# Invited perspectives: Advancing knowledge co-creation in drought impact studies

Silvia De Angeli, Lorenzo Villani, Giulio Castelli, Maria Rusca, Giorgio Boni, Elena Bresci, Luigi Piemontese

► To cite this version:

Silvia De Angeli, Lorenzo Villani, Giulio Castelli, Maria Rusca, Giorgio Boni, et al. Invited perspectives: Advancing knowledge co-creation in drought impact studies. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2025, 25 (8), pp.2571 - 2589. 10.5194/nhess-25-2571-2025. hal-05245018

HAL Id: hal-05245018

https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-05245018v1

Submitted on 8 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Invited perspectives: Advancing knowledge co-creation in drought impact studies

Silvia De Angeli<sup>1,2,3</sup>, Lorenzo Villani<sup>4,5</sup>, Giulio Castelli<sup>4</sup>, Maria Rusca<sup>6</sup>, Giorgio Boni<sup>3</sup>, Elena Bresci<sup>4</sup>, and Luigi Piemontese<sup>4</sup>

<sup>1</sup>Université de Lorraine, CNRS, LIEC, F-54000 Nancy, France

<sup>2</sup>Université de Lorraine, LOTERR, F-57000 Metz, France

<sup>3</sup>Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

<sup>4</sup>Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, Florence, Italy

<sup>5</sup>Department of Water and Climate (HYDR), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

<sup>6</sup>Global Development Institute, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

**Correspondence:** Silvia De Angeli (silvia.de-angeli@univ-lorraine.fr) and Luigi Piemontese (luigi.piemontese@unifi.it)

Received: 15 July 2024 – Discussion started: 26 July 2024

Revised: 3 June 2025 – Accepted: 6 June 2025 – Published: 1 August 2025

**Abstract.** Drought impacts are increasingly recognized as interdisciplinary, socially influenced processes often resulting in uneven outcomes across different social groups, rather than as mere hydro-climatic events. Yet, many drought impact studies do not fully integrate the knowledge and perspectives of those who directly experience the impacts of droughts. While knowledge co-creation represents a promising avenue to address this challenge, there still remains an ample margin of improvement in the depth and breadth of transdisciplinary approaches in drought impact studies: most studies either limit co-creation to specific phases of the research process (breadth) or fail to meaningfully incorporate non-academic knowledge within those phases (depth). Drawing from a diverse body of literature on transdisciplinarity in sustainability science, integrated water resources management, socio-hydrology, science and technology studies, and critical water studies, we delineate five key dimensions which can support broader and deeper knowledge co-creation processes in drought impact studies, including (1) setting up a collaborative space, (2) framing the co-modelling process, (3) shaping a shared knowledge of drought, (4) co-selecting and co-developing models to understand drought impacts, and (5) being aware of power biases and knowledge imbalances. Incorporating all five dimensions promotes broader and more comprehensive studies, while exploring each dimension in greater detail enhances their depth. Together, these dimensions provide conceptual guidance for

developing transdisciplinary approaches that are more integrated, power-sensitive, inclusive, situated, and reflexive.

## 1 Introduction

Droughts are becoming increasingly widespread and impactful, with serious consequences for health, agriculture, societies, and the environment globally (Vicente-Serrano et al., 2021; Wilhite et al., 2007). Socio-economic and environmental impacts of drought have long been studied (e.g. Wilhite and Glantz, 1985) based on drought hazards being primarily assessed as meteorological and/or hydrological processes (Mishra and Singh, 2010, 2011). However, the social dimension of drought is very different from how it is represented in hydro-climatic models (Enenkel et al., 2020; Kchouk et al., 2022). In fact, droughts are increasingly conceptualized as complex socio-hydrological phenomena that affect societies across interdependent sectors and socio-economic groups (AghaKouchak et al., 2021; Mehta, 2007; G. Ribeiro Neto et al., 2023; Van Loon et al., 2016b, a). In parallel, research in climate justice and political ecology has long conceptualized disasters as generated by the interplay of hydro-climatic and historical, socio-political, economic, and institutional dynamics (e.g. Collard et al., 2018; Kallis, 2008). From this standpoint, drought-related impacts, which often escalate into disasters, have been conceptualized as a so-
cial construction of water scarcity. This perspective highlights how different social groups experience the impacts of drought unevenly due to varying levels of power and influence. It also emphasizes the variable “room for manoeuvre” of different socio-economic groups in responding and adapting to drought events (Alexandra and Rickards, 2021; Eriksen and Lind, 2009). Finally, this perspective draws attention to the underlying political and economic drivers, such as development pathways and policy visions, that shape the vulnerability of different groups and their exposure to hazards (Mehta, 2005; Piemontese et al., 2024; Rachunok and Fletcher, 2023; Rusca et al., 2023; Savelli et al., 2022; Usón et al., 2017).

The multidimensional nature of droughts has been addressed by recent interdisciplinary socio-hydrological research on water-related challenges (Vanelli et al., 2022), which aims at capturing the interplay between natural and social aspects (Rusca and Di Baldassarre, 2019; Wesselink et al., 2017). Yet, there is increasing recognition of the need to include societal perspectives within socio-hydrological studies, such as those of non-academic actors directly experiencing the impacts of drought, through transdisciplinary studies (AghaKouchak et al., 2021; Arheimer et al., 2024; Hadorn et al., 2008; Wheater and Gober, 2015). Transdisciplinary research brings “values, knowledge, know-how, and expertise from non-academic sources” (Klein, 2010) to the knowledge-creation process. This entails fostering mutual learning processes between science and society, reflecting a commitment to a science that collaborates with society rather than simply serving it (Seidl et al., 2013). Transdisciplinarity includes a variety of approaches to knowledge co-creation (Bennich et al., 2022; Brugnach and Özerol, 2019; Norström et al., 2020). In the field of integrated water resources management, knowledge co-creation is often addressed by referring to the concepts of collaborative modelling or co-modelling (Basco-Carrera et al., 2017). This concept involves the collaborative construction of models, which can be physical, conceptual, or computational representations of a system, process, or phenomenon. Co-creation provides the collaborative framework for ideation and value creation, while co-modelling offers the tools and methods to visualize, test, and refine these ideas into actionable solutions, enhancing the effectiveness of co-creation. In this perspective paper, we discuss co-creation in drought impact studies from a broad standpoint and return to co-modelling in Sect. 3.4 to examine its specific role and applications in greater detail, presenting co-modelling as one key dimension of the co-creation process.

Examples of drought or water scarcity studies that include strong participation of non-academic stakeholders embrace co-creation of (i) drought impacts, (ii) water infrastructure planning, and (iii) water use under scarcity conditions. The first body of literature includes studies aimed at increasing stakeholders’ participation in drought plans with a variety of approaches. For example, Sodoge et al. (2024) develop

individual causal loop diagrams to map cascading drought impacts from different stakeholders, which they ultimately combine to reveal emerging knowledge from multiple perspectives. Cid et al. (2024) use serious games to engage stakeholders in the creation of proactive drought plans while revealing power imbalances and knowledge disparities. Giordano et al. (2013) use cognitive mapping and Bayesian belief networks to collect and analyse stakeholders’ perceptions of drought impacts, highlighting the challenges of trust and cooperation in knowledge integration for drought early warning systems. Aldunce et al. (2016) apply the resilience-wheel tool combined with participatory methods to understand key determinants of drought resilience in urban Chile. Streefkerk et al. (2022) integrate farmers’ local knowledge with seasonal climate forecasts to select the most relevant indicators for forecasting locally relevant dry conditions in Malawi. The second group of studies focuses on evaluating the feasibility of water infrastructure by integrating knowledge and mediating the values and expectations of different stakeholders (e.g. Coletta et al., 2024; Gil-García et al., 2023; Masi et al., 2024). For example, Gil-García et al. (2023) include experts’ knowledge and opinions to co-design scenarios within alternative adaptation strategies and guide policymakers when considering the construction of a dam. The third set of studies uses a variety of methods to provide guidance on mediating the use of water resources under scarcity conditions (e.g. Baker et al., 2015; Gwapedza et al., 2024; Liguori et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2021; Ocampo-Melgar et al., 2022; Rojas et al., 2022). For example, Liguori et al. (2021) explore a combination of storytelling and scientific data to guide the development of different co-designed narratives to support the planning of drought adaptation scenarios. The co-creation of adaptation scenarios is also the focus of a co-modelling approach proposed by Mustafa et al. (2021) to improve adaptation to hydrological extremes in the Limpopo River basin. All these approaches attempt to integrate some elements of knowledge co-creation, yet they often limit the transdisciplinary process to specific tasks, usually the definition of adaptation scenarios or the choice of indicators or model parameters (Luetkemeier et al., 2021).

Although many studies involve stakeholders with a variety of participatory approaches, the limitation of current transdisciplinary approaches in drought research lies in the depth and breadth of knowledge integration. Most studies either limit co-creation to specific phases of the research process, such as problem definition, scenario development, or result validation (breadth), or fail to meaningfully incorporate non-academic knowledge within those phases, for instance using such knowledge only to validate predefined scientific assumptions rather than to shape core research questions, methodologies, or models (depth). This leaves room for improving knowledge co-creation with the implementation of more “mature” transdisciplinary work, building on a full engagement and integration of different stakeholders (and knowledge holders) in all the phases of the research
process. Also, the attention to power dynamics through the
process is very important, is largely analysed within social
sciences, and can substantially advance socio-hydrological
studies within transdisciplinary research.

Our contribution seeks to support hydrological and socio-
hydrological modellers and practitioners in developing more
structured, power-sensitive, inclusive, situated, and reflex-
ive co-created drought impact studies by providing essen-
tial considerations for more effectively integrating diverse
knowledge systems and perspectives into the process. In
this paper, the term "drought impact studies" is used to re-
fer generically to studies and projects that not only eval-
uate the hazard dimension of drought but also investigate,
describe, or evaluate its impacts and support the identifica-
tion and planning of drought management or adaptation mea-
sures. Moreover, this paper approaches drought from a socio-
hydrological perspective, offering a framework tailored for
transdisciplinary studies and projects that view drought as a
result of feedback between water systems and human activi-
ties.

Drawing from five different bodies of literature – socio-
hydrology, integrated water resources management (IWRM),
sustainability science, critical water studies, and science and
technology studies (STS) – we identify and discuss five key
dimensions of a comprehensive and structured co-creation
process for assessing and adapting to drought impacts. These
dimensions address current limitations in both the breadth
and the depth of such approaches: incorporating all five pro-
motes more comprehensive and wide-ranging studies, while
examining each in greater detail enhances their depth.

The paper proceeds as follows. In Sect. 2, we explore how
an interdisciplinary perspective, drawing from five different
bodies of literature, contributes to a more comprehensive ap-
proach to knowledge co-creation in the context of drought.
Then, in Sect. 3 we discuss each of the five identified key di-
mensions in detail. Next, in Sect. 4, we discuss the limitations
of transdisciplinary approaches to drought, related to the five
key dimensions. To conclude, Sect. 5 offers insights into how
the key dimensions discussed in this paper can help develop
more structured and holistic transdisciplinary approaches in
the field.

## 2 An interdisciplinary perspective on knowledge co-creation

To enrich the drought co-creation process from an interdisci-
plinary perspective, we refer to and integrate knowledge de-
veloped in five other scientific fields and disciplines: socio-
hydrology, IWRM, sustainability science, critical water stud-
ies, and STS.

