
very important ES to society; see examples below (Brils et al.,
2014).
The ES concept is in essence an anthropocentric concept, i.e. it
pertains to the benefits of ecosystems for humans. From that point
of view, it is logical to include the abiotic structures and processes,
which are used by, and are useful to humans, in the debate. For
millennia, mankind has utilized sediment as a source of con-
struction material and land and water act as carrier of human
activities. The carrier concept was already included in early clas-
sifications of ES in the 1970s, when services were still called
functions of the natural environment for society (Braat et al.,
1979). Carrier services include for example the role of rivers for
transportation and the capacity of the geological substrate for
carrying buildings. This role of land and water in human econo-
mies has historically been recognized, as is evident from legal and
economic debates about public and private land (and water). The
subsurface part of our environment provides storage capacity (e.g.
water, waste) and information (preservation of signs that mark
cultural and natural developments) besides the already mentioned
raw materials in the form of sand, clay, gravel and (fresh) water.
The combination of natural characteristics and processes and
technology leads to ‘new’ ES being used by people such as in the
application of aquifer thermal energy storage. Finally, there is a
whole different category of abiotic sources to economies via the
contribution of volcanic eruptions bringing new loads of useful
chemicals to the world's ecosystems and humans to work with. Of
course, these additional services generally also involve additional
economic and social costs, which need to be included in the de-
cision processes. As Costanza (2008) also explained, processes can
also be ES or not, depending on the context of the ES assessment.
This also applies to abiotic processes.
Some abiotic aspects were already explicitly recognized in ES
classifications, e.g. in the ‘provisioning service’ (drinking, irrigation
or industrial) water production from surface or groundwater. They
were also explicit in ecosystem functions (formerly, in the MA
classification, called ‘supporting services’), such as nutrient cycling
and soil formation. This involves interactions between micro-or-
ganisms and geo-chemical materials and processes. The regulating
ES of water purification is included in the CICES classification as
‘bioremediation by microorganisms’, as ‘filtration by ecosystems’
and ‘maintenance of physical, chemical, biological (in this case,
water-) conditions’. These services are provided by biota in inter-
action with their abiotic environment but also by abiotic processes
such as filtration. Also in the section of cultural services, soils are
mentioned as example medium for intellectual and representative
interactions (a.o. scientific research, heritage). The relevance of
sediment is acknowledged under the division ‘mediation of flows’;
the example provided in the CICES-class ‘buffering and attenuation
of mass flows’ is ‘transport and storage of sediment by rivers,
lakes, sea’. Some examples provided in the CICES-list emphasize
the role of complete ecosystems, such as the functions of wetlands
or dunes for flood protection.
Abiotic flows that are not addressed in the main list of ES in
the CICES classification, but included in the satellite table are for
example abiotic nutritional substances (such as salt), metallic
and non-metallic materials (e.g. ores, building materials),
renewable and non-renewable energy sources and cultural set-
tings. The carrier services of ecosystems are not explicitly in-
cluded in the CICES- classification. Although under the section of
cultural services, ‘physical use of land-/seascapes in different
environmental settings’ refers to recreational boating, and the
satellite table with abiotic outputs also includes a section ‘phy-
sical and intellectual interactions with land-/seascapes’, non-re-
creational (e.g. commercial) shipping has no explicit position in
the system.
Many abiotic resources are depletable on a ‘human time scale’
(i.e. 1–50 years), even if they are renewable at geological time
scales (i.e. millennia). Abiotic outputs such as mineral resources
are the result of both biotic and abiotic processes, many of which
take place on such geological time scales. These aspects, and the
fact that some processes, especially in the subsurface or under
water, are taking place out of human view, may result in a general
lack of awareness from both the general public and policy makers.
