**5. Conclusions**

E-flows have been recognized as a crucial water managemen<sup>t</sup> tool when aiming to meet both environmental and societal needs. This study represents, to the best of our knowledge, the first attempts at exploring solutions to mitigate the conflicts in E-flows implementation for SHPs based on questionnaires and interviews of three interest groups. We used Fujian Province as a case study to demonstrate the challenges facing E-flow implementation, focusing on (1) skepticism about "whether SHPs are green" and "the necessity of releasing E-flows" among SHP owners, governmen<sup>t</sup> administrators, and the general public; (2) economic conflicts caused by electricity production losses especially in the case of diversion-type projects; (3) inadequate governance; and (4) PES. Importantly, our questionnaires and interviews reveal that there is potential for establishing a long-term cost-sharing PES program, paid by the government, SHP owners, and electricity consumers and emphasize that successful E-flows implementation will benefit from sustained and effective communication between all interest groups.

As E-flows enter the implementation phase, it should be recognized that economic challenges remain the strongest driver and key obstacle to implementing environmental policies [66]. Furthermore, it is worth recognizing that while E-flows implementation is a valuable tool, this is not the only measure available for river rehabilitation concerned with SHPs. For example, fish pass facilities need to be established to improve longitudinal continuity. While beyond the scope of this study, further work is also needed to consider the ecological responses to E-flows schemes so that they can be enhanced and optimized in the future. This requires the cooperation of scientists and water managers [67]. Finally, we emphasize that a combination of social, economic, and environmental disciplines is needed to enhance existing understanding and overcome the potential challenges of implementing and managing E-flows schemes.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-444 1/13/18/2461/s1, Table S1: Questionnaires sent to SHP owners, SHP governmen<sup>t</sup> administrators, and the public; Table S2: Interview protocol questions for SHP owners; Table S3: Interview protocol questions for SHP governmen<sup>t</sup> administrator; Table S4: Interview protocol questions for hydroecology engineer.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, Q.R.; methodology, Q.R.; validation, F.W.; investigation, Q.R.; resources, Q.R.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.R.; writing—review and editing, W.C.; supervision, W.C.; project administration, W.C. and F.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41771500) and the Environmental Protection Technology Program of Fujian Province (2021R023).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Material.

**Acknowledgments:** Our sincere thanks go to survey respondents for patient answers, to Nina Morris from the University of Edinburgh, and Baoli Liu from Fuzhou University for their valuable advice.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
