Good discussion following!

In my opinion the first is Recipient/general public, then scientists, decision-makers, and tool developers.

Dear Mr. Pradeep!

I am not a specialist in this field, so I cannot evaluate this question. Still I argue that this issue is context (country, region (EU regulations /directives) dependent) and case-specific (what kind of problem one try to solve). I found some resources for YOU:

1) Victor Galvez & Rodrigo Rojas (2019). "Collaboration and integrated water resources management: A literature review" Original article - World Water Policy Vol. 5, Issue 2, Wiley Online Library, Available at:

Article Collaboration and integrated water resources management: A l...

2) M. Pulido-Velazquez, F.A. Ward (2017 ). "Comparison of Water Management Institutions and Approaches in the United States and Europe—What Can We Learn From Each Other?" in the book "Competition for Water Resources" Elsevier, B.V.

Available at:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/integrated-water-resources-management

3) Diana Suhardiman, Floriane Clement & Luna Bharati (2015). "Integrated water resources management in Nepal: key stakeholders' perceptions and lessons learned, International Journal of Water Resources Development", 31:2, 284-300,

Available at:

Article Integrated Water Resources Management in Nepal: Key Stakehol...

4) Lai Mei Sim et al. (2015). "Stakeholders’ Participation in Sustainable Water Resource Management" Proceedings, IACSC International Conference, Yokohama, Available at:

Article Stakeholders’ Participation in Sustainable Water Resource Management

In general please let me argue that the more important problem the more significant role of decision makers are. Still the idea of the recipients should be considered first in serious, difficult circumstances.

Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely

Why not classify the 4 groups of stakeholders in the 5 types of water: (1) surface water, (2) ground water, (3) rain water, (4) waste water, and (5) potable water. This could result in a more tailored priority depending on the type of water.

Nice contribution Putu Aryastana

Governments and peoples.

Recipients and general public as well as decision makers and their assistants

Dear Putu Aryastana Isam Alkhalifawi Joan Nyika Mundher Alsaaidi منذر السعيدي

Thank you very much for answering

I got your point, yes the recipient should be number one.

If this has been the agreed way, the IWRM decisions should be catered to recipient's requirements and those decisions should enrich with recipients' concerns.

But is it happening?

As Dr.Isam Alkhalifawi said the number one goes to Governments. (- the idea is the government is there to serve the people? - is it practicing always ? should it practice always?) Then when the hard decision was taken to water resource management, for example, the decision of widening a canal in an urban area (think Asian context) people have to abandon the places or make small their existing construction. But with the time they again construct the same, disturbing the free flow of canal water as their concerns are obstructing. finally, it may flood again.

So this will not end. Therefore, now we ask the scientific/economic opinion form modelers, what to do ? should it widening the canal or any other scientific option which can be really practiced in the real ground. In such a situation whose idea is the best? who should get the priority? I feel the scientific modelers should get the priority, then they will give us lots of options to match with the correct physics and/or economic theories.

My problems never end, ok now that option is going to implement, then to make that kind of decision it required a huge set of data, computer processing power, AI, IoT equipment--- I mean technical stuff and administrative activities in the process such as setting up meetings, maintain proper communication between parties.... hmmm those are handle by the developers(SW/Process).. then why we do not give them priority number 1. because they can say what the actual thing we can do on the ground - they may select what is the possible way of doing things.

So dear all, I ask again why developers and scientific modelers are in the second seat?

Thanks again

(Hope my long text try only to show another side of the problem)

Rabin Thapa Thank you for following, kindly give your view to this discussion, IWRM should be a multi-professional task, not only hydrologists.

Bulcsu Szekely Thank you very much for answering and giving me valuable resources. I will follow the papers you have shared with me.

In general, the IWRM studies are focus on study how to participate the stakeholders (in our case, recipients) to the decision making process.

My problem is, when decision-makers and participants can make decisions collaboratively, which following the process given by the scientific modelers. But when the individual request from the recipients, especially when they need to apply it in their limited spatial context (say within that person's land area), the process suggested by the modelers may not apply. then modelers may be given optional ways to follow in such situations, but decision-makers do not know what option is scientifically best for the individual situation. Therefore it needs automated options with confirming the scientific options where the software developers service required. Then software developers become an important part of the situation...

when thinking in such a way I feel all are important in the context with the same weight. I request you to think in that line with your expertise and experience and tell me to have priority or not.

Thank you

Nanco Dolman

Thank you very much for the new perspective on the problem.

Again, I have to think about the integration of water resource management based on the type of water and prioritize the water type as all each water type is a part of the system.

