**Responsible Water Reuse Needs an Interdisciplinary Approach to Balance Risks and Benefits**

**Milou M. L. Dingemans 1,\* , Patrick W. M. H. Smeets <sup>1</sup> , Gertjan Medema 1,2, Jos Frijns <sup>1</sup> , Klaasjan J. Raat <sup>1</sup> , Annemarie P. van Wezel <sup>3</sup> and Ruud P. Bartholomeus 1,4,\***


Received: 20 March 2020; Accepted: 24 April 2020; Published: 29 April 2020

**Abstract:** Freshwater is a precious resource, and shortages can lead to water stress, impacting agriculture, industry, and other sectors. Wastewater reuse is increasingly considered as an opportunity to meet the freshwater demand. Legislative frameworks are under development to support the responsible reuse of wastewater, i.e., to balance benefits and risks. In an evaluation of the proposed European regulation for water reuse, we concluded that the proposed regulation is not practically feasible, as the water provider alone is responsible for the risk assessment and management, even beyond their span of control. The required knowledge and resources are extensive. Therefore, without clear guidance for implementation, the regulation would hinder implementation of reuse programs. As a consequence, the current practice of uncontrolled, unintentional, and indirect reuse continues, including related risks and inefficiency. Therefore, we provide an outline of the interdisciplinary approach required to design and achieve safe, responsible water reuse. Responsible water reuse requires knowledge of water demand and availability, quality and health, technology, and governance for the various types of application. Through this paper we want to provide a starting point for an interdisciplinary agenda to compile and generate knowledge (databases), approaches, guidelines, case examples, codes of practice, and legislation to help bring responsible water reuse into practice.

**Keywords:** water reuse; water quality; water availability; governance

### **1. Introduction**

Freshwater is a precious resource, and shortages can lead to water stress impacting agriculture, industry and other sectors [1]. To reduce this, treated municipal (domestic) or industrial wastewater is increasingly considered as a freshwater resource. By wastewater reuse, the pressure on water resources can be reduced, which fits within the circular economy objectives [2]. However, water should only be reused in a responsible, sustainable manner, i.e., if no unacceptable additional risks for human health and the environment are introduced beyond current water sources. The main challenge for achieving such responsible water reuse is that there is considerable variation in (potential) risks and hazards, related to differences in water sources, application, and type of water treatment methods, and thus in water quality, and the use, practice, or method of application [3–10].

Applications of wastewater reuse in Europe include reuse of municipal wastewater for drinking water (e.g., Torrelee, BE [11]), as cooling water in industry (e.g., Tarragona, ES [12]) and for agricultural irrigation (e.g., Braunschweig, DE; Clermont-Ferrand, FR; Puglia, IT [13–15]), and of wastewater from the food industry for irrigation in agriculture (Lieshout, NL [16]) and horticulture (Dinteloord, NL [17]).

The EU's blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources, stresses the need to use treated wastewater as a water resource for irrigation [3,18]. The Water Framework Directive and the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive provide requirements for treatment of wastewater. For effluent reuse, however, the EU's blueprint identifies a lack of common standards, which led to a risk management framework by the Joint Research Centre to establish minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agriculture [19].

At current, there is no explicit EU regulation with regard to irrigation water. However, the proposed EU regulation for direct reuse of domestic wastewater for irrigation [20] has very recently been adopted by the EU Council and awaits adoption by the European Parliament [21]. It includes harmonized minimum quality requirements and risk management practices, as well as specific processes related to permits and obligations on the sharing of information on reuse. The proposed EU regulation for the direct reuse of domestic wastewater for irrigation asks for a detailed understanding of the benefits and risks of reuse for agricultural practices for each reuse program. This proposed regulation states that a water reuse risk management plan (WRRMP) is required for reclamation sites, to manage microbial and chemical risks in a proactive manner. Minimum quality requirements are proposed for different types of agricultural reuse, depending on crop category and irrigation method. Additional water quality requirements that are relevant to the specific reuse program should be added based on the WRRMP.

Earlier evaluations by independent experts [22] concluded that although many important elements are included in the proposed water quality requirements, several key aspects were inadequately addressed—in particular contaminants of emerging concern, spread of antibiotic resistance, disinfection by-products, and the potential of effect-based bioanalytical tools—and that the selection of minimum quality requirements is unclear. In this paper, the different aspects that should be considered in every water reuse case are addressed, i.e., water demand and availability, water quality (health and safety), treatment technology and governance (policy and regulations, economics, stakeholder participation and public acceptance) (Figure 1). The proposed EU guidelines for the reuse of domestic wastewater for irrigation and the WRRMP were critically reviewed with respect to practical feasibility for a specific water reuse case in the Netherlands [23]. This led to the identification of knowledge requirements for responsible water reuse. This paper provides an outlook on how the proposed regulations could be improved to encourage innovation in technically achieving, managing, monitoring, and regulating responsible water reuse.