Socio-hydrology (Di Baldassarre, 2017; Di Baldassarre et
al., 2013, 2015; Sivapalan et al., 2012) focuses on the dy-
namic interactions between hydrological processes and hu-
man behaviour, emphasizing how social systems influence

water management, which is particularly important in under-
standing the socio-economic impacts of drought.

IWRM advocates for a holistic approach to managing wa-
ter resources that considers environmental, social, and eco-
nomic factors (Rahaman and Varis, 2005; Savenije, 1995;
Savenije and Van der Zaag, 2008), fostering collaborative
decision-making and stakeholder engagement, which are
crucial for effective drought management. Sustainability sci-
ence (Brandt et al., 2013; Lang et al., 2012), particularly
social-ecological systems research (Angelstam et al., 2013;
Hummel et al., 2017), supports transdisciplinary approaches
and emphasizes integrating knowledge across sectors and
disciplines, fostering inclusive participation of non-academic
actors to address complex environmental challenges like
drought.

Critical water studies offer unique insights into power dy-
namics, vulnerabilities, and ethical considerations in drought
impact studies. For the purpose of drought research, two
areas of critical water studies are particularly relevant: hy-
drosocial studies and critical disaster studies. Hydrosocial
studies critique mainstream hydrology for neglecting power
dynamics and challenge the reliance on technoscientific so-
lutions to water problems (Boelens et al., 2016; Linton and
Budds, 2014). Critical disaster studies argue that vulnerabil-
ity to natural hazards, such as droughts, is rooted in pre-
existing inequalities, with social and economic structures
exacerbating exposure and outcomes (Burton et al., 1993;
Smith, 2006; White, 1945). Together, these fields highlight
that water scarcity and droughts are not merely natural events
but the result of deeply embedded power dynamics and social
vulnerabilities.

STS provide an insightful self-reflection of the co-
production process, challenging the notion of science as un-
biased and highlighting that the process of knowledge de-
velopment is in itself influenced by power relations that
determine which knowledge claims are considered valid
and actionable (Budds, 2009; Goldman et al., 2019; King
and Tadaki, 2018; Turner, 2011; Zwarteveen et al., 2017).
This perspective prompts critical reflection on research prac-
tices, particularly regarding the inclusivity and legitimacy of
knowledge in drought impact studies.

## 3 Five key dimensions for drought impact knowledge co-creation

We discuss five key dimensions that provide coherent theo-
retical guidance for advancing transdisciplinary approaches
in drought impact studies. These dimensions are derived
from the five research fields introduced in Sect. 2 and reflect
how insights from these disciplines offer critical perspectives
on the role of knowledge integration, power dynamics, and
ethical considerations in co-creation approaches for drought
impact studies. The dimensions are not sequential and do not
need to be addressed in a specific order. Moreover, they are
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Conceptual framework: a graphical representation of the theoretical background (on the left) and the five key dimensions of knowledge co-creation for socio-hydrological drought impact studies, along with their interconnections (on the right).</figcaption></figure>

highly interconnected, and decisions or actions related to one dimension may iteratively influence others. The five key dimensions, along with their interconnections, are graphically depicted in Fig. 1. They are discussed in detail in Sect. 3.1 to 3.5, with explicit reference to the papers that informed each of them.

## 3.1 Setting up a collaborative space for drought knowledge co-creation

Setting up a collaborative space includes identifying and establishing relationships among relevant stakeholders in the co-creation process (Reed et al., 2009). It ensures that all the parties that are affected by drought or influence the mitigation process are involved in the decision-making and knowledge generation. Stakeholders’ identification is an iterative process where additional stakeholders are incorporated as the analysis unfolds. Setting clear boundaries for the study (Sect. 3.2) facilitates this process. Attention should be paid to verifying that these boundaries will not be too restricted to avoid unintentionally overlooking any relevant individuals associated with the phenomenon (Clarkson, 1995). For example, since the agricultural sector is often the major water consumer, it is typically overrepresented in water-related policy discussions (Paneque et al., 2018). Conversely, the boundaries cannot be too blurred. It is often impractical to include every stakeholder, requiring the establishment of well-founded criteria by the researchers and stakeholders to determine a cutoff point (Clarke and Clegg, 1998). A dynamic interplay between stakeholder identification and boundary setting ensures that the co-creation process remains relevant and

comprehensive without excluding important knowledge and perspectives.

In transdisciplinary research, involving stakeholders serves multiple purposes (Stirling, 2008). Firstly, it upholds democratic ideals by emphasizing inclusive processes. Secondly, it taps into stakeholders’ insights and risk assessments to improve the quality of process outcomes. Lastly, it enhances the legitimacy of predetermined decisions, ultimately increasing their effectiveness in informing policy processes. However, despite the reported efforts of many drought-related studies, the effective involvement of stakeholders in participatory activities, as well as their contribution to policies, remains limited (Hervás-Gámez and Delgado-Ramos, 2019). In this regard, the direct involvement of public authorities as elicitors of the procedure could facilitate stakeholders’ participation (Hervás-Gámez and Delgado-Ramos, 2019; Kim et al., 2019).

When involving stakeholders, drought studies often consider broad categories such as the scientific community, public sector, civil society, and private sector (Aldunce et al., 2016; Lillo-Ortega et al., 2019). While this categorization is certainly useful, it might fall short in fully capturing complex drought dynamics. Some studies have further deepened stakeholder involvement by focusing on specific groups, such as vulnerable residents of informal settlements (Mpofu-Mketwa et al., 2023), or by including historically marginalized actors, such as representatives of the indigenous pueblos as observers in the whole water planning process (Lewis et al., 2005). Rangecroft et al. (2018) differentiated among water users in a rural context by involving, among others, young married mothers, elderly women, and the unemployed, while
Mukherjee and Sundberg (2023) analysed urban water secu-
rity by contextualizing the opinions of the participants con-
sidering their ethnicity, religion, caste, and gender (with a
focus also on the perspective of hijra/trans people).

In addressing drought impacts, the failure to include
marginalized groups, especially indigenous populations and
low-income communities, can significantly hinder effective
decision-making. Drought conditions often exacerbate ex-
isting inequalities, making it even more crucial to incorpo-
rate diverse perspectives and local knowledge into resources
management strategies (Rusca et al., 2024). Yet, we argue
that available methods remain rooted in a “functionalist ori-
entation and a distinct preference for quantification”, limit-
ing their ability to meaningfully integrate stakeholder input
(Bachmair et al., 2016; Lemos and Morehouse, 2005; Venot
et al., 2022, p. 92). As a result, these methods often lead to
decisions that neglect local conditions and reinforce existing
power imbalances. A systematic approach to engaging all
stakeholders is essential for developing more equitable and
effective responses to drought and ensuring that resources
management is truly reflective of community needs and expe-
riences (Hargrove and Heyman, 2020), ensuring inclusivity
is closely tied to reducing knowledge biases and power im-
balances (Sect. 3.5). By actively involving diverse stakehold-
ers, particularly those from historically marginalized groups,
the co-creation process can begin to challenge dominant nar-
ratives, integrate local knowledge, and ensure that decision-
making reflects a broader range of experiences, leading to
more balanced and effective outcomes.

## 3.2 Framing the drought co-creation process

Framing the scope of the co-creation process involves estab-
lishing clear boundaries, both for the study itself and for the
collaborative process (Daré et al., 2018). Additionally, it re-
quires conducting a “situation analysis” (van Beek and Ar-
riens, 2016), which includes co-analysing the current situa-
tion, co-identifying key problems to address, and co-defining
the main goals of the study.

The boundaries of the study define the specific aspects
of the research that will be investigated. This includes the
(a) thematic boundaries, which determine the sectors, types
of impacts, and affected units or groups that the study will fo-
cus on; (b) geographical boundaries, which define the spatial
scale of the study, specifying the region, country, or ecosystem where the research would take place; and (c) temporal boundaries, which specify the period covered by the research, whether it focuses on past events, current conditions, or future projections.

To set up the thematic boundaries, it is essential to co-
define the topics, themes, and areas of focus for the study.
This involves identifying the specific sectors, types of im-
pacts, and units or groups that will be affected by the study:

- *Sectors*. These are broad categories or fields that the study will address, such as agriculture, health, educa-

tion, environment, drinking water supply, and energy
production.

- *Types of impacts*. This includes the nature of the impacts the study aims to investigate or address, such as economic, social, or environmental impacts, and the distribution thereof across space and socio-economic groups.

- *Impacted units or groups*. These are the specific entities or populations that will be affected by the study. They can be individuals, households, communities, organizations, or ecosystems.

Setting up the geographical boundaries requires the identifi-
cation of the spatial scale in which drought impacts are inves-
tigated, which can vary from local to global. The boundaries
are often drawn based on physical (e.g. hydrological units or
ecological systems – Ballesteros-Olza et al., 2022; Mustafa
et al., 2021), administrative (e.g. municipalities, countries,
regions – Lillo-Ortega et al., 2019; Nielsen-Gammon et al.,
2020), or socio-cultural and economic criteria (e.g. Ayan-
tunde et al., 2015; Pham et al., 2020). Setting up the temporal
boundaries refers to defining the specific period within which
the drought impacts and mitigation strategy are studied. To
illustrate, examining the impacts of a historical drought re-
quires setting temporal boundaries to focus on a specific
range of years or decades in the past. When studying the
potential impacts of climate change on drought, temporal
boundaries could be set to include projections for a future
time horizon, such as the next 50 years (Sampson et al.,
2020). Another relevant aspect of a transdisciplinary process
for drought impact studies is to perform a “situation analysis”
(van Beek and Arriens, 2016), which encompasses (i) the co-
analysis of the current situation (if drought is a current issue
or a future concern, if mitigation measures already in place
are effective and, if not, why, etc.), (ii) the co-identification
of the main problems and issues to be addressed, and (iii) the
co-definition of the main goals of the study. As an example,
some co-creation processes may aim at developing a shared
vision of a water management plan (Gwapedza et al., 2024).
Other studies might aim to predict future short-term impacts
to suggest preventive strategies or quantify current and future
drought impacts to define effective drought mitigation mea-
sures. Defining goals and outcomes together is essential to
ensure transparency and prevent stakeholders’ expectations
from going unmet at the study’s end.

In contrast, the boundaries of the co-creation process are concerned with how the research is conducted collaboratively. These boundaries define how the co-creation team, including both academic and non-academic stakeholders, will engage with the research, how they will contribute, and how their input will influence the research outcomes. This includes setting the rules of engagement, determining how power and influence are distributed among stakeholders, and establishing decision-making processes to guide the collaboration.
Co-creation processes envision the development in part-
nership with not only the methods, data collection, and in-
terpretation of results, but also the research questions them-
selves. From a transdisciplinary perspective, a crucial as-
pect of this step is aligning the research questions with soci-
etal knowledge demands (Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007). Thus,
framing the scope of the co-creation process is crucial, as
societal problems often lack clear boundaries, involve mul-
tiple stakeholders, and are deeply interconnected with other
challenges, especially when dealing with complex and multi-
faceted phenomena, such as droughts. This step requires con-
tinual interaction and refinement, involving an iterative pro-
cess of adding new stakeholders and adjusting the scope as
the co-creation process evolves.

