I asked a question "Who are the stakeholders in Flood Management tools? " from you all (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_are_the_stakeholders_in_Flood_Management_tools ) and I got very attractive, diversify answeres from various part of the world. Here is a summary of the interesting answers. However, I invite you to all the contribute your views too.

"William F. Hansen, certified professional hydrologist (PH) of USA with more than 40 years’ consultancy experiences, suggested a large group of activities and stakeholders to the present scenario. He has identified three major areas in flood management as planning & forecasting, early warnings and rescue, with the activities and stockholders. Then the author has identified that the components discussed in the planning and forecasting have being already included in the identified system components. But it identified new stakeholders in early warning and rescue phases such as people who warn the flood recipient as well as reduce/control the flood. There, the communication requirements; flood controlling and rescue activities such as dam and reservoir water management, clearing the drainages and damage assessments. However, when considering such points, the components in hydro-GIS modelling framework (scope of the present research) are considering the flood management early actions to reduce the future occurrences. But William is highlighting all the flood activities including flood damage control and flood disaster management both. Then the present work reviewed William’s stakeholders who are only related to the scope of the present study, could be successfully grouped into identified system components. Nevertheless, he paid attention to designating the responsibilities among people. Specially, when considering the responsibilities, there is a substantial risk with making insufficient or incomplete decision making. The liability, need for insurance, bonding, licensing and other legal relations with the flood risk increasing the number of stakeholders. However, the present study considers, all these stakeholders are influencing the decision by guiding and optioning as rules/controllers. Therefore they were grouped in to “Decision Makers” category.

Eugene A. Simonov, a prominent researcher at Research Department, Daursky Biosphere Reserve, Russia, shared his experience & the book on the flood of the Amur River Basin. The Amur basin is laid across transboundary of Russia and China. By going through Eugene’s experience, it could identify an interesting phenomenon of human nature; i.e. Russian citizens have built expensive country houses called Dacha in the flood risk area of Amur river basin. During the 2013 flood, some of those houses were damaged and the Russian government granted incentives to damaged property, either free house in flood safe area or cost of the damage or the both. Then, it can realise that knowing the hazard, general public willing construct even in the vulnerable area (in this case it is illegal). However, it is difficult to reason out for that, but it can argue one of the reason is the expectation of government compensations. Further, it realised that the owners of the country houses are rich/noble family, basically, they utilise the house for a particular time of the year. By 1990s average 25% of citizens of seven main cities had a Dacha (Struyk and Angelici, 1996). Due to the Soviet-era political and social situations, these houses had strict standards but after the Soviet collapsing, people spend more money and resources to expand and elevate the quality of houses. By 2017, a new law simplified land plot categories and allowed to register the residential plots as permanent residents. Now, almost 60 million people out of total 145 million own a kind of a Dacha and weekends of the summer they rush to the country houses making the town empty. The interest to the present study is these duel-house owners become flood victims even they are not living in the house when flood time. Therefore, it will need more different flood warning systems to them. However, due to the present study deliberates the actions regarding flood control, it considers this type of stakeholder as recipients.

Bibhash Sarma, Civil Engineering Professor, consultant of Water Resource Department, Assam, India, stated that the Water Resources Department of the state, Ministry of Water Resources, prominent academic institutions of the locality, disaster management cell, local administration, active NGOs working in the related field and renowned hydrologist to be added to the model. Then author regrouped the stipulated stakeholders as Decision Makers (Water Resources Department of the state, Ministry of Water Resources, disaster management cell, local administration, active NGOs working in the related field - When they assisting decision making), Modellers (prominent academic institutions of the locality, renowned hydrologist) and Recipients (active NGOs working in the related field - When they assisting the general public). The professor has agreed to the regrouping and directed to further categorise the private hydropower generators as the recipient. However, when water resource departments and other reservoir operating agencies are making their own policies based on the decision they made collectively for common flood management, their role is changed to “Recipient”. This behaviour of NGOs and local water decision makers elegant the one idea. That is, when considering the stakeholders, it has to more closely review their role when categorising.

[PR1]Eugene Simonov is a Russian environmentalist who co-founded the Rivers Without Boundaries Coalition. He has created a network of stakeholders interested in river conservation along the China-Mongolia border, where dam building on a monumental scale threatens the fragile wetland ecosystems in the birthplace of Genghis Khan."