3. The role of abiotic flows in societal decision making re-
garding ecosystem management
Next to the theoretical, scientific argument to pay attention to
the role of abiotic aspects in ES provision, there is also the socio-
economic argument to assess their relative contribution to eco-
nomic, cultural and social benefits and values in society. It is re-
levant because in some cases there are competing interests be-
tween using abiotic resources in alternative ways, e.g. sediments
for construction, for river management or for agriculture. Regional
water managers see integration of policy domains as one of the
main contributions of the ES concept to their work. Based on re-
sults of ES concept pilot applications it is expected that the con-
cept supports collaboration between stakeholders (e.g. in the case
of river restoration). This integration cannot be complete if abiotic
flows and related stakeholders are neglected or only selectively
addressed.
In the case of NC accounting, many abiotic aspects of eco-
systems are included in ES. To prevent double counting, pro-
cesses that enable services but that are not used directly by hu-
mans (called supporting services in the MA and ecosystem
functions in TEEB), are not valued separately. Some abiotic re-
sources and processes, however, are directly being used and
should be accounted as ES. Fig. 1 shows the sun, moon and earth
based energy sources. These energy flows can be modified by
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems with their geological substrate
and soils. The #1 arrows represent the energy flows and stocks
 E.S. van der Meulen et al. / Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 1–5
Fig. 1. The position and contribution of abiotic structures and processes to human
society (see text for further clarification).
from the atmospheric, terrestrial and aquatic systems that can be
captured (harvested) by humans as ES. Some of the atmospheric
system flows are modulated by the terrestrial and aquatic eco-
systems (e.g. purified and cooled air) and are therefore also la-
beled ES. The #2 arrows represent the ‘management activity of
humans’ to modify, protect or restore ecosystems. The services
are related to demand, which is derived from human needs and
wants. If the services satisfy (explicit or implicit) demand, they
are considered to generate benefits, which may be explicitly or
implicitly valued. The #3 arrows represent the energy flows that
can be passively received by human society or captured directly
by humans, without modification by ecosystems. These flows are
not ES but the use of these flows may impact the ability of their
use in the ecosystem, e.g. by preventing solar energy to reach
vegetation.
The economic value of these abiotic flows can be determined in
the same way as the value of biotic flows, i.e. by direct and indirect
economic valuation approaches. In a direct valuation approach, the
value of e.g. sediments is assessed when they enter economic
markets, such as in construction. The indirect economic value can
be derived from e.g. the value of land with different subsidence
rates, value of mitigated water treatment costs as a result of the
filtering effect of soil on groundwater or profit from thermal en-
ergy storage in the subsurface.
Based on our practical experiences, the main added value of the
ES concept is that it provides a systematic and holistic framework
that can result in a more transparent and more comprehensive
insight in costs and benefits of management decisions for different
stakeholders and at different temporal and spatial scales. A more
holistic insight in direct and indirect market and non-market va-
lues may be more valuable than a one-figure outcome of a cost-
benefit calculation. Incorporating abiotic flows that meet the de-
finition of ES allow the related stakeholders to participate and thus
to take better informed decisions.
4. Examples of the role of abiotic flows in ecosystem
management
We present three cases to illustrate the importance to society of
abiotic flows and their management. The examples demonstrate
that especially sediment resources and dynamics play a key role in
the provision of abiotic flows of ecosystems. Human interventions
3
often obstruct the natural, dynamic sediment equilibrium in many
river-delta-sea systems, worldwide (see e.g. Owens, 2007; Walling,
2009). Dikes protecting inland areas for flooding also block sedi-
ment supply and upstream dam building and gravel extraction
result in a decreased downstream supply. As a consequence, some
sites are overloaded with sediment, while others are dramatic
short of sediment. The shortage of sediment leads to river bed
degradation and bank erosion, resulting in loss of agricultural
land and undermining and subsequently collapsing of bridges,
dikes, roads and buildings. In the coastal zone the shortage of
sediment leads to the diminishing of mangrove forests and ero-
sion of beaches and dunes. This increases the vulnerability of the
“hinterland” to flooding and decreases biodiversity and beach
recreation possibilities. Hence, sediment shortage dramatically
impacts ecology, economy as well as public safety, worldwide. It
has become a big societal challenge to restore the sediment
equilibrium, i.e. to get sediment from overloaded sites (such as
reservoirs) to sites that are short of sediment. According to the
European Sediment Network (SedNet, 2015), it may now be the
first action to map the sites with too much and too little
sediment.