Although most of these framing elements might be con-
sidered somehow during participatory engagements, they are
often absent in scientific articles, meaning they can often
be overlooked or at least be rarely explicitly reported or
discussed. This contributes to lowering the standard of the
co-creation process or eventually compromising the sound-
ness of the process. For example, while most studies are ex-
plicit about their geographical boundaries (Aldunce et al.,
2016; Giordano et al., 2013), they seldom select stakehold-
ers iteratively and dynamically. The iterative nature of co-
creation, where stakeholders and research questions evolve
over time, can lead to significant expansion, requiring con-
siderable time, effort, and commitment from researchers,
stakeholders, and funding bodies. This process can introduce
delays and uncertainties into decision-making, particularly
when addressing complex issues like droughts, where the
intersection of environmental, social, and economic factors
demands continuous reassessment. To keep the process man-
ageable and focused, it is crucial to establish clear boundaries
that define the limits of time, resources, and engagement, en-
suring that co-creation leads to meaningful and actionable
outcomes (Thompson et al., 2017).

The framing of the boundaries of the study is particularly
important in the context of drought impact studies because
the driving mechanisms of drought and its impacts, as well
as drought governance strategies, can vary across spatial and
temporal scales and among sectors (health, agriculture, en-
ergy production, drinking water supply, etc.), with impacts
often cascading across sectors and highlighting the intercon-
nected nature of drought (Hagenlocher et al., 2023; Rossi et
al., 2023).

The setting of the boundaries for the study itself and for
the collaborative process is closely connected to two other
dimensions of the co-creation process. To ensure that the re-
search questions and scope align with societal knowledge de-
 demands, it is crucial to have a representative group of engaged
stakeholders in the process (Sect. 3.1). Framing the problem
and setting the research agenda to encompass diverse under-
standings and perspectives may require expanding the co-
creation team to include additional disciplines or engaging
with other stakeholders to find the right mix. From a practi-

cal perspective, this would lead to an iterative initial phase in
which a first set of stakeholders is identified, the scope of the
process is framed, and then potential additional stakehold-
ers can be added, requiring further refinement of the scope.
Moreover, the setting of the thematic, spatial, and tempo-
ral boundaries of the drought impact study would finally in-
fluence the development of the co-modelling of the drought
impacts (Sect. 3.4). These boundaries help define modelling
scenarios that reflect diverse perspectives and align with the
study's objectives. By establishing well-defined boundaries
from the start, the co-creation process can proceed smoothly
and ensure the creation of contextually appropriate models.

3.3 Building a shared knowledge of drought

Successfully co-creating knowledge requires building a
shared understanding of drought and its impacts (Grainger
et al., 2021). This involves recognizing that drought is con-
ceptualized differently across disciplines, as well as between
academics, practitioners, and local communities. It is well
recognized that there is no single, universally accepted defi-
nition of drought (Krueger and Alba, 2022). While hydrolog-
ical sciences are often rooted in positivist paradigms, there is
growing recognition that drought is a complex phenomenon
arising from the interplay between biophysical and socio-
economic factors (AghaKouchak et al., 2021; Wilhite and
Glantz, 1985). Mpandeli et al. (2015) provide early attempts
to include a non-academic perspective in drought impact
studies yet build on a top-down quantification of drought
from hydro-climatic thresholds. In contrast, the interpretative
and critical social sciences focus on the social construction
of water insecurity and scarcity, examining the power rela-
tions and political economies that shape the uneven outcomes
of droughts and the diverse experiences of their impacts
(see, for example, Alharahsheh and Pius, 2020; Kaika, 2003;
Mehta, 2001; Rusca et al., 2023). These different conceptu-
alizations are underpinned by distinct knowledge paradigms,
which may hinder the development of inclusive and pro-
ductive collaborations (Wesselink et al., 2017). Additionally,
stakeholders who directly experience the impacts of drought
and who are involved in the co-creation process are likely
to have alternative ways of knowing and defining drought,
based on their “mental models” (Gray et al., 2012). For ex-
ample, for urban dwellers in informal settlements, drought
may be experienced and conceptualized as water shortages,
water insecurity, or waterborne diseases or even as a source
of physical and psychological stress, especially for women
responsible for domestic water collection, rather than as a
large-scale geophysical event (Rusca et al., 2023).

While the diversity of definitions and plural knowledges
can complicate the process of co-creating a shared under-
standing of drought and its impacts (Landström et al., 2023),
it also has the potential to generate a richer and more inclu-
sive evaluation. Thus, developing a shared understanding of
drought should involve embracing and engaging with these
different ways of knowing, rather than privileging one over
another or creating a hierarchy between them. Moreover, as
noted by Beck and Krueger (2016), depoliticized analyses
of hydrological phenomena risk reproducing “authoritative
representations of dominant perceptions of the world.” Here,
interdisciplinary impact evaluations that work through epis-
temological and ontological differences have the potential to
generate more nuanced and power-sensitive understandings
of drought, exploring how power relations shape changes in
hydrological flows and the distribution of hydrological risk
(Rusca and Di Baldassarre, 2019), including drought risk.
According to this perspective, drought impact studies can
serve as boundary objects between different ways of know-
ing socio-climatic phenomena (Garb et al., 2008).

The process of developing a shared understanding of drought is closely intertwined with the co-modelling process (Sect. 3.4). On the one hand, co-modelling can serve as a tool to “redistribute expertise” (Landström et al., 2011), incorporating multiple perspectives and frameworks to create a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of droughts. On the other hand, a shared knowledge of drought provides a crucial starting point for engaging in the co-modelling process. Thus, we view this as an iterative cycle in which building a shared understanding of drought (this section) initiates the co-modelling process (Sect. 3.4), which, in turn, refines and deepens shared understanding. This iterative process also ensures that knowledge generation is dynamic and responsive to evolving perspectives.

Finally, the meaningful development of a shared defini-
tion of drought also requires addressing knowledge biases
and power imbalances (Sect. 3.5). This involves confronting
epistemic injustice by acknowledging that certain forms of
knowledge on water, particularly those rooted in physical sci-
ences, are often prioritized over other valuable knowledge
systems, such as those held by local communities (Rusca et
al., 2024; Zwarteveen et al., 2017). By recognizing and ad-
dressing these imbalances, we aim to ensure that all forms of
knowledge and actors are treated equitably in the co-creation
of drought-related knowledge.

3.4 Co-selecting and co-developing models of drought impacts

Co-creating knowledge in drought impact studies, and even
more so in projected adaptation scenarios, very often re-
lies on some levels of modelling (Baumgärtner et al., 2008).
From a transdisciplinary perspective, co-modelling inte-
grates non-scientist actors throughout the modelling process,
irrespective of its purpose, whether forecasting, prescribing,
explaining, describing, learning, or communicating (Srini-
vasan et al., 2016). With the term “model”, we refer to
any simplified representation of a real-life situation, thus in-
cluding the whole range of qualitative conceptual models to
predictive hydrological computational models. In transdisci-
plinary settings, the concept of “constructing models” can

take on diverse interpretations. It can result in the co-creation
of a conceptual model able to capture all the variables and
processes relevant to describing the chain of problems and
the study goals or even include computations, algorithms,
and dedicated modelling tools and platforms (Smetschka and
Gaube, 2020). Whenever the co-modelling involves compu-
tations, algorithms, and dedicated modelling tools and plat-
forms, stakeholders might be involved in the co-selection of
the most appropriate tool, by considering not only the type
of expected outcome but also the skills and background of
the people involved in the modelling process, as well as
other contextual factors related to the availability of eco-
nomic resources and other implementation constraints. Even
when consolidated models or software is preferred over fully
co-created models or software, which is the most common
case (Addor and Melsen, 2019), setting up and configuration
tasks of the modelling process could include the participa-
tion of stakeholders to avoid modellers’ pre-assumptions and
black-box implementations (Melsen et al., 2018). Through
co-modelling, given a suitable interactive environment, non-
specialized people can collaboratively produce models that
are meaningful to them, fostering valuable discussions and
the creation of new knowledge (Biggs et al., 2021).

Drought impact co-modelling might also require a shared
definition of modelling scenarios. Essentially, scenarios rep-
resent a collection of narratives or stories, which collectively
depict various coherent future scenarios for a specific system
(Biggs et al., 2021). A fundamental aspect of scenario devel-
opment involves the co-creation of hypothetical future situ-
ations (Iwaniec et al., 2020; Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2020),
as well as conditions of the present or the past, that can be
used for the co-modelling. These scenarios can encompass a
range of variables, such as climate patterns, land use changes,
socio-economic factors, or policy decisions.

In water-scarcity- and drought-related research, stakehold-
ers ideally engage in participatory co-modelling by directly
constructing models and tools, formulating scenarios and
policy options, and assessing the effectiveness of identified
solutions against jointly defined performance indicators or
targets, often focusing on selecting alternative strategies or
refining the application of technical solutions (Basco-Carrera
et al., 2017). For example, Masi et al. (2024) applied an
extended and highly participatory multi-criteria decision-
making analysis to optimize the siting of artificial reservoirs
in Central Italy, while Piemontese et al. (2023) included in-
digenous knowledge to identify the best sites for sand dams
in remote Angolan drylands. Wens et al. (2020) integrated an
agent-based model with a process-based crop model to sim-
ulate alternative adaptation strategies, drawing from infor-
mation collected through participatory methodologies. While
these illustrative studies have the merit of including stake-
holders’ opinions, the conceptualization, the modelling ap-
proaches, and sometimes even the proposed solutions are es-
tablished by the researchers, often hydrologists (Fischer et
al., 2021). An interesting alternative was demonstrated by
Baker et al. (2015), who applied a process-based hydrological model while involving stakeholders in the input generation phase. This approach emphasized the different needs and values of women and men in an Ethiopian catchment. Bayesian networks (e.g. Carmona et al., 2013; Kneier et al., 2023; Singto et al., 2020) and conceptual system dynamics models (e.g. Hossain et al., 2020) are often more suited to performing a transdisciplinary drought impact study because they facilitate the integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines and enable collaboration across sectors by modelling interdependencies. Moreover, Bayesian networks and system dynamics models account for uncertainty, feedback loops, and complex system interactions, making them suitable for implementing adaptive, context-sensitive adaptation strategies and responding to the multifaceted challenges of droughts.

## 3.5 Accounting for knowledge biases and power imbalances

This dimension focuses on the role of power and differential agency in shaping the co-creation of knowledge. We identify two key areas of influence. Knowledge biases refer to power dynamics within the knowledge production process itself. Mainstream interpretations of science often frame the development of knowledge as neutral, objective, and unbiased, especially in fields that prioritize quantitative methods. However, scholarship in STS and political ecology challenges this view, arguing that knowledge is shaped by power relations that determine which forms of knowledge and expertise are recognized as more scientifically valid and actionable (Budds, 2009; Goldman et al., 2019; King and Tadaki, 2018; Mukherjee, 2022; Rusca et al., 2024; Turner, 2011; Zwarteveen et al., 2017). Power imbalances refer to the unequal influence exerted by different stakeholders. Research in political ecology and critical disaster studies has shown how these power imbalances can generate and perpetuate uneven outcomes, including disparities in water allocations and adaptation to natural hazards across regions, intra-urban spaces, rural-urban populations, identities (e.g. gender, race), and income groups (see, for example, Boelens et al., 2016; Collard et al., 2018; Sultana, 2020; Swyngedouw, 2004, 2009).