When we think about the problem from the human perspective, the priority may be given to portable and wastewater but when scientifically it may be other 3 types.

therefore kindly request to give me a suggestion, as I'm in a position of thinking, no one gets the priority, all should be treated equally AS WE NEED SUSTAINABLE DECISIONS.

Kindly request to comment

thank you again

Sovit Parajuli

Thank you very much for participating in the discussion. I feel giving benefits to all the participants, the human and nature both at the same time is the work of IWRM. so nature is represented by the modelers and humans is by recipients. Then decision-makers and developers are carrying out the administration and activation parts? so are we all having the same important ??

From "natural order point of view" the priority definitely belongs to "water users", which is very general term and can be (and often is) replaced by more specific names, like farmers; municipalities, etc. Second important and also named in general terms is category of policy and/or decision makers (including politicians). In many real life situations politicians and policy makers have much, much more power than water users, so from this point of view this group can be also given priority number one. It depends on circumstances and nature of management problem. To the next group I would put construction companies, infrastructure operators and all, who secure build-up and operation of water management systems. And finally as the fourth group I would name analysts, modelers and alike, who are assisting in preparation and analysis of data, facts, evaluations and all other activities taking place during decision making processes.

'Who are the most important stakeholders in Integrated Water Resources Management?' - Thanks R M M Pradeep for posing this challenging question.

Before attempting an answer perhaps one should first reflect on exactly what IWRM is, and its pros and cons? From the literature it appears to be widely conceived as a holistic approach for delivering economic efficiency in water use, provide for environmental and ecological sustainability, and promote social equity - which features prominently in SDG 6. It has also been widely promoted by supranational global bodies (e.g. GWP, WWC) and by many bilateral donor agencies. Its appeal and uptake by governments has been put down to it "combin(ing) intuitive reasonableness, an appeal to technical authority, and an all-encompassing character of such great flexibility that it approaches vagueness" (Conca, 2006: 126-127). And certainly my experience is that 'vagueness' is an apt characterisation for the understanding of 'integration' held by many if not most of those responsible for delivering the 'I' in IWRM.

[There is considerable criticism of IWRM as applied to less formalised economies (i.e. where reticulated water and sanitation systems are not the norm). A lot of information can be found in Water Alternatives 9(3). Tushar Shah presented an excellent paper differentiating between the formal and informal economies and else - The New Institutional Economics of India’s Water Policy - at the ‘African Water Laws: Plural Legislative Frameworks for Rural Water Management in Africa’ conference in 2005, and this might be worth checking out. My remarks focus on the less formalised economies of the developing countries.]

So, not only is the 'I' of IWRM more than a little vague, but the 'M' is probably misapplied? IWRM as incorporated in most country policies and legislation, is more about (water) 'governance' than (water) management (i.e. IWRG?) - 'the system of actors, resources, arrangements and processes which mediate society's access to water' (Cleaver, 2012)? If you accept that, then parking the difficulties of interpreting 'integration' for the moment, the range of 'stakeholders' referred to in your question are all the stakeholders involved in water governance, both those presently involved in decision-making and follow-up actions, and also those impacted directly and indirectly by that decision-making and actions.

The systemic definition of water governance here, is in practice usually applied with respect to hydrological boundaries (i.e. basins, catchments). Catchment governance typically spans different political, legal (e.g. statutory and customary laws) and administrative frameworks, multiple socio-cultural contexts and socio-economic environments, as well as an extensive physical environment, both natural and man-made. Given this diversity and scale of socio-cultural-legal-economic-and-environmental dimensions, and in the context of a climate threatened world, the context for IWRMG is clearly one characterised by 'complexity'. In the complexity literature for a system to be considered complex then one would expect to find: a diversity of opinions, wants and needs amongst stakeholders, including measures of disagreement and conflict between sectors and stakeholders; information and knowledge gaps (i.e. known unknowns); and climate and other uncertainties (i.e. unknown unknowns); together with weak organisational capacity within the mandated authorities. In such situations cause and effect are not linear, but rather accidental and unpredictable, and not therefore amenable to conventional analysis and rational solutions (Kurtz and Snowden, 2003).

So putting the technical appeal of IWRM (i.e. to politicians, officials, technocrats etc) together with the complex realities of many/most catchment governance situations, the complexity literature predicts that 'technical fixes' alone, however good the technical analysis and modelling, would be insufficient to address the complexity aspects of the situation. The Cynefin framework literature (Kurtz and Snowden, 2003), explains how faced with 'complicated' challenges (i.e. when cause and effect applies, even if separated over time) then technical solutions are possible. Developing jet engines or understanding metal fatigue in aeroplane wings took years of research, but technology (and else) has enabled jumbo jets to fly. The same is not true for complex situations, and the example used to facilitate understanding is that of raising a child - there is no single, set of instructions for raising a child that can guarantee the outcome. The water governance challenge, as confirmed by the many inadequate applications of IWRM, is an even better one.