4.1. The Western Scheldt: balancing stakes for shipping, agriculture,
sand extraction, flood safety, water quality regulation and cultural
services
The Western Scheldt is a part of the estuary of the river Scheldt
and located in the Netherlands. The Scheldt is used as an im-
portant shipping lane between the North Sea and, through the
estuary in the Netherlands, the Port of Antwerp in Belgium. The
estuary is also used for sand extraction and on both sides land
includes polders that are mostly used for agricultural production.
The estuary provides cultural services, e.g. by providing recreation
possibilities and appreciation of flora and fauna (such as bird
watching) and the landscapes. These cultural services are driven
by the interplay of abiotic, biotic and human processes and
structures (Jacobs et al., sine anno).
Dredging operations are performed in order to keep the ship-
ping lane navigable. Dredging and subsequent disposal of dredged
material have become the dominant human interference in the
Western Scheldt (Taal et al., 2013). The channels have become
smaller and deeper, resulting in erosion of the mud flats, salt
marshes and sandbars. This contributed to increased peak flows
and reduced minimum discharges. Dredging results in removal of
river bars and this causes tidal waves to enter the river system
more easily, leading to increased water levels, especially upstream
in Belgium (interview with Patrick de Meire; in De Blust and Ha-
zeleger, 2008).
The estuary includes areas of high conservation value that are
legally protected under the European (EU) Natura 2000-frame-
work and the EU Birds and Habitats Directive. The expansion of
shipping ways leads to a loss of estuary habitats, which is not al-
lowed under the Birds and Habitats Directive. However, these EU
policies allow for human interventions if a nature compensation
measure is proposed and accepted. Thus the Dutch and Belgian
governments agreed to inundate a polder to compensate for the
loss of habitats. This aims to create an area of brackish marshes
(De Blust and Hazeleger, 2008). The inundation can also com-
pensate for lost ES, as it contributes to regulation of the tidal dy-
namics and thereby support flood safety. Furthermore, the mar-
shes that will establish after the inundation contribute to water
quality regulation (De Blust and Hazeleger, 2008).
The situation in the Scheldt estuary demonstrates the promi-
nent role of sediment dynamics in the provision of ES such as flood
safety and water quality regulation.
4 E.S. van der Meulen et al. / Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 1–5
4.2. Benefits of an alternative nature-based flood defense in the
Eems-Dollart estuary
The Eems-Dollart estuary is located at the border of Germany
and the Netherlands, where the river Eems discharges into the
Wadden Sea. An exploration study for nature-based flood de-
fenses, as an alternative for traditional enforcement of the sea dike
along the Wadden Sea in the Netherlands, showed that a so called
‘parallel flood defense zone’ can provide economically and ecolo-
gically interesting benefits (Kwakernaak and Lenselink, 2015). The
parallel flood defense zone consists of two parallel dikes with an
intermediate zone that is under tidal influence (Van Loon-
Steensma and Schelfhout, 2013; Van Loon et al., 2015).This creates
opportunities for ecological improvements and the use of ES.