Overlooking knowledge biases and power imbalances risks marginalizing certain actors and forms of knowledge and prioritizing dominant, hegemonic ones in processes of knowledge co-creation (Krueger et al., 2016; Macpherson et al., 2024; Reed, 2008; Rusca et al., 2024; Thaler and Levin-Keitel, 2016). This is likely to undermine meaningful co-creation by silencing alternative perspectives and reinforcing existing inequalities, as shown by Cid et al. (2024) in their drought-related serious game, revealing power imbalances and knowledge disparities. Ensuring meaningful co-creation, therefore, requires reflecting on knowledge production itself, recognizing biases in what is deemed legitimate knowledge,

and acknowledging that co-creation per se does not inherently eliminate existing power dynamics. First, determining what counts as “scientific” knowledge is particularly relevant in the context of co-creation for drought studies. While co-creation approaches have been argued to foster more inclusive and equitable knowledge, and thereby more just water management (Basco-Carrera et al., 2017; Falconi and Palmer, 2017), the power-laden nature of scientific knowledge can still lead to the dominance of scientific expertise in the co-creation process. Giordano et al. (2013) highlight how mistrust and a lack of cooperation challenge knowledge integration among stakeholders with different perceptions of droughts. Second, power imbalances among stakeholders can further undermine inclusive and equitable knowledge production processes. Dominant actors such as government agencies, international organizations, large NGOs, or scientific communities typically possess more time and resources to lead participatory processes and set the parameters for participation. Their knowledge claims are typically regarded as more credible or valuable (Turnhout et al., 2020).

Co-creation of water knowledge is also shaped by pre-existing relationships and histories of conflict (Budds, 2009), which are likely to influence the process. Embarking on a co-creation process requires engaging with different actors bringing their worldviews and goals. For instance, a drought can be framed differently depending on the actors’ histories, interests, and experiences (Kaika, 2003). Powerful actors, like multinationals or political leaders, may exploit the participatory context to legitimize hegemonic drought narratives that support specific outcomes or adaptation strategies, exacerbating the pre-existing power inequalities and benefiting those who are already more powerful (Alexandra and Rickards, 2021; Kallis, 2008, 2010; Mehta, 2001; Savelli, 2023). However, involving powerful stakeholders could be necessary to drive a change towards sustainable adaptation strategies. To that end, powerful stakeholders need to be made aware of the importance of engaging in the co-creation of solutions to drought. In fact, although benefiting from certain power dynamics in the short term, they could face long-term consequences as these dynamics evolve. For example, Gwapedza et al. (2024) show that, if large-scale farmers are made aware of potential long-term drought impacts, they may remain interested in being engaged in the co-creation process and cooperating in a shared drought adaptation plan.

This dimension acts as an ethical compass that fosters a power-sensitive and reflexive approach to the co-creation process. It is inherently relevant to all other dimensions of knowledge co-creation, as it seeks to dismantle the epistemic hegemony of scientific knowledge in drought studies while incorporating diverse perspectives and ways of knowing throughout the co-creation process. First, recognizing power dynamics and epistemic biases is essential for establishing collaborative spaces (Sect. 3.1), which can only be truly inclusive if power imbalances are made explicit and addressed. Similarly, defining the scope of co-creation (Sect. 3.2) and
building shared knowledge of drought (Sect. 3.3) often reflects the interests of powerful actors. A reflexive and powersensitive approach seeks to pluralize narratives by creating space for alternative framings, especially those of marginalized groups. Last, a reflexive and power-sensitive approach is crucial for ensuring that co-modelling practices remain inclusive and equitable. As highlighted by ter Horst et al. (2024), this involves integrating reflexivity into every stage of the modelling process, from co-selecting and co-developing models to iteratively reviewing definitions, scenarios, and outcomes (Sect. 3.4).

## 4 Limitations of knowledge co-creation approaches

Knowledge co-creation involves a series of inherent challenges and limitations that can significantly affect its application.

Including all relevant stakeholders or their representatives from a given “impacted group” – whether individuals, households, communities, organizations, or ecosystems (Sect. 3.2) – in the co-creation process is crucial. However, in cases where impacts are widely spread over large areas, the implementation of a fully representative co-creation process may be challenging due to the large number of people involved. This represents one of the limitations of applying transdisciplinary approaches.

Furthermore, even when the number of participants is manageable, the process may still face obstacles due to a lack of economic resources, time constraints, or limited knowledge of the study area. Although highly motivated stakeholders are a prerequisite to a successful co-creation approach, some stakeholder categories might not consider drought an urgent problem or simply might not have enough time to collaborate or interest in collaborating on the process. In some cases, local political motivation and capabilities are key to ensuring a successful co-creation process. Vedeld (2022) explains the so-called “co-creation paradox”, by which local political institutions that would benefit the most from co-creating solutions with local stakeholders lack the political capacity and leadership to do so.

Another key aspect of knowledge co-creation is acknowledging and involving holders of the different types of knowledge to ensure locally relevant problems and approaches are tackled (Brugnach and Ingram, 2012). Transdisciplinary studies require that goals and methodologies be collaboratively developed with stakeholders to ensure relevance, buy-in, and effectiveness. However, stakeholders are often only actively engaged after the research has received funding. By that point, the researchers have usually already defined key aspects, such as study goals and methodologies, which limits the scope for stakeholder input and collaboration. Donors’ expectations might also limit the possibility of fully involving stakeholders in decision-making. Finally, the promoters of the co-creation approach – typically academics, institu-

tions, and NGOs – have a specific background, which inevitably influences the whole process by prioritizing some impacts, disciplines, or sectors as well as influencing the model selection, among other aspects (Melsen, 2022).

Co-creating knowledge has great potential to improve drought impact studies and to promote proactive and effective drought management but cannot be considered a panacea. Some of the most relevant shortcomings related to co-creation are also related to the fact that it is considered an approach that is suitable for any context (Lemos et al., 2018). In particular, it is evident that the involvement of stakeholders in all kinds of research projects has become an indicator and a must-do by many funding agencies, regardless of its suitability for a project (Cleaver, 1999; Spaapen and van Drooge, 2011). This, in turn, may lead to co-creation approaches that, due to time and resource limitations, tend to focus only on the same groups of stakeholders, prioritizing familiarity over diversity, due to the high amount of time needed for building trust and engaged participants in the research approach (Porter and Dessai, 2017). This, in turn, can generate knowledge biases and exacerbate power imbalances (Sect. 3.5).

## 5 Advancing transdisciplinary drought research

Our five key dimensions offer a comprehensive framework to address the limitations in breadth and depth of current transdisciplinary approaches to drought impact research. They promote the inclusion of a wider range of actors and perspectives across all phases and aspects of the research process, rather than restricting participation to isolated moments (breadth), and support the meaningful, iterative integration of non-academic knowledge within each phase (depth). While these five key dimensions are a valuable reference to everyone involved in studying drought impacts, they are specifically discussed to support hydrologists in effectively utilizing transdisciplinary methods in the socio-hydrology of drought in a thorough and informed manner. Table 1 outlines actions for each dimension’s depth across the breadth of the five key dimensions discussed in Sect. 3.1 to 3.5, ensuring the meaningful integration of non-academic knowledge and its influence on every phase of the research process.

From our perspective, two key aspects are crucial to overcoming current gaps in the development of transdisciplinary approaches to drought impact studies. The first is the need to implement iterative processes that incorporate feedback throughout the different phases of the research. For example, most studies seldom continuously adapt and evaluate the stakeholder engagement process, rarely reassess stakeholder involvement, or rarely improve or refine the shared understanding of drought impacts throughout the processes. These feedback mechanisms, identified in each dimension and highlighted in italics in Table 1, are essential for ensuring greater depth and increasing coherence of the study. Period-
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Matrix for drought impact knowledge co-creation, structured along two axes: breadth (key process dimensions) and depth (practical actions to ensure meaningful inclusion of non-academic knowledge in each dimension). Feedback mechanisms are denoted in italics.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Set up a collaborative space for drought knowledge co-creation (Sect. 3.1)</td><td>Framing the drought co-creation process (Sect. 3.2)</td><td>Building a shared knowledge of drought (Sect. 3.3)</td><td>Co-selecting and co-developing models of drought impacts (Sect. 3.4)</td><td>Accounting for knowledge biases and power imbalances (Sect. 3.5)</td></tr><tr><td>DEPTH ↓</td><td>– Implement a stakeholder analysis to identify and map all relevant stakeholders, including those traditionally marginalized or underrepresented.<br/>– Develop transparent criteria for stakeholder inclusion, balancing comprehensiveness with practical feasibility.<br/>– Continuously adapt and evaluate the engagement process, regularly reassessing stakeholder involvement to include emerging perspectives and ensure inclusivity and relevance throughout.</td><td>– Engage stakeholders early and iteratively to shape the study's scope and boundaries.<br/>– Co-define research questions and themes to ensure alignment with societal knowledge demands.<br/>– Identify relevant sectors, impacts, and affected units to guarantee comprehensive coverage.<br/>– Continuously refine the thematic, geographical, and temporal boundaries as the co-creation process progresses, incorporating new insights from stakeholders and ensuring alignment with the study's intended outcomes.</td><td>– Acknowledge multiple knowledge systems (e.g. academic, local, and practitioner knowledge) and work to integrate them into the study, rather than privileging one over another.<br/>– Foster interdisciplinary collaboration to integrate geophysical, socio-economic, and political conceptualizations of drought and its impacts.<br/>– Iterate and refine shared understanding through a cyclical process where stakeholder insights inform co-modelling and modelling outcomes, in turn, deepen and challenge that understanding.</td><td>– Define modelling goals and select suitable approaches and tools collaboratively, considering stakeholders' needs, capacities, and available resources.<br/>– Co-develop models, integrating diverse knowledge systems to represent relevant variables, processes, and feedback.<br/>– Co-define and explore drought impact scenarios, using stakeholder-driven inputs to ensure the selection of plausible futures.<br/>– Iteratively refine the modelling process by discussing and evaluating potential winners and losers of the anticipated impacts and drought mitigation strategies, adjusting the approach or specific aspects, until a consensus is reached.</td><td>– Recognize power dynamics in knowledge production, and ensure that diverse knowledge systems (local, indigenous, experiential) are valued alongside dominant ones.<br/>– Create spaces in the co-creation process to openly discuss power dynamics and biases, reflecting on how social and economic factors shape relationships between actors.<br/>– Acknowledge the unequal influence of dominant stakeholders, and actively amplify marginalized voices to prevent their exclusion.<br/>– Continuously reflect on and make explicit the power dynamics to prevent the marginalization of alternative perspectives and ensure equitable influence in defining study boundaries, framing drought, integrating dynamics into modelling, and interpreting outcomes.</td></tr></tbody></table>

ically reassessing the stakeholder engagement (Sect. 3.1) as- sures that all relevant actors, including marginalized groups, are involved in co-defining and assessing the drought im- pacts. This inclusive approach ensures that socio-political factors, such as governance structures, power imbalances, and access to resources, are accounted for in the assess- ment impact evaluation process. Ideally, stakeholder concep- tualizations of drought would inform co-modelling efforts (Sect. 3.4), while the modelling outcomes would, in turn, re- fine and challenge the collective understanding of drought (Sect. 3.3), reinforcing the cyclical nature of the process.