If catchment governance - IWRMG - is complex, and complex systems are not amenable to technical solutions then what is to be done - and who are the important stakeholders?

Many alternative approaches to IWRM have been made including calls for, “..a focused expedient approach..” (Lankford et al., 2007), “..building a learning catchment by investing in 'social learning' as a deliberate policy mechanism for catchment managing” (Collins et al., 2009), “..a range of lighter, more pragmatic and context adapted approaches..” (Butterworth et al., 2010), “..participatory and inclusive planning..” (van Koppen et al., 2012), and “..platforms for stakeholders to come together to transparently agree and define rights and responsibilities” (IUCN, 2012), “..the concept of bricolage … to show the value of promoting and facilitating an organic creative approach..” (Merrey and Cook, 2012), and “..inclusive deliberative processes.. (for river basins and landscapes)” (DFID, 2012).

My own experience working with many colleagues in the Great Ruaha River catchment in the Rufiji Basin, Tanzania, on a pilot project called SWAUM, was based on many of these alternatives. Essentially it sought to explore the potential for of a deliberative, multi-stakeholder approach focused on promoting social learning through collective action to build the resilience necessary - not for a single, one-off blue-print solution, but for the raised ability to constructively respond to what ever challenges arose. Fundamentally this took the position that ALL stakeholders were important and need to be involved, and that the uppermost project skills required were not those related to hydrology or management, but 'facilitation' skills, to bring together iteratively the complete diversity of stakeholders, and involve them all in the decision-making processes. Clearly this did not initially appeal to those wielding power - despite their years of failing to address the drying of the river - but forging these accommodations was the challenge, and that required a process or 'vehicle' to effect the necessary changes.

The challenge of working with so many diverse stakeholders was, interestingly, to give form to the challenge of what might be meant by 'integration. The work of the many SWAUM stakeholders suggested that the 'I' that purportedly turns WRM into the IWRM panacea, would ideally apply to a number of dimensions - the critical dimensions of integration (CDIs). These key relational areas where integration is deemed critical for improved catchment governance include the following (which may not be exhaustive):

§ - Work within sectors (e.g. vertically and horizontally, between water institutions, between Local Government Authorities [LGAs] etc);

§ - Cross-sectoral, or horizontal working between sectors (e.g. water, agriculture, energy, and local government sectors);

§ - Engagement with and involvement of poor, disadvantaged or hard-to-reach groups (e.g. poorer women, marginalised groups, youth);

§ - Engagement with and involvement of the private sector;

§ - Integrating upstream-downstream working (i.e. decision-making & actions), particularly between stakeholders in the upper sub-catchments and those downstream of the Usangu Wetlands;

§ - Integrating freshwater ecosystem conservation (FEC) and WASH initiatives;

§ - Devolving climate change adaptation (CCA) from and through national to local;

§ - Integrating practice, research and policy-making to improve strategic decision-making.

In conclusion. For IWRM read IWRG. Most IWRG in developing countries, and with climate change, perhaps too in developed countries, is working in complex environments, where technical solutions have a part to play, but in isolation cannot - and demonstrably have failed to - address the wider systemic challenges. There is a growing body of work on addressing complex catchment systems focusing on social learning and collective action which focuses on facilitating learning through working together and building accommodations - not necessarily consensus - to build the collective resilience of the actors in the system.

Was the SWAUM work successful? The project's final evaluation* was particularly positive, and recommended the continuation of the work, but the main implementer, whose main focus was not water nor IWRM/G, and who had only limited funds, sought to return to their main focus. * Copy available.

For more on SWAUM see my ResearchGate SWAUM page: https://www.researchgate.net/project/SWAUM-Sustainable-Water-Access-Use-and-Management-Programme-2011-2016

Some of the above text has been taken from a draft paper I'm developing with colleagues, 'Gender and Governance: Fine in principle fudged in practice?', so comments welcomed.

Rather long-winded R M M Pradeep, but I hope it's of use.

IWRM is based on the three principles: social equity, economic efficiency and environmental sustainability. Considering these principles means answering the following questions: - How will my decision/ action affect access for other users to water or the benefits from its use?

So the water user are important aspect.

Dear R M M Pradeep , the stakeholders for Integrated Water Resources management includes public-sector agencies in the water sector (state, regional or local), private-sector organizations and NGOs' and making priority among the integrated stakes depend on the decision you will made and it depends on your scale of study. however, the real situation should start at the begining from the community.