The creation of the parallel defense zone results in a more
natural land-water interface with a salt-gradient beneficial for
migratory fish. The brackish environment also provides high tide
habitat for birds for breeding, feeding and protection. The new
flood defense area may also include space for diverse freshwater
and brackish vegetation. Possible activities with high economic
value include production of shellfish and salt-tolerant crops but
also exploitation of a so called ‘silt-motor’. The production of
shellfish and salt-tolerant crops will yield approximately € 6.500–
32.000 ha/yr and € 3.500–6.500 ha/yr respectively. This is higher
than the yield of current, traditional agricultural production on
land behind the dikes (Jansen et al., 2014). The deposited silt from
the estuary (6 cm/year) can be excavated and used as building
material, e.g. for dike construction. This has an estimated value of
€3.000,-/ha/yr (Kwakernaak and Lenselink, 2015). Furthermore,
excavation will increase the spatial and temporal variation in ha-
bitats which enhances biodiversity. If the sediment is not used for
construction purposes it will contribute to coastal development
and as such contribute to flood defense and it will reduce the
problematic high silt concentration to a very limited extend in the
estuary.
This example shows that the abiotic output of sediment can
have a significant value from both an economic and ecological
perspective. In the assessment of costs and benefits of nature-
based flood defenses, abiotic outputs may play a crucial role in
valuation of the total bundle of ES that nature-based solutions can
provide. A complete classification system for ES that includes
abiotic flows would better reflect the complete bundle of benefits
that ecosystems provide and will support practitioners to make
well-informed decisions and optimize design of nature-based
solutions.
4.3. Subsurface spatial planning and sustainable use of soil and
groundwater resources
In densely populated areas, the use of the subsurface for dif-
ferent functions such as groundwater extraction and aquifer
thermal energy storage is increasing. This increased use results in
a need for both subsurface spatial planning and modernization of
policies that aim for sustainable use of the subsurface (Griffioen
et al., 2014). The Dutch government is developing both and is
using the ES concept to support the assessment of the links be-
tween economic activities and ecosystems. Abiotic flows, such as
mineral resources, drinking water and thermal energy storage
capacity, are important issues in the search for fair and sustainable
use of the subsurface. Also in the Dutch National Ecosystem As-
sessment, abiotic flows are considered as relevant (potential) ES.
This is demonstrated by the the Dutch Atlas Natural Capital (ANK,
2015) which includes about 40 maps containing information on
soil and groundwater related ES.
For deliberate use of the subsurface resources, an integral as-
sessment of both biotic and abiotic outputs is recommended. If
abiotic outputs are neglected from ES assessments, the different
stakes related to the subsurface system remain disconnected and
no integral decisions can be made, i.e. decisions that also include
the relevance of ES related to food production, nature protection,
energy and water resources management.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
We propose to include ‘abiotic flows’ in future versions of ES
classification systems with the aim to make them integral part of
ES assessments and management strategies. If abiotic flows are not
utilized directly and consciously by humans, we suggest to label
them as abiotic assets. This distinction is important to comply with
the basic principles of the ES concept, which is an anthropocentric
concept, and the methodical requirement to rule out double
counting in valuation studies. If abiotic flows are fully integrated in
ES classification, such as in the main table of CICES, and some
abiotic flows with high societal relevance are mentioned explicitly
in the example column of the CICES-list, the application of the ES
concept will become more consistent and it optimizes the in-
tegration power of the concept for environmental policy, spatial
planning, and ecosystem management.
References
ANK, 2015. 〈www.atlasnatuurlijkkapitaal.nl〉.
Braat, L.C., van der Ploeg, S.W.F., Bouma, F., 1979. Functions of the Natural En-
vironment. Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University, Amsterdam.
Brils, J., de Boer, P., Mulder, J., de Boer, E., 2014. Reuse of dredged material as a way
to tackle societal challenges. J. Soils Sediment. 14 (9), 1638–1641.
Brouwer, R., Brander, L., Kuik, O., Papyrakis, E., Bateman, I., 2013. A synthesis of
approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of
TEEB. Final Report.
CICES. 〈www.CICES.eu〉.
Costanza, R., 2008. Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed.
Biol. Conserv. 141, 350–352.
De Blust, G., Hazeleger, B., 2008. Op Pad Met… Patrick Meire in De Hedwige Polder.
Natuurherstel OP ecosysteemdiensten baseren. Landschap, editie 4, pp. 212–
214 (in Dutch).