The second essential aspect is the need to acknowledge and address knowledge biases and power imbalances by con- tinuously reflecting on and making explicit the underlying power dynamics. This is crucial to preventing the marginal- ization of alternative perspectives and ensuring equitable in- fluence in defining study boundaries, framing drought, inte- grating dynamics into modelling, and interpreting outcomes. To address this, our framework recommends accounting for knowledge biases and power imbalances (Sect. 3.5) and crit- ically examines how power relations influence both the co- creation process and the interpretation of outcomes. This di- mension encourages transparency about the political and so-
cial influences on knowledge production, ensuring that more powerful stakeholders, such as governments or large institutions, do not dominate the process. Finally, by fostering an inclusive, iterative process through framing the scope of the co-creation process (Sect. 3.2) and iteratively setting up a collaborative space (Sect. 3.1), the framework ensures that all voices, particularly those from marginalized communities, are heard and that knowledge production is not skewed by unequal power relations.
Appendix A: Literature mapping

<table><caption>**Table A1.** Relationship between the literature in the five analysed bodies of literature and the key dimensions (breadth) they inform. Some studies appear in more than one body of literature due to their interdisciplinary nature.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions/bodies of literature</th><th>Transdisciplinary sustainability science</th><th>Socio-hydrology</th><th>Critical water studies (hydrosocial studies and critical disaster studies)</th><th>Science and technology studies (STS)</th><th>Integrated water resources management (IWRM)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Setting up a collaborative space for drought knowledge co-creation (Sect. 3.1)</td><td>- Clarke and Clegg (1998)<br>- Clarkson (1995)<br>- Reed et al. (2009)<br>- Aldunce et al. (2016)<br>- Lillo-Ortega et al. (2019)</td><td></td><td>- Rusca et al. (2024)<br>- Mukherjee and Sundberg (2023)<br>- Mpofu-Mketwa et al. (2023)</td><td>- Stirling (2008)</td><td>- Hargrove and Heyman (2020)<br>- Rangecroft et al. (2018)<br>- Paneque et al. (2018)<br>- Lewis et al. (2005)<br>- Hervás-Gámez and Delgado-Ramos (2019)<br>- Kim et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Framing the drought co-creation process (Sect. 3.2)</td><td>- Lillo-Ortega et al. (2019)<br>- Mustafa et al. (2021)<br>- Pham et al. (2020)<br>- Sampson et al. (2020)</td><td>- Mustafa et al. (2021)<br>- Pham et al. (2020)<br>- Gwapedza et al. (2024)<br>- Giordano et al. (2013)<br>- Aldunce et al. (2016)<br>- Hagenlocher et al. (2023)<br>- Rossi et al. (2023)</td><td>- Ayantunde et al. (2015)<br>- Thompson et al. (2017)</td><td>- Sarewitz and Pielke (2007)</td><td>- Ballesteros-Olza et al. (2022)<br>- van Beek and Arriens (2016)<br>- Daré et al. (2018)<br>- Nielsen-Gammon et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Building a shared knowledge of drought (Sect. 3.3)</td><td>- Grainger et al. (2021)<br>- Gray et al. (2012)</td><td>- Rusca and Di Baldassarre (2019)<br>- Wesselink et al. (2017)<br>- AghaKouchak et al. (2021)</td><td>- Beck and Krueger (2016)<br>- Kaika (2003)<br>- Mehta (2001)<br>- Rusca and Di Baldassarre (2019)<br>- Rusca et al. (2023)<br>- Rusca et al. (2024)<br>- Zwarteveen et al. (2017)<br>- Wesselink et al. (2017)</td><td>- Alharahsheh and Pius (2020)<br>- Beck and Krueger (2016)<br>- Garb et al. (2008)<br>- Krueger and Alba (2022)<br>- Landström et al. (2011)<br>- Landström et al. (2023)</td><td>- Mpandeli et al. (2015)<br>- Wilhite and Glantz (1985)</td></tr><tr><td>Co-selecting and co-developing models to understand drought impacts (Sect. 3.4)</td><td>- Baumgärtner et al. (2008)<br>- Biggs et al. (2021)<br>- Iwaniec et al. (2020)<br>- Raudsepp-Hearne et al. (2020)<br>- Smetschka and Gaube (2020)<br>- Hossain et al. (2020)</td><td>- Melsen et al. (2018)<br>- Srinivasan et al. (2016)<br>- Masi et al. (2024)<br>- Piemontese et al. (2023)<br>- Wens et al. (2020)<br>- Fischer et al. (2021)<br>- Baker et al. (2015)<br>- Addor and Melsen (2019)</td><td></td><td>- Melsen et al. (2018)</td><td>- Basco-Carrera et al. (2017)<br>- Carmona et al. (2013)<br>- Kneier et al. (2023)<br>- Singto et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Accounting for knowledge biases and power imbalances (Sect. 3.5)</td><td></td><td>- Gwapedza et al. (2024)<br>- Cid et al. (2024)<br>- Giordano et al. (2013)</td><td>- Alexandra and Rickards (2021)<br>- Boelens et al. (2016)<br>- Budds (2009)<br>- Collard et al. (2018)<br>- Kallis (2010)<br>- Kallis (2008)<br>- Kaika (2003)<br>- King and Tadaki (2018)<br>- Krueger et al. (2016)<br>- Macpherson et al. (2024)<br>- Mehta (2001)<br>- Mukherjee (2022)<br>- Reed (2008)<br>- Rusca et al. (2024)<br>- Savelli (2023)<br>- Sultana (2020)<br>- Swyngedouw (2004)<br>- Swyngedouw (2009)<br>- Thaler and Levin-Keitel (2016)<br>- Turnhout et al. (2020)<br>- Zwarteveen et al. (2017)</td><td>- Goldman et al. (2019)<br>- Turner (2011)<br>- ter Horst et al. (2024)</td><td>- Basco-Carrera et al. (2017)<br>- Falconi and Palmer (2017)</td></tr></tbody></table>
*Data availability.* No data sets were used in this article.

**Author contributions.** SDA: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, visualization, writing (original draft preparation, review & editing); LV: conceptualization, methodology, writing (original draft preparation, review & editing); GC: methodology, writing (original draft preparation); MR: methodology, writing (original draft preparation, review & editing); GB: writing (review & editing), funding acquisition; EB: writing (review & editing), funding acquisition; LP: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, visualization, writing (original draft preparation, review & editing), supervision.

*Competing interests.* The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.

*Disclaimer.* Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors.

*Special issue statement.* This article is part of the special issue "Drought, society, and ecosystems (NHESS/BG/GC/HESS inter-journal SI)". It is not associated with a conference.

*Acknowledgements.* We thank Katja Malborg for sharing her experience of and feedback on transdisciplinary approaches to knowledge co-creation during the early conceptual phase of the work.

*Financial support.* This study was carried out within (i) the RETURN Extended Partnership, receiving funding from the European Union Next-GenerationEU (National Recovery and Resilience Plan – NRRP, Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.3 – D.D. 1243 2/8/2022, PE0000005); (ii) the FSE REACT-EU, PON Ricerca e Innovazione 2014-2020 programme, co-financed by the European Union, Action IV.6 "Contratti di ricerca su tematiche Green" (CUP D31B21008660007); and (iii) the "Habi(Li)ter – Co-defining the habitability of Lorraine under climate change and future multi-risk conditions" research project, developed in the framework of the Project IMPACT "EPHemeris – Earth and Planet Habitability", funded by Lorraine Université d'Excellence (LUE).

*Review statement.* This paper was edited by Anne Van Loon and reviewed by two anonymous referees.

## References

Addor, N. and Melsen, L. A.: Legacy, Rather Than Adequacy, Drives the Selection of Hydrological Models, Water Resour. Res., 55, 378–390, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022958, 2019.

AghaKouchak, A., Mirchi, A., Madani, K., Di Baldassarre, G., Nazemi, A., Alborzi, A., Anjileli, H., Azarderakhsh, M., Chiang, F., Hassanzadeh, E., Huning, L. S., Malakpour, I., Martinez, A., Mazdiyasni, O., Moftakhari, H., Norouzi, H., Sadegh, M., Sadeqi, D., Van Loon, A. F., and Wanders, N.: Anthropogenic Drought: Definition, Challenges, and Opportunities, Rev. Geophys., 59, e2019RG000683, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000683, 2021.

Aldunce, P., Bórquez, R., Adler, C., Blanco, G., and Garreaud, R.: Unpacking Resilience for Adaptation: Incorporating Practitioners' Experiences through a Transdisciplinary Approach to the Case of Drought in Chile, Sustainability, 8, 905, https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090905, 2016.

Alexandra, J. and Rickards, L.: The Contested Politics of Drought, Water Security and Climate Adaptation in Australia's Murray-Darling Basin, Water Altern., 14, 773–794, 2021.

Alharahsheh, H. H. and Pius, A.: A Review of key paradigms: positivism VS interpretivism, Glob. Acad. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 2, 39–43, https://www.gajrc.com/media/articles/GAJHSS_23_39-43_VMGJbOK.pdf (last access: 30 July 2025), 2020.

Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Annerstedt, M., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Garrido, P., Grahn, P., Jönsson, K. I., Pedersen, S., Schlyter, P., Skärbäck, E., Smith, M., and Stjernquist, I.: Solving Problems in Social–Ecological Systems: Definition, Practice and Barriers of Transdisciplinary Research, AMBIO, 42, 254–265, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0372-4, 2013.

Arheimer, B., Cudennec, C., Castellarin, A., Grimaldi, S., Heal, K. V., Lupton, C., Sarkar, A., Tian, F., Kileshye Onema, J.-M., Archfield, S., Blöschl, G., Chaffe, P. L. B., Croke, B. F. W., Dembélé, M., Leong, C., Mijic, A., Mosquera, G. M., Nlend, B., Olusola, A. O., Polo, M. J., Sandells, M., Sheffield, J., van Hateren, T. C., Shafiei, M., Adla, S., Agarwal, A., Aguilar, C., Andersson, J. C. M., Andraos, C., Andreu, A., Avanzi, F., Bart, R. R., Bartosova, A., Batelaan, O., Bennett, J. C., Bertola, M., Bezak, N., Boekee, J., Bogaard, T., Booij, M. J., Brigode, P., Buytaert, W., Bziava, K., Castelli, G., Castro, C. V., Ceperley, N. C., Chidepudi, S. K. R., Chiew, F. H. S., Chun, K. P., Dagnew, A. G., Dekongmen, B. W., del Jesus, M., Dezetter, A., do Nascimento Batista, J. A., Doble, R. C., Dogulu, N., Eekhout, J. P. C., Elçi, A., Elenius, M., Finger, D. C., Fiori, A., Fischer, S., Förster, K., Ganora, D., Gargouri Ellouze, E., Ghoreishi, M., Harvey, N., Hrachowitz, M., Jampani, M., Jaramillo, F., Jongen, H. J., Kareem, K. Y., Khan, U. T., Khatami, S., Kingston, D. G., Koren, G., Krause, S., Kreibich, H., Lerat, J., Liu, J., Madruga de Brito, M., Mahé, G., Makurira, H., Mazzoglio, P., Merheb, M., Mishra, A., Mohammad, H., Montanari, A., Mujere, N., Nabavi, E., Nkwasa, A., Orduna Alegria, M. E., Orieschnig, C., Ovcharuk, V., Palmate, S. S., Pande, S., Pandey, S., Papacharalampous, G., Pechlivanidis, I., et al.: The IAHS Science for Solutions decade, with Hydrology Engaging Local People IN a Global world (HELPING), Hydrol. Sci. J., 69, 1417–1435, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2024.2355202, 2024.