Researchers, Environmental and hydro-engineers, Some farmers.

To conclude my earlier submission. IWRM is deployed by governments, ostensibly to improve the governance of catchments - increased social equity, economic efficiency and environmental sustainability. Fundamental catchments are socio-ecological systems, which are complex and adaptive, and lacking in any central control. Catchment authorities may consider themselves to be in charge, but they are not in control, either of the often conflicted sectors (e.g. water, agriculture, energy, extraction etc) or of the bio-physical factors (e.g. weather, floods, fires). They comprise a diversity of stakeholders (or actors), and innumerable factors (e.g. rules, norms, customs, natural processes etc) that are in a constant flux of interactions - including within or as applied to the 'critical dimensions of integration' specified earlier.

As in any complex system the challenge - the necessity - is to acknowledge, value and draw on the knowledge and experience of ALL STAKEHOLDERS, as it only in their entirety that the widely dispersed information and knowledge embedded in society can be mobilised. This is the so-called, continuously changing, information of time and place and tacit knowledge (i.e. knowledge that individuals have but do not or cannot communicate). It is only by drawing on the breadth of knowledge and experience of the whole that resilience, or the highly adaptive capacity, needed to address complexity can be developed.

Formally educated folk often baulk at the idea that, for example, poorly educated farmers, the women in the village, etc, have a major contribution to make to catchment governance. Repeated experience however shows that they for example know more about local weather systems than the experts rely on satellite information and remote, but not local, weather stations. Conversely the policies and plans determining the activities of water sector officials and technocrats are typically in conflict with those followed by personnel in the agriculture and/or energy sectors. Even within the ministry of water there is often tensions between departments managing water resources and those responsible for water supply and sanitation etc.

If the 'I' in IWRM means anything then all aspects of integration need addressing, and this necessitates facilitating all types and groups of stakeholders in working and learning together to develop the collective capacity and resilience to cope with the existing pressures and those that the climate crisis will exacerbate or bring.

Critical dimensions of integration that from wide experience, particularly need working on with their diversity of stakeholders include:

- Working within sectors (e.g. vertically and horizontally, between water institutions, between Local Government Authorities [LGAs] etc);

- Cross-sectoral, or horizontal working between sectors (e.g. water, agriculture, energy, and local government sectors);

- Engagement with and involvement of poor, disadvantaged or hard-to-reach groups (e.g. poorer women, marginalised groups, youth);

- Engagement with and involvement of the private sector;

- Integrating upstream-downstream working (i.e. decision-making & actions), particularly between stakeholders with diverse livelihoods between upper, mid and lower parts of large catchments;

- Integrating freshwater ecosystem conservation (FEC) and WASH initiatives;

- Devolving climate change adaptation (CCA) from and through national to local;

- Integrating practice, research and policy-making to improve strategic decision-making.

National water supply and drainage board, IWMI, hydrological engineers, infrastructure management engineer

• Real (relevant) data not models
• Resource balances ( water, nutrients, waste) which requires all cycles to be understood
• People input, not engineers and scientists. We are there to assist decision making, not drive it.
• Effective monitoring of physical and policy decisions, without which we have made monumental and repetitive mistakes in the past
• Good open communication with all stakeholders, not just the convenient ones who will support your pre determined intentions

Not easy to do, particularly when politically and financially vested interests are involved. If you can keep these two at bay, then you may have a chance!

Thank you everybody for making the question to a diversified interesting discussion. I kindly request all to read the following text.

Thank you sir, Kazimierz A. Salewicz

I found a valuable outcome from you answer which my intention was. The order of priority. According to your valuable argument, the order is like follows; (anyone who reads only this and need clarification of the ppl below [1-4] please read Kazimierz A. Salewicz answer above)

1. Water users

2.Decision-makers

3.Constructors who secure build-up and operation of water management systems.

4. Analysts, modelers

So, if the question like this, what is your idea.

" 1-4 (above list) are all stakeholders, then 1 need to extend his farm to the edge of the river. say 2, they want to enhance the agriculture as a policy then they fully support the 1's idea. Number 3, they also love 1's idea as their new construction technical finding can be applied to the particular riverbank to protect the 1's cultivation by erosion. Then the 4, last person who knows the water behavior and can model it. 4 found that the proposed 1's extension of cultivation may block the review flow by 6% but it will result in 30% more flood in future"

Sir, my argument is if the concerns are having priority, we discard the 4th idea, but the application results in a huge flood that will destroy 1 and 2 concerns. So I suggested not to have priority, all are equally treated, allow them to discuss, let them come to an optimized solution ! do you agree with me, sir ?