Griffioen, J., van Wensem, J., Oomes, J.L., Barends, F., Breunese, J., Bruining, H.,
Olsthoorn, T., Stams, A., van der Stoel, A.E., 2014. A technical investigation on
tools and concepts for sustainable management of the subsurface in The
Netherlands. Sci. Total Environ. 485–486 810-9.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classification of Eco-
system Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August–December 2012,
EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.
Jacobs, S., Vandenbruwaene, W., Vrebos, D., Beauchard, O., Boerema, A., Wolfstein,
K., Maris T., Saathoff, S., Meire, sine anno. Ecosystem Service Assessment of
TIDE Estuaries.
Jansen, H., Kamermans, P., Poelman, 2014. Kansen voor aquacultuur binnen het
‘dubbele dijken concept’ langs de Eems-Dollard Cees Kwakernaak, Gerda Len-
selink, 2015. Econ. En. Ecol. perspectieven Van. Een dubbele dijk langs De.
Eems-Dollar.; Waard. En. verzilveren Van. ecosysteemdiensten En. versterken
Van. biodiversiteit bij Een Multifunct. dubbele keringzone voor De. dijkver-
sterking Eemshaven – Delfzijl. Alterra-rapport 2635, Deltares-rapport
1209046.000.BGS.0009.
Kwakernaak, C., Lenselink, G., 2015. Economische en ecologische perspectieven van
een dubbele dijk langs de Eems-Dollard; Waarderen en verzilveren van eco-
systeemdiensten en versterken van biodiversiteit bij een multifunctionele
dubbele keringzone voor de dijkversterking Eemshaven – Delfzijl. Alterra-rap-
port 2635, Deltares-rapport 1209046.000.BGS.0009 (in Dutch).
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-
Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Obst, C., Hein, L., Edens, B., 2015. National accounting and the valuation of eco-
system assets and their services. Environ. Resour. Econ. . http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10640-015-9921-1 〈http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-
015-9921-1〉
Odum, E.P., 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd edition. Saunders, Philadelphia.
Owens, P.N., 2007. Sediment linkages between the river catchment and the sea. J.
Soils Sediment. 7 (5), 273–276.
Petersen, J-E., Gocheva, K., 2015. EU reference document on Natural Capital Ac-
counting; Prepared as part of the EU MAES process (Mapping and Assessment
of Ecosystems and their Services). EEA, Copenhagen.
SedNet, 2015. Short of sediment: so what? Report of the SedNet Science-Policy
Interface working group session at SedNet conference, 24 September 2015,
 E.S. van der Meulen et al. / Ecosystem Services 19 (2016) 1–5
Krakow, Poland.
Taal, M., Clevering, J., Kuijper, K., Wang, Z.B., Van Holland, G., 2013. Tidal evolution
in the Scheldt estuary and its interaction with dredging works. In: Proceedings
WODCON XX - Congress and Exhibition: The Art of Dredging. 20th World
Dredging Congress and Exhibition, WODCON 2013. Brussels, Belgium, 3 June
2013 through 7 June 2013, Code 104884.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Ecological and
Economic Foundations, Ed. P. Kumar, P. Earthscan, London.
Van Loon, T., Officer, I., Slabbers, S., Spijkerman, A., 2015. WadLAB:
5
Haalbaarheidsstudie multi-functionele dubbele keringzone Eemshaven Delfzijl.
Bosch Slabbers Landschapsarchitecten, Den Haag (in Dutch).
Van Loon-Steensma, J.M., Schelfhout, H.A., 2013. Gevoeligheidsanalyse Innovatieve
Dijken Waddengebied: Een verkenning naar de meest kansrijke dijkconcepten
voor de Waddenkust. Alterra, Alterra-rapport 2483, Wageningen (in Dutch).
Walling, D.E., 2009. The Impact of Global Change on Erosion and Sediment Trans-
port by Rivers: Current progress and Future challenges. UNESCO, ISBN 978-92-
3-104135-8.