Ayantunde, A. A., Turner, M. D., and Kalilou, A.: Participatory analysis of vulnerability to drought in three agro-pastoral
communities in the West African Sahel, Pastoralism, 5, 13,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-015-0033-x, 2015.

Bachmair, S., Stahl, K., Collins, K., Hannaford, J., Acre-
man, M., Svoboda, M., Knutson, C., Smith, K. H., Wall,
N., Fuchs, B., Crossman, N. D., and Overton, I. C.: Drought
indicators revisited: the need for a wider considera-
tion of environment and society, WIREs Water, 3, 516–536,
https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1154, 2016.

Baker, T. J., Cullen, B., Debevec, L., and Abebe, Y.: A socio-hydrological approach for incorporating gender into biophysical models and implications for water resources research, Appl. Geogr., 62, 325–338, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.05.008, 2015.

Ballesteros-Olza, M., Blanco-Gutiérrez, I., Esteve, P., Gómez-Ramos, A., and Bolinches, A.: Using reclaimed water to cope with water scarcity: an alternative for agricultural irrigation in Spain, Environ. Res. Lett., 17, 125002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aca3bb, 2022.

Basco-Carrera, L., Warren, A., van Beek, E., Jonoski, A., and Giardino, A.: Collaborative modelling or participatory modelling? A framework for water resources management, Environ. Model. Softw., 91, 95–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.014, 2017.

Baumgärtner, S., Becker, C., Frank, K., Müller, B., and Quaas, M.: Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: The role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and trans-disciplinary sustainability research, Ecol. Econ., 67, 384–393, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.018, 2008.

Beck, M. and Krueger, T.: The epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of uncertainty in integrated assessment modeling, WIREs Clim. Change, 7, 627–645, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.415, 2016.

Bennich, T., Maneas, G., Maniatakou, S., Piemontese, L., Schaffer, C., Schellens, M., and Österlin, C.: Transdisciplinary research for sustainability: scoping for project potential, Int. Soc. Sci. J., 72, 1087–1104, https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12245, 2022.

Biggs, R., De Vos, A., Preiser, R., Clements, H., Maciejewski, K., and Schlüter, M.: The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems, Taylor & Francis, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339, 2021.

Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J., Swyngedouw, E., Vos, J., and Wester, P.: Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perspective, Water Int., 41, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1134898, 2016.

Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D. J., and von Wehrden, H.: A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science, Ecol. Econ., 92, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008, 2013.

Brugnach, M. and Ingram, H.: Ambiguity: the challenge of know-
ing and deciding together, Environ. Sci. Policy, 15, 60–71,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.10.005, 2012.

Brugnach, M. and Özerol, G.: Knowledge Co-Production and Transdisciplinarity: Opening Pandora's Box, Water, 11, 1997, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11101997, 2019.

Budds, J.: Contested H₂O: Science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile, Themed Issue Gramscian Polit. Ecol., 40, 418–430, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.12.008, 2009.

Burton, I., Kates, R., and White, G.: Environment as Hazard, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780898621594, 1993.

Carmona, G., Varela-Ortega, C., and Bromley, J.: Participatory modelling to support decision making in water management under uncertainty: Two comparative case studies in the Guadiana river basin, Spain, J. Environ. Manag., 128, 400–412, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.019, 2013.

Cid, D. A. C., Souza Filho, F. de A. de, Alves, R. da S., Pontes Filho, J. D. de A., Silva, D. C. da, and Martins, E. S. P. R.: Drought in play: A grounded socio-hydrological tool to increase social participation in drought plans, J. Hydrol., 638, 131445, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131445, 2024.

Clarke, T. and Clegg, S.: Changing paradigms: The transformation of management knowledge for the 21st century, Harper Collins, London, ISBN 0-00-638731-4, 1998.

Clarkson, M. B. E.: A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance, Acad. Manage. Rev., 20, 92–117, https://doi.org/10.2307/258888, 1995.

Cleaver, F.: Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development, J. Int. Dev., 11, 597–612, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199906)11:4<597::AID-JID610>3.0.CO;2-Q, 1999.

Coletta, V. R., Pagano, A., Zimmermann, N., Davies, M., Butler, A., Fratino, U., Giordano, R., and Pluchinotta, I.: Socio-hydrological modelling using participatory System Dynamics modelling for enhancing urban flood resilience through Blue-Green Infrastructure, J. Hydrol., 636, 131248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131248, 2024.

Collard, R.-C., Harris, L. M., Heynen, N., and Mehta, L.: The anti-
nomies of nature and space, Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space, 1, 3–24,
https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618777162, 2018.

Daré, W., Venot, J.-P., Le Page, C., and Aduna, A.: Problemshed or Watershed? Participatory Modeling towards IWRM in North Ghana, Water, 10, 721, https://doi.org/10.3390/w10060721, 2018.

Di Baldassarre, G.: Socio-Hydrology of Floods, in: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.264, 2017.

Di Baldassarre, G., Viglione, A., Carr, G., Kuil, L., Salinas, J. L., and Blöschl, G.: Socio-hydrology: conceptualising human-flood interactions, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3295–3303, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3295-2013, 2013.

Di Baldassarre, G., Viglione, A., Carr, G., Kuil, L., Yan, K., Brandimarte, L., and Blöschl, G.: Debates—Perspectives on socio-hydrology: Capturing feedbacks between physical and social processes, Water Resour. Res., 51, 4770–4781, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016416, 2015.

Enenkel, M., Brown, M. E., Vogt, J. V., McCarty, J. L., Reid Bell, A., Guha-Sapir, D., Dorigo, W., Vasilaky, K., Svoboda, M., Bonifacio, R., Anderson, M., Funk, C., Osgood, D., Hain, C., and Vinck, P.: Why predict climate hazards if we need to understand impacts? Putting humans back into the drought equation, Clim. Change, 162, 1161–1176, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02878-0, 2020.

Eriksen, S. and Lind, J.: Adaptation as a Political Process: Adjusting to Drought and Conflict in Kenya's Drylands, Environ. Manage., 43, 817–835, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9189-0, 2009.

Falconi, S. M. and Palmer, R. N.: An interdisciplinary framework for participatory modeling design and evaluation—What makes
models effective participatory decision tools?, Water Resour. Res., 53, 1625–1645, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019373, 2017.

Fischer, A., Miller, J. A., Nottingham, E., Wiederstein, T., Krueger, L. J., Perez-Quesada, G., Hutchinson, S. L., and Sanderson, M. R.: A Systematic Review of Spatial-Temporal Scale Issues in Sociohydrology, Front. Water, 3, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.730169, 2021.

Garb, Y., Pulver, S., and VanDeveer, S. D.: Scenarios in society, society in scenarios: toward a social scientific analysis of storyline-driven environmental modeling, Environ. Res. Lett., 3, 045015, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/045015, 2008.

Gil-García, L., González-López, H., and Pérez-Blanco, C. D.: To dam or not to dam? Actionable socio-hydrology modeling to inform robust adaptation to water scarcity and water extremes, Environ. Sci. Policy, 144, 74–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.03.012, 2023.

Giordano, R., Preziosi, E., and Romano, E.: Integration of local and scientific knowledge to support drought impact monitoring: some hints from an Italian case study, Nat. Hazards, 69, 523–544, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0724-9, 2013.

Goldman, M. J., Nadasdy, P., and Turner, M. D.: Knowing nature: Conversations at the intersection of political ecology and science studies, University of Chicago Press, https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226301440.001.0001, 2019.

Grainger, S., Murphy, C., and Vicente-Serrano, S. M.: Barriers and Opportunities for Actionable Knowledge Production in Drought Risk Management: Embracing the Frontiers of Co-production, Front. Environ. Sci., 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.602128, 2021.

Gray, S., Chan, A., Clark, D., and Jordan, R.: Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social-ecological decision-making: Benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity, Ecol. Model., 229, 88–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.09.011, 2012.

G. Ribeiro Neto, G., Kchouk, S., Melsen, L. A., Cavalcante, L., Walker, D. W., Dewulf, A., Costa, A. C., Martins, E. S. P. R., and van Oel, P. R.: HESS Opinions: Drought impacts as failed prospects, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 4217–4225, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-4217-2023, 2023.

Gwapedza, D., Barreteau, O., Mantel, S., Paxton, B., Bonte, B., Tholanah, R., Xoxo, S., Theron, S., Mabohlo, S., O’Keeffe, L., Bradshaw, K., and Tanner, J.: Engaging stakeholders to address a complex water resource management issue in the Western Cape, South Africa, J. Hydrol., 639, 131522, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131522, 2024.

Hadorn, G. H., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., and Zemp, E.: Handbook of transdisciplinary research, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3, 2008.

Hagenlocher, M., Naumann, G., Meza, I., Blauhut, V., Cotti, D., Döll, P., Ehlert, K., Gaupp, F., Van Loon, A. F., Marengo, J. A., Rossi, L., Sabino Siemons, A. S., Siebert, S., Tsehayu, A. T., Toreti, A., Tsegai, D., Vera, C., Vogt, J., and Wens, M.: Tackling Growing Drought Risks–The Need for a Systemic Perspective, Earths Future, 11, e2023EF003857, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003857, 2023.

Hargrove, W. L. and Heyman, J. M.: A Comprehensive Process for Stakeholder Identification and Engagement in Addressing Wicked Water Resources Problems, Land, 9, 119, https://doi.org/10.3390/land9040119, 2020.

Hervás-Gámez, C. and Delgado-Ramos, F.: Critical Review of the Public Participation Process in Drought Management Plans. The Guadalquivir River Basin Case in Spain, Water Resour. Manag. Int. J. Publ. Eur. Water Resour. Assoc. EWRA, 33, 4189–4200, 2019.

Hossain, M. S., Ramirez, J., Szabo, S., Eigenbrod, F., Johnson, F. A., Speranza, C. I., and Dearing, J. A.: Participatory modelling for conceptualizing social-ecological system dynamics in the Bangladesh delta, Reg. Environ. Change, 20, 28, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01599-5, 2020.

Hummel, D., Jahn, T., Keil, F., Liehr, S., and Stieß, I.: Social Ecol- ogy as Critical, Transdisciplinary Science–Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Shaping Societal Relations to Nature, Sustainability, 9, 1050, https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071050, 2017.

Iwaniec, D. M., Cook, E. M., Davidson, M. J., Berbés-Blázquez, M., Georgescu, M., Krayenhoff, E. S., Middel, A., Samp- son, D. A., and Grimm, N. B.: The co-production of sustain- able future scenarios, Landscape Urban Plan., 197, 103744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103744, 2020.

Kaika, M.: Constructing Scarcity and Sensationalising Water Pol- itics: 170 Days That Shook Athens, Antipode, 35, 919–954, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00365.x, 2003.

Kallis, G.: Droughts, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 33, 85–118, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.envir.33.081307.123117, 2008.