Dear sirs and ma'am, Putu Aryastana , Bulcsu Szekely , Nanco Dolman , Mundher Alsaaidi منذر السعيدي , Isam Alkhalifawi , Joan Nyika , Sovit Parajuli , Rachan Karmakar , Dilshani Dinushika please tell me your suggestion.

Eugene A. Simonov sir, you just put a one-word comment and drop me into a river of ideas, thank you. Yes, river - the main durable water transporter should have the priority. may I translate like this -> " the natural factor is the 1st priority"? then hydrology modelers who reflect the river nature become the 1st priority?. According to Kazimierz A. Salewicz list above, 4 has the 1st priority?

Then, sir, we ask the river to flow as it likes, 1-3 should adjust accordingly?.

Again Eugene A. Simonov, see my argument above, do you agree with me, sir?

Subhash Chavare sir, thank you very much. I see you nicely accumulated the answer, may i understand it like this

1. consider how one's action effect on water use

2. Hence no priority to so-called "one" - everybody should think about others

I feel my argument above is correct ?? do you agree with me, sir?

Charles Essery sir, your idea is an eye-opener to me. I wonder, the engineers are thinking they only support the decision making, but I think in another way. You are the 4 (the list mention at the starting of the answer). hence my thinking is you should be the driver of the vehicle. I feel engineers to be the best people who drive decision-makers to accurately customized the decisions which agreed to physics - nature. Hence sir, please see my argument and give me suggestions.

Rachan Karmakar sir and Dilshani Dinushika ma'am, Thank you very much for your valuable input to this discussion and I hope you will give a suggestion.

Mike Morris Sir,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my question nicely and with arguments.

I made a long answer earlier to all other valuable researchers.

But your answers are definitely related to the question as well as go beyond the expectation, which is supporting my entire research.

To short all your sayings, let me allow make a one-sentence summary;

"water decision is not a peaceful-agreed decision"

Then your entire research shows the related conflicts and attempts to solve those.

Now talk about us, Software engineers, how we can assist in this situation. So to have a peaceful and agreed decision, the communication requirement is highly needed.

This communication is not just providing a view of other parties' decisions and works. But it goes beyond by providing a view of the repercussions of one's idea if implemented and gives options to optimized most suited decisions with lesser harm to others.

In other words, when one says "I need this", then in the background, all the water models, economic models, and social models should activate and show different new outputs on behalf of that "Need"; from different perspectives. The particular controllers or/and rules of water or econ or social can give their limitations/ suggestions/concerns then again run the different models and show the result... this will run until it comes to an agreed situation.

Huh, Just dreaming know? as practitioners you know how many weeks takes to take one single report from a particular agent.

But we software professionals we can do those processes, the example is days taken GIS analysis is 3-4 minute work.

But unfortunately, we, the new arrivals to the IWRM, make the process more complicated - as by adding as a new stakeholder!!!

Technically we have concerns and we have limitations. Then when automating this dream work, I have to educate the software developers in a different way and have to ask what to look at, whom to look at, what to get from them, who is having priority, and such kind of a hell of things.

To start that attempt, I identified one bunch of stakeholders. Then I wanted to get to know "no one is prioritized - all are equal ??". That's why I asked the question...

Thankfully most of the people positively assisting the work.

So sir, Thank you for your long and valuable answer, which gave me wonderful ideas as well as sayings like "jet engine". I got lots of theoretical inputs needed to background work of my research.

I hope you understand my thinking and give me a valuable suggestion for prioritization too.

Integrated Water Resources Management is a comprehensive tool for planning and participatory implementation of the management and development of water resources in a manner that balances social and economic needs, and ensures the protection of ecosystems for future generations.

Dear R M M Pradeep - many thanks for your appreciation of my offering, and I'm delighted if it has stimulated more thinking on your part.

Before replying to your response I'd just like to acknowledge Eugene A. Simonov's answer, which in essence was to locate the river ecosystem at the heart of all considerations. I certainly agree with this centrality, and his suggestion that from a conventional scientific position, according this stakeholder primacy through the process of developing a comprehensive understanding is a great - and essential - starting point. Not only does the river ecosystem rub shoulders with a collection of socio-cultural-ecological system along its length, to which he alludes, but it is also part of a bigger ecological system, which will also include groundwater flows, precipitation and evapotranspiration, together with the land itself and its complement of bio-physical attributes. I personally also like his reference to - share the reverence for - the 'living' status that many cultures accord rivers and other natural features. Starting with such respect should improve decision-making? You might recall that one of our critical dimensions of integration (CDIs) was that between WASH - water and sanitation and hygiene - and freshwater ecosystem conservation.

From a systems perspective however, the river ecosystem, or the wider natural systems through which climate play out, are as their names suggest 'systems', and not in the conventional sense, the 'actors', or stakeholders, who are located in social systems, and able to actively or by default take decisions?

Mutual deliberations on IWRM would seem to concur that this is primarily a concept for .. approach to .. or set of practices relating to .. the 'governance' of water (e.g. catchment governance)? Allowing that there's a debate still to be had on what form good governance would take - or 'good enough' governance, or bad governance - it seems that we are close to agreeing that governance is fundamentally about decision-making (i.e. who takes the decisions, who appointed them, what criteria do they use etc) and the actions that do, or do not ensue? In terms of water governance - and indeed all NR governance - in addition to those designated decision-makers (DMs), who on paper or by appointment are formally endorsed as DMs, any individual or group who undertakes activities relating to or impacting, directly or indirectly, on the water resources under consideration, are also DMs. The minister who pronounces on water policy is part of the formal governance regime, but the herdsman who waters his stock at the tank is also taking decisions and engaging in water governance. The child who leaves the communal tap running is also engaged in water governance. A thousand running taps would soon run the water supply policy dry?

1. I'm comfortable with your first assertion (written in the plural here) that often, "water decisions are not peacefully agreed decisions". Water is a scarce resource, and critical for social wellbeing (e.g. hygiene, washing & health) and economic activities (e.g. SMEs, agriculture, energy production, transportation etc), which suggests and explains why diverse local stakeholders (e.g. householders, farmers, hairdressers) and significant large-scale sector stakeholders (e.g. those involved in irrigated farming, hydropower, mineral processing etc), might be or end up in conflict - particularly as the climate emergency limits the availability of the resource.

2. Forgive me R M M Pradeep, I know little of what software engineers do or can do ... but you indicate that by bringing more reliable information to the decision-making table they may be able to promote a more peaceful resolution process? That seems like a reasonable proposition, and even more so given the further suggestion that with iterative modelling techniques more far reaching and reliable outcomes might be projected?

We're agreed then (I hope) that decision-making is at the heart of governance ... which suggests that it might be useful to consolidate our understanding of the nature of decision-making in the context of river catchments? I've previously suggested that water catchments (i.e. the river ecosystem) are complex systems and that the social systems within which water governance takes place are also complex. (An excellent book, of the many out there, to cover these points would be, 'Navigating Social-Ecological Systems' by [the excellent] Berkes, Colding & Folke, Cambridge University Press). This is important because decision-making in complex circumstances (i.e. situations where there is widespread disagreement, & high levels of uncertainty) is different from that either where there is certainty but widespread disagreement (e.g. when real time negotiations are possible), or where there is widespread agreement but great uncertainty (e.g. when collaboration & leadership are readily acceptable). Check out Stacey's Decision-Making Matrix, in Stacey, R.D. 2002, Strategic management and organisational dynamics: the challenge of complexity. *See Figure 3, page 3 in the uploaded file - part of a SWAUM workshop report.

Complex situations, which often also include knowledge gaps, but these can be taken into account (i.e. associated risks can be estimated), are fundamentally characterised by uncertainties - unknown unknown - and it's the uncertainties that effectively sets the cat among the pigeons. On the down side modelling can't be applied to uncertainties … by virtue of not knowing what they are or when they'll arise! On the good side, and following on from Stacey's work, decision-making in complexity is best undertaken through collaborative, co-creating working and learning together, facilitated processes - and one of the specific tools in this tool box is scenario-planning. Stakeholders are encouraged to collectively examine a number of diverse, plausible scenarios, and reflect on and plan optimal risk mitigation strategies for the worst aspects of each scenario. This is precisely what decision-makers should be doing now, confronted as we all are by the coronavirus - another complex situation. So the generation of a series of plausible but divergent scenarios would be a very useful contribution. What however you must appreciate is that the expectation is not that iterative modelling, incorporating improved information is going to generate the right answer - there are no 'right answers' in complexity - or even an optimal answer, but rather yes, the new 'agreed situation' you suggest. What you would be doing is facilitating the stakeholders, working and learning together, to come up with a series of improved models. The output of the exercise, would not be the model as such, but rather the 'process' - facilitating improved working between previously conflicted stakeholders. This would be the 'peace' bonus. This process of iterative learning based on modelling is well set out in Peter Checkland and John Poulter's 'Learning for Action', which is an introduction to 'soft systems methodology' (SSM), and readily recommended.