Kallis, G.: Coevolution in water resource develop- ment: The vicious cycle of water supply and de- mand in Athens, Greece, Ecol. Econ., 69, 796–809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.025, 2010.

Kchouk, S., Melsen, L. A., Walker, D. W., and van Oel, P. R.: A geography of drought indices: mismatch between indicators of drought and its impacts on water and food securities, Nat. Haz- ards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 323–344, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess- 22-323-2022, 2022.

Kim, G. J., Yoon, H. N., Seo, S. B., and Kim, Y. O.: Appli- cation of shared vision planning for drought mitigation cli- mate change adaptation council in Korea, in: Proc., 38th IAHR World Congress, Panama City, Panama, International As- sociation for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research, https://doi.org/10.3850/38WC092019-1599, 2019.

King, L. and Tadaki, M.: A framework for understanding the politics of science (Core Tenet# 2), Palgrave Handb. Crit. Phys. Geogr., 67–88, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461- 5_4, 2018.

Klein, J. T.: A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity, in: The Ox- ford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, vol. 15, edited by: Klein, J. T. and Mitcham, C., Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198733522, 2010.

Kneier, F., Woltersdorf, L., Peiris, T. A., and Döll, P.: Par- ticipatory Bayesian Network modeling of climate change risks and adaptation regarding water supply: Integration of multi-model ensemble hazard estimates and local ex- pert knowledge, Environ. Model. Softw., 168, 105764, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105764, 2023.
Krueger, T. and Alba, R.: Ontological and epistemologi-
cal commitments in interdisciplinary water research: Un-
certainty as an entry point for reflexion, Front. Water, 4,
https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.1038322, 2022.

Krueger, T., Maynard, C., Carr, G., Bruns, A., Mueller, E. N., and Lane, S.: A transdisciplinary account of water research, WIREs Water, 3, 369–389, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1132, 2016.

Landström, C., Whatmore, S. J., Lane, S. N., Odoni, N. A., Ward, N., and Bradley, S.: Coproducing Flood Risk Knowledge: Redistributing Expertise in Critical ‘Participatory Modelling’, Environ. Plan. Econ. Space, 43, 1617–1633, https://doi.org/10.1068/a43482, 2011.

Landström, C., Sarmiento, E., and Whatmore, S. J.: Stakeholder engagement does not guarantee impact: A co-productionist perspective on model-based drought research, Soc. Stud. Sci., 54, 210–230, https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231199220, 2023.

Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., and Thomas, C. J.: Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges, Sustain. Sci., 7, 25–43, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x, 2012.

Lemos, M. C. and Morehouse, B. J.: The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments, Global Environ. Chang., 15, 57–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.09.004, 2005.

Lemos, M. C., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M., Baja, K., Bednarek, A. T., Dewulf, A., Fieseler, C., Goodrich, K. A., Jaganathan, K., Klenk, N., Mach, K. J., Meadow, A. M., Meyer, R., Moss, R., Nichols, L., Sjostrom, K. D., Stults, M., Turnhout, E., Vaughan, C., Wong-Parodi, G., and Wyborn, C.: To co-produce or not to co-produce, Nat. Sustain., 1, 722–724, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0191-0, 2018.

Lewis, A. C., Hilton, J., and Vocke, R.: Water Supply Options in a New Mexico Water Planning Region, JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 41, 635–643, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03760.x, 2005.

Liguori, A., McEwen, L., Blake, J., and Wilson, M.: Towards ‘Creative Participatory Science’: Exploring Future Scenarios Through Specialist Drought Science and Community Storytelling, Front. Environ. Sci., 8, 589856, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.589856, 2021.

Lillo-Ortega, G., Aldunce, P., Adler, C., Vidal, M., and Rojas, M.: On the evaluation of adaptation practices: a transdisciplinary exploration of drought measures in Chile, Sustain. Sci., 14, 1057–1069, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0619-5, 2019.

Linton, J. and Budds, J.: The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water, Geoforum, 57, 170–180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.008, 2014.

Luetkemeier, R., Mbidzo, M., and Liehr, S.: Water security and rangeland sustainability: Transdisciplinary research insights from Namibian–German collaborations, South Afr. J. Sci., 117, https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2021/7773, 2021.

Macpherson, E., Cuppari, R. I., Kagawa-Viviani, A., Brause, H., Brewer, W. A., Grant, W. E., Herman-Mercer, N., Livneh, B., Neupane, K. R., Petach, T., Peters, C. N., Wang, H.-H., Pahl-Wostl, C., and Wheater, H.: Setting a pluralist agenda for water governance: Why power and scale matter, WIREs Water, 11, e1734, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1734, 2024.

Masi, M., Arrighi, C., Piragino, F., and Castelli, F.: Participa-
tory multi-criteria decision making for optimal siting of multi-
purpose artificial reservoirs, J. Environ. Manage., 370, 122904,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122904, 2024.

Mehta, L.: The Manufacture of Popular Perceptions of Scarcity: Dams and Water-Related Narratives in Gujarat, India, World Dev., 29, 2025–2041, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00087-0, 2001.

Mehta, L.: The Politics and Poetics of Water: The Naturalisation of Scarcity in Western India, Orient Blackswan, 436 pp., ISBN 978-8125053033, 2005.

Mehta, L.: Whose scarcity? Whose property? The case of water in western India, Explor. New Underst. Resour. Tenure Reform Context Glob., 24, 654–663, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.05.009, 2007.

Melsen, L. A.: It Takes a Village to Run a Model–The Social Practices of Hydrological Modeling, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR030600, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030600, 2022.

Melsen, L. A., Vos, J., and Boelens, R.: What is the role of the model in socio-hydrology? Discussion of “Prediction in a socio-hydrological world”, Hydrol. Sci. J., 63, 1435–1443, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1499025, 2018.

Mishra, A. K. and Singh, V. P.: A review of drought concepts, J. Hydrol., 391, 202–216, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.012, 2010.

Mishra, A. K. and Singh, V. P.: Drought modeling – A review, J. Hydrol., 403, 157–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.03.049, 2011.

Mpandeli, S., Nesamvuni, E., and Maponya, P.: Adapting to the impacts of drought by smallholder farmers in Sekhukhun e District in Limpopo Province, South Africa, J. Agr. Sci., 7, 115, https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v7n2p115, 2015.

Mpofu-Mketwa, T. J., Abrams, A., and Black, G. F.: Reflections on measuring the soundness of the digital storytelling method applied to three Cape Flats vulnerable communities affected by drought, fire and flooding in Cape Town, Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, 7, 100407, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100407, 2023.

Mukherjee, J.: “Living systems infrastructure” of Kolkata: exploring co-production of urban nature using historical urban political ecology (HUPE), Environ. Urban., 34, 32–51, https://doi.org/10.1177/09562478221084560, 2022.

Mukherjee, S. and Sundberg, T.: A transdisciplinary and collaborative urban water security framework: Developed through an interdisciplinary study in Kolkata, India, World Water Policy, 9, 519–549, https://doi.org/10.1002/wwp2.12125, 2023.

Mustafa, S. Md. T., Van Loon, A., Artur, L., Bharucha, Z., Chinyama, A., Chirindja, F., Day, R., Franchi, F., Geris, J., Hussey, S., Nesamvuni, E., Nhacume, A., Petros, A., Roden, H., Rohse, M., Tirivarombo, S., and Comte, J.-C.: Multisec-tor Collaborative Groundwater-Surface Water Modelling Ap-proach to Improve Resilience to Hydrological Extremes in the Limpopo River Basin, in: Advances in Geoethics and Ground-water Management: Theory and Practice for a Sustainable De-velopment, Cham, 397–400, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59320-9_83, 2021.

Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., Banner, J. L., Cook, B. I., Tremaine, D. M., Wong, C. I., Mace, R. E., Gao, H., Yang, Z.-L., Gon-
zalez, M. F., Hoffpauir, R., Gooch, T., and Kloesel, K.: Un-
precedented Drought Challenges for Texas Water Resources
in a Changing Climate: What Do Researchers and Stake-
holders Need to Know?, Earths Future, 8, e2020EF001552,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001552, 2020.

Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J.-B., Leach, M., Le Tissier, M., Martín-López, B., Louder, E., Loutre, M.-F., Meadow, A. M., Nagendra, H., Payne, D., Peterson, G. D., Reyers, B., Scholes, R., Speranza, C. I., Spierenburg, M., Stafford-Smith, M., Tengö, M., van der Hel, S., van Putten, I., and Österblom, H.: Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research, Nat. Sustain., 3, 182–190, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2, 2020.

Ocampo-Melgar, A., Barría, P., Chadwick, C., and Rivas, C.: Co-
operation under conflict: participatory hydrological modeling for
science policy dialogues for the Aculeo Lake, Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci., 26, 5103–5118, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5103-2022,
2022.

Panque, P., Lafuente, R., and Vargas, J.: Public Attitudes toward
Water Management Measures and Droughts: A Study in South-
ern Spain, Water, 10, 369, https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040369,
2018.

Pham, Y., Reardon-Smith, K., Mushtaq, S., and Deo, R. C.: Feed-
back modelling of the impacts of drought: A case study in coffee
production systems in Viet Nam, Clim. Risk Manag., 30, 100255,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100255, 2020.

Piemontese, L., Castelli, G., Limones, N., Grazio, A., and Bresci, E.: Large-scale siting of sand dams: A participatory approach and application in Angolan drylands, Land Degrad. Dev., 34, 844–858, https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4500, 2023.

Piemontese, L., Terzi, S., Di Baldassarre, G., Menestrey Schwieger, D. A., Castelli, G., and Bresci, E.: Over-reliance on water infrastructure can hinder climate resilience in pastoral drylands, Nat. Clim. Change, 14, 267–274, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01929-z, 2024.

Porter, J. J. and Dessai, S.: Mini-me: Why do climate scientists'
misunderstand users and their needs?, Environ. Sci. Policy, 77,
9–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.004, 2017.

Rachunok, B. and Fletcher, S.: Socio-hydrological drought im-
pacts on urban water affordability, Nat. Water, 1, 83–94,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-022-00009-w, 2023.

Rahaman, M. M. and Varis, O.: Integrated water re-
sources management: evolution, prospects and fu-
ture challenges, Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy, 1, 15–21,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2005.11907961, 2005.

Rangecroft, S., Birkinshaw, S., Rohse, M., Day, R., McEwen, L., Makaya, E., and Van Loon, A.: Hydrological modelling as a tool for interdisciplinary workshops on future drought, Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ., 42, 237–256, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133318766802, 2018.

Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Pereira, L., Vervoort, J., Iwaniec, D. M., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Hichert, T., Falardeau, M., and Aceituno, A. J.: Seeds of good anthropocenes: developing sustainability scenarios for Northern Europe, Sustain. Sci., 15, 605–617, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00714-8, 2020.

Reed, M. S.: Stakeholder participation for environmental man-
agement: A literature review, Biol. Conserv., 141, 2417–2431,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014, 2008.

Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C. H., and Stringer, L. C.: Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management, J. Environ. Manage., 90, 1933–1949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001, 2009.

Rojas, R., Castilla-Rho, J., Bennison, G., Bridgart, R., Prats, C., and Claro, E.: Participatory and Integrated Modelling under Contentious Water Use in Semiarid Basins, Hydrology, 9, 49, https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology9030049, 2022.