Note: In situations of complexity - contrary to usual practice - decision-making is not delegated to any one group of experts, but rather expert groups provide their 'understanding' to the wider group of stakeholders, for collective assimilation and reflection.

3. There is no reason why contributions from software professionals need necessarily 'make the process more complicated', but a lot depends on how access is gained and/or from where you secure your mandate. If in effect your contribution is defined by or exclusively used by one of the conventionally powerful, formal decision-making stakeholder groups, then yes it could simply reinforce the status-quo power-base, which might itself be part of the problem. See from the earlier reference what makes IWRM attractive to governments, and the strong emphasis on technical fixes. Establishing a wider or freer mandate is seldom however easy, which perhaps only leaves space for an opportunistic approach in which you attempt to keep options open...

4. On a different tack, the social learning / collective action approaches to which I've referred have combined with (/given rise to?) something called 'network analysis', and (I'm guessing) this is clearly a fertile area of exploration for software engineers? One simple way of recalling what a system is, is to define it in terms of 'actors' and 'factors' and 'interactions', and network analyses are used to map out the flux of interactions between actors, and with reference to the salient factors in a given system. Worth a follow up perhaps?

Finally, if this has muddied the water in terms of prioritising stakeholder groups to work with, why not instead examine the relationships between stakeholders? If you can concede that those critical dimensions of integration (CDIs) would be highly relevant to improving decision-making, then an exploration of how specific stakeholder groups associated with any one CDI might throw up some interesting findings? I have been working on a tool to explore this, but based on a series of interviews. The attached file is a section of a workshop report in which we had facilitated local stakeholder groups in explored the nature of their mutual relationships, and generating a linkage matrix. If of interest find the full report here: Technical Report SWAUM: Report of the Insights Meeting with Formal Organisati...

All the best - Mike

Nice question

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) program uses an integrated, systems approach to develop scientific and technological solutions to protect human health as well as protect and restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. IWRM programe involves, government and state agencies, academia, non-governmental agencies, public and private stakeholders, and the global scientific community. This cross-cutting approach is expected to maximizes efficiency, interdisciplinary insights and integration of results.

As you have rightly stated, scientific modelers in this context are the academia and global scientific community, while, decision makers refers to government and state agencies who governs the system. Recipients/general public refers to public and private stakeholders, while, Tool/Software developers refers again to global scientific community.

In order to achieve success in any IWRM programe every stakeholder in my view is important. Mind you, you need the community to adhere to whatever good practices the IWRM programme prescribes and must also own the progrmme for it to work to their benefit and the technical people to execute the programme and the decision maker to uphold the policy in order for efficiency in the IWRM programe.

These are the most important stakeholders in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM):

1. Local water users,

2. Government agencies,

3. Basin authorities,

4. Industries, and

5. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

The modelers and/or professionals belongs to either government agencies or NGOs.

Follow

Here is a read to give you more of the answers you seek: Article Stakeholders’ Participation in Sustainable Water Resource Management

R M M Pradeep

From my experience, I believe that local community is of major importance to be involved in water related projects.

Stakeholders’ Participation in Sustainable Water Resource Management.

This is a useful search title for your question

.

Eugene A. Simonov

Dear Sir, Thank you very much for your comprehensive answer. The answer let me review the framework which is developing to integrate the hydro-gis-stakeholders in theses days.

Being a software developer when I wanted to develop a hydro and gis integrated tool to assist urban flood management decisions I faced a problem of the absence of guidelines to develop such. Further as software engineers, we consider the person who runs the software as the "users". then all requirements are gathering from them and develop the software, however, when I develop hydro gis tool for urban flood management i found that the such users' inputs are influenced by another party, who are not going to use the software but suffer/enjoy the output of the decision made using the software output, I called them "recipients". Then when I research such an area, I found that hydrologically accurate decisions are not implementing in the ground due to the concerns differences of the recipients. Now my attention is to incorporate their concerns whilst the decision making. This has been discussed so many places especially under IWRM but when the flood management hydrology model developments those recipient integration is not happening. Therefore I believe hydrology model developers need to accommodate recipients' requirements when developing the model. This is happening via the decision-maker as the decision-makers are the people who have the direct access to the recipient. So my argument is the software developers should develop software that allows to optimize the recipient concerns, decision-maker concerns with the hydrology modeler concerns too. So this was my base work.- which is to determine the stakeholder concerns whilst the hydro-gis urban flood management model development.

In such a scenario, Eugene A. Simonov, sir you express more comprehensive and sensitive thoughts on the entire eco-system that need to consider in decision making. I realize the hydrology model is only one model that influence the flood management, especially in urban flood management - my study area.