Rossi, L., Wens, M., de Moel, H., Cotti, D., Sabino Siemons, A.-S., Toreti, A., Maetens, W., Masante, D., Van Loon, A., Hagenlocher, M., Rudari, R., Naumann, G., Meroni, M., Avanzi, F., Isabellon, M., and Barbosa, P.: European Drought Risk Atlas, European Commission, https://doi.org/10.2760/608737, 2023.

Rusca, M. and Di Baldassarre, G.: Interdisciplinary Criti-
cal Geographies of Water: Capturing the Mutual Shap-
ing of Society and Hydrological Flows, Water, 11, 1973,
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11101973, 2019.

Rusca, M., Savelli, E., Di Baldassarre, G., Biza, A., and Messori, G.: Unprecedented droughts are expected to exacerbate urban inequalities in Southern Africa, Nat. Clim. Change, 13, 98–105, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01546-8, 2023.

Rusca, M., Sverdlik, A., Acharya, A., Basel, B., Boyd, E., Comelli, T., Dodman, D., Fraser, A., Harris, D. M., Lindersson, S., Maz-zoleni, M., Mbah, M. F., Mitlin, D., Ogra, A., Pelling, M., Raf-fetti, E., Sultana, F., Thompson, E., Tozzi, A., Zwarteveen, M., and Messori, G.: Plural climate storylines to foster just urban futures, Nat. Cities, 1, 732–740, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00133-6, 2024.

Sampson, D. A., Cook, E. M., Davidson, M. J., Grimm, N. B., and Iwaniec, D. M.: Simulating alternative sustainable water futures, Sustain. Sci., 15, 1199–1210, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00820-y, 2020.

Sarewitz, D. and Pielke, R. A.: The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science, Environ. Sci. Policy, 10, 5–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001, 2007.

Savelli, E.: Us and them: Privileged emotions of Cape Town's urban water crisis, Geoforum, 141, 103746, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103746, 2023.

Savelli, E., Rusca, M., Cloke, H., Flügel, T. J., Karriem, A., and Di Baldassarre, G.: All dried up: The materiality of drought in Ladismith, South Africa, Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space, 8, 100–127, https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486221126617, 2022.

Savenije, H. H. G.: Water Resources Management Concepts and Tools: Lecture Notes, Int. Inst. Infrastruct. Hydraul. Environ. Eng. IHE Delft Neth., 170, https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/210-96WA-17543.pdf (last access: 30 July 2025), 1995.

Savenije, H. H. G. and Van der Zaag, P.: Integrated water resources management: Concepts and issues, Phys. Chem. Earth Parts ABC, 33, 290–297, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.02.003, 2008.

Seidl, R., Brand, F. S., Stauffacher, M., Krütli, P., Le, Q. B., Spörri, A., Meylan, G., Moser, C., González, M. B., and Scholz, R. W.:
Science with Society in the Anthropocene, AMBIO, 42, 5–12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0363-5, 2013.

Singto, C., Fleskens, L., Vos, J., and Quinn, C.: Applying Bayesian belief networks (BBNs) with stakeholders to explore and code-sign options for water resource interventions, Sustain. Water Resour. Manag., 6, 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-020-00383-x, 2020.

Sivapalan, M., Savenije, H. H. G., and Blöschl, G.: Socio-hydrology: A new science of people and water, Hydrol. Process., 26, 1270–1276, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8426, 2012.

Smetschka, B. and Gaube, V.: Co-creating formalized models: Participatory modelling as method and process in transdisciplinary research and its impact potentials, Environ. Sci. Policy, 103, 41–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.005, 2020.

Smith, N.: There's no such thing as a natural disaster, Underst. Katrina Perspect. Soc. Sci., 11, https://items.ssr.org/understanding-katrina/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-natural-disaster/ (last access: 30 July 2025), 2006.

Sodoge, J., Reckhaus, Z., Kuhlicke, C., and Madruga de Brito, M.: Unified in diversity: Unravelling emerging knowledge on drought impact cascades via participatory modeling, Clim. Risk Manag., 46, 100652, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2024.100652, 2024.

Spaapen, J. and van Drooge, L.: Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment, Res. Evaluat., 20, 211–218, https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876742, 2011.

Srinivasan, V., Sanderson, M., Garcia, M., Konar, M., Blöschl, G., and Sivapalan, M.: Prediction in a socio-hydrological world, Hydrol. Sci. J., 62, 338–345, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2016.1253844, 2016.

Stirling, A.: “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology, Sci. Technol. Hum. Values, 33, 262–294, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265, 2008.

Streefkerk, I. N., van den Homberg, M. J. C., Whitfield, S., Mit-tal, N., Pope, E., Werner, M., Winsemius, H. C., Comes, T., and Ertsen, M. W.: Contextualising seasonal climate forecasts by in-tegrating local knowledge on drought in Malawi, Clim. Serv., 25, 100268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100268, 2022.

Sultana, F.: Embodied Intersectionalities of Urban Citizenship: Water, Infrastructure, and Gender in the Global South, Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr., 110, 1407–1424, https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1715193, 2020.

Swyngedouw, E.: Social power and the urbanization of water: flows of power, OUP Oxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198233916.001.0001, 2004.

Swyngedouw, E.: The Political Economy and Political Ecology of the Hydro-Social Cycle, J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 142, 56–60, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2009.00054.x, 2009.

ter Horst, R., Alba, R., Vos, J., Rusca, M., Godinez-Madrigal, J., Babel, L. V., Veldwisch, G. J., Venot, J.-P., Bonté, B., Walker, D. W., and Krueger, T.: Making a case for power-sensitive water modelling: a literature review, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4157–4186, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4157-2024, 2024.

Thaler, T. and Levin-Keitel, M.: Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management–A question of roles and power: Lessons from England, Environ. Sci. Policy, 55, 292–301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.007, 2016.

Thompson, M. A., Owen, S., Lindsay, J. M., Leonard, G. S., and Cronin, S. J.: Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions, Environ. Sci. Policy, 74, 30–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.006, 2017.

Turner, M. D.: Production of environmental knowledge: Scientists, complex natures, and the question of agency, Knowing Nat. Conversat. Intersect. Polit. Ecol. Sci. Stud. Univ. Chic. Press Chic., 25–29, https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.7208/9780226301440-002/html?srsltid=AfmBOorxHJL0Bni4huA1Z8v9ZB BsNo6KjmEKa83pXFtxydcmnGHw9zJ_ (last access: 30 July 2025), 2011.

Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., and Louder, E.: The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 42, 15–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009, 2020.

Usón, T. J., Henríquez, C., and Dame, J.: Disputed water: Competing knowledge and power asymmetries in the Yali Alto basin, Chile, Geoforum, 85, 247–258, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.07.029, 2017.

van Beek, E. and Arriens, W. L.: Water Security: Putting the Concept into Practice, Global Water Partnership (GWP), ISBN 978-91-87823-07-7, https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/publications/background-papers/gwp_tec20_web.pdf (last access: 30 July 2025), 2016.

Van Loon, A. F., Stahl, K., Di Baldassarre, G., Clark, J., Rangecroft, S., Wanders, N., Gleeson, T., Van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Tallaksen, L. M., Hannaford, J., Uijlenhoet, R., Teuling, A. J., Hannah, D. M., Sheffield, J., Svoboda, M., Verbeiren, B., Wagener, T., and Van Lanen, H. A. J.: Drought in a human-modified world: reframing drought definitions, understanding, and analysis approaches, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3631–3650, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3631-2016, 2016a.

Van Loon, A. F., Gleeson, T., Clark, J., Van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Stahl, K., Hannaford, J., Di Baldassarre, G., Teuling, A. J., Tallaksen, L. M., Uijlenhoet, R., Hannah, D. M., Sheffield, J., Svoboda, M., Verbeiren, B., Wagener, T., Rangecroft, S., Wanders, N., and Van Lanen, H. A. J.: Drought in the Anthropocene, Nat. Geosci., 9, 89–91, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2646, 2016b.

Vanelli, F. M., Kobiyama, M., and de Brito, M. M.: To which extent are socio-hydrology studies truly integrative? The case of natural hazards and disaster research, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2301–2317, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2301-2022, 2022.

Vedeld, T.: The Co-creation Paradox: Small Towns and the Promise and Limits of Collaborative Governance for Low-Carbon, Sustainable Futures, Scand. J. Public Adm., 26, 45–70, https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v2i6.3.7006, 2022.

Venot, J.-P., Vos, J., Molle, F., Zwarteveen, M., Veldwisch, G. J., Kuper, M., Mdee, A., Ertsen, M., Boelens, R., Cleaver, F., Lankford, B., Swatuk, L., Linton, L., Harris, L. M., Kemerink-Seyoum, J., Kooy, M., and Schwartz, K.: A bridge over troubled waters, Nat. Sustain., 5, 92–92, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00835-y, 2022.

Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Peña-Angulo, D., Murphy, C., López-Moreno, J. I., Tomas-Burguera, M., Domínguez-Castro, F., Tian, F., Eklundh, L., Cai, Z., Alvarez-Farizo, B., Noguera, I., Camarero, J. J., Sánchez-Salguero, R., Gazol, A., Grainger, S., Conradt, T., Boincean, B., and El Kenawy, A.: The complex
multi-sectoral impacts of drought: Evidence from a mountainous
basin in the Central Spanish Pyrenees, Sci. Total Environ., 769,
144702, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144702, 2021.

Wens, M., Veldkamp, T. I. E., Mwangi, M., Johnson, J. M., Lasage, R., Haer, T., and Aerts, J. C. J. H.: Simulating Small-Scale Agricultural Adaptation Decisions in Response to Drought Risk: An Empirical Agent-Based Model for Semi-Arid Kenya, Front. Water, 2, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2020.00015, 2020.

Wesselink, A., Kooy, M., and Warner, J.: Socio-hydrology and hydrosocial analysis: toward dialogues across disciplines, WIREs Water, 4, e1196, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1196, 2017.

Wheater, H. S. and Gober, P.: Water security and the science agenda, Water Resour. Res., 51, 5406–5424, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016892, 2015.

White, G. F.: Human adjustment to floods: Department of geogra-
phy research paper No. 29, Chic. IL Univ. Chic., https://biotech.
law.lsu.edu/climate/docs/Human_Adj_Floods_White.pdf (last
access: 31 July 2025), 1945.

Wilhite, D. A. and Glantz, M. H.: Understanding: the Drought Phenomenon: The Role of Definitions, Water Int., 10, 111–120, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508068508686328, 1985.

Wilhite, D. A., Svoboda, M. D., and Hayes, M. J.: Understanding the complex impacts of drought: A key to enhancing drought mitigation and preparedness, Water Resour. Manag., 21, 763–774, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9076-5, 2007.

Zwarteveen, M., Kemerink-Seyoum, J. S., Kooy, M., Evers, J., Guerrero, T. A., Batubara, B., Biza, A., Boakye-Ansah, A., Faber, S., Cabrera Flamini, A., Cuadrado-Quesada, G., Fantini, E., Gupta, J., Hasan, S., ter Horst, R., Jamali, H., Jaspers, F., Obani, P., Schwartz, K., Shubber, Z., Smit, H., Torio, P., Tutusaus, M., and Wesselink, A.: Engaging with the politics of water governance, WIREs Water, 4, e1245, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1245, 2017.