Then I sit back and think again. As a software developer, I feel we see three areas when automating such

1. The science component

2. The administrative/economical component

3. The practicability/recipient/social component

Then the decision on behalf of the flood should have a better mix of all, otherwise, the decision may harm the sustainability of the system.

But I feel we have already destroyed the eco-systems with the urbanization. But the human can not see the quick direct-impact of it on them, therefore they mostly ignore it.

But if they harm the hydro system, it gives a massive quick impact on humans through the floods- mainly. This is worst in urban than in other areas as most urban areas are around waterbody and with a thick population.

Therefore, let me use the hydro modeling to reflect the scientific component of my framework for the development and verification of the framework. However, the eco-system should be the umbrella scientific component of the framework.

Kindly give your comment too

Thank you very much

RMM Pradeep

R M M Pradeep, there have been many good answers provided above. Though I may not be able to directly answer your question, we recently published an article that aims to provide some guidelines on environmental decision support (which covers IWRM) and decision support system development. We notably address issues of stakeholder identification and prioritization, as well as other challenges related to model and system design. Hopefully it could be of use to you!

Article Developing successful environmental decision support systems...

Eric Walling Thank you very much for sharing the valuable research with me. as for the first sight, I feel one of the best resources to me. I will study and come back to you. thanks again

Putu Aryastana, Mundher Alsaaidi منذر السعيدي , Bulcsu Szekely ,Nanco Dolman , Isam Alkhalifawi , Joan Nyika , Sovit Parajuli , Kazimierz A. Salewicz , Mike Morris , Eugene A. Simonov , Subhash Chavare , Dereje Ayenew , Rachan Karmakar , Dilshani Dinushika , Charles Essery , Omar Ali Al-Khashman , Collins Tay , Sissay Dechasa , Ahmed Elsiddig A. Elshaikh

Thank you very much for giving direct answers and providing valuable facts to the discussion. with all your ideas I tried to give a priority order to the considered four stakeholders. According to that, the majority believe the first priority to recipients and the least priority to software developers(see the attached table). However, this is not a final and hope you will give your view to the finding also. Thank you very much.

Dear Dr. R M M Pradeep very interesting analysis regarding who are the most important stakeholders. Here we talk about integrated water management.

Hello , i would say that there is no term " the most important " to approach sustainability .. every stakeholder is very important in each step towards sustainability ... this article review the importance of multilevel stakeholder involvement in water management in a small case study, however this approach can be up scaled and applied else where ..

Article Implementation of Simple Strategies to Improve Wellfield Man...

Mohammad Alqadi Thanks for answeing, yes no one is important than others, it is my hypothesis. but experts say bit different ideas. however, I try for average opinion thank you again

Please see the following link:

Article Stakeholders’ Participation in Sustainable Water Resource Management

Ouaïl Ouchetto thanks for the resource. I went through the article and found a summary of the massive work. I feel your work has proved my research gap and nice attempt to discuss one area. really my work is to automating the stakeholder-decision maker involvement.

This link talk about: THE ROLE OF STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION IN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT

https://www.geotechnologien-aida.de/EN/Themen/Wasser/Politikberatung_GW/Downloads/Module_7.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4

Floods are a very important issue, the problem can be analyzed in different manners:

1) the communities affected by floods are there with all the damages and consequences;

2) the state through universities or technicians are interested in solving the problem and usually through mathematical modeling identifies the potential floodplain area and delimits critical areas;

3) once the critical areas have been identified, various structural scenarios can be modeled to avoid or reduce the negative impact of the floods (reservoirs, dikes, diversion channels, floodgates, pumping stations, etc.);

4) the cost analysis between the damage versus the structural measures helps to determine the next steps;

5) in the analysis should also be considered “do nothing”, because the flood is already there;

6) in the debate process with the affected communities, the problems encountered and future remediation options have to be discussed;

7) it is difficult to relocate people who are in a flood area because usually they do not want to move and it is expensive for the state;

8) on the other hand, we must not forget the non-structural measures (reforestation, soil and water protection programs, emergency centers, real time flood monitoring programs, flooding committees, etc.);

9) at the end, a consensus between the state and the local community has to be reached, so, this is a process of consensus among all involved people regarding floods.

Analyze them in term of their influence

Salah Hamad Thank you very much for the answer. I was searching for a technique for finding the individual's influence. do you have an idea?

Alaa Ali

Randon Ortiz Calle Thank you very much. A nice and required answer. then in such a situation, the recipients are the most important, do you agree with me?

Abdelkader Mohamed Elsayed Thanks a lot, I went through the document and interesting.

Check thier tasks which will govern the influance