**Figure 1.** Different disciplines are needed for the practice of responsible water reuse.

### **2. Water Demand and Availability and Reuse Applications**

The most common freshwater sources are groundwater and surface water, often perceived as natural waters [24,25]. However, wastewater is already often indirectly (de facto) reused in agriculture, by irrigating with surface water in which treated domestic wastewater is discharged and diluted [26]. For several regions in Europe with agricultural irrigation the impact of wastewater effluent on irrigation water quality has been estimated to be significant [24]. Globally, it has been estimated that about 65% of irrigated croplands downstream of urban areas were located in catchments affected by urban wastewater flows [27]. The main drivers for the intentional reuse of effluent are declining groundwater levels and prolonged droughts [28]. Periods of drought in Europe, even in areas with an annual rainfall excess, have led to ad hoc use of treated wastewater for irrigation without adequate risk evaluations. Aquifer recharge or subsurface water storage to prevent or reduce salinization also creates demand for (reclaimed) freshwater [29].

Quantitatively, the reuse of domestic wastewater for irrigation has high potential to play an important role in water resource management. For direct water reuse, wastewater needs to be treated to such an extent that it is suitable for irrigation. Such intentional reuse offers better control and management possibilities than currently practiced de facto reuse. There is a lack of knowledge on the required water quality for safe use in agriculture, especially with respect to emerging compounds. Innovative treatment processes need to be applied to achieve this quality reliably, affordably, and sustainably. Since the demand is generally highest when there is least water available, concepts for underground buffering need to be developed. These in turn require sufficient water quality, but also may improve water quality [30,31]. Smart combinations of various reuse applications with varying demands will increase flexibility of the system, but require innovative business models to manage shared water resources. The proposed EU regulation for reuse is limited to direct reuse of treated domestic wastewater for irrigation. Therefore, it only applies to a selection of potential water reuse applications and is missing an integrated approach. The regulation asks for a detailed understanding of benefits and risks of reuse for agricultural practices. If a water provider does not have the specific expertise and realises that the required monitoring will be costly, the proposed regulation might discourage intended reuse and thus unintendedly stimulate an increase of indirect de facto reuse.

### **3. Health and Safety including Water Treatment**

Current wastewater and sanitation systems were designed to efficiently remove wastewater from the home and release it into the environment to prevent contact with humans. A hazard related to wastewater reuse is that it may bring the contaminants from wastewater back to the living environment. Irrigation with treated wastewater may introduce pathogens and chemicals in the soil and to the plants, some of which may affect human health by transfer through the food chain, or via contamination through the air, surface water, or groundwater. Human health risks due to the presence of pathogens or chemicals can vary widely between cases of water reuse for irrigation, depending on the type of wastewater, land use, soil type, type of irrigation, exposure scenarios, and the hydrological conditions at the irrigation site [32]. Conventional wastewater treatment processes were not designed to remove pathogens and emerging contaminants [33]. Additional and innovative water treatment technologies based on sorption, oxidation and size exclusion principles, will thus be needed to produce fit-for-purpose water efficiently [34]. Recent activities to collect all knowledge on the removal of a wide variety of pathogens and (emerging) contaminants by common and advanced treatment technologies, such as activated carbon, the use of ozone and UV with or without H2O2, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis, actually shows that knowledge is available but scattered, and continuously growing and expanding to new contaminants [34,35]. Also, different exposure routes and their respective relevance differ per situation and depend on type of irrigation, type of crop, and environmental fate of chemicals present in the reclaimed water in the soil. In each water reuse case, the following questions on water quality need to be addressed: Which risks related to the presence of pathogens or chemicals are relevant in this particular case and what water treatment technologies are effective?

Pathogens in domestic wastewater include bacteria, viruses, protozoa and helminths. These are mostly enteric pathogens causing gastrointestinal disease that enter the wastewater by excretion from infected persons. Pathogens are currently not monitored in wastewater, so what is known about the presence of common and rare pathogens in various wastewater types is coming from research and is scattered [36]. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses could serve as a relatively simple and cheap screening tool for pathogens in wastewater [37], although it needs to be considered that these methods cannot make a distinction between DNA from living or dead pathogens and thus could result in false positives. Viruses, bacteria, and parasites are only removed or inactivated to a limited extent in conventional (activated sludge and sedimentation) wastewater treatment processes [36]. So, for many reuse applications in agriculture, microbial safety requirements will require additional treatment or other risk management actions. In the proposed EU regulation for reuse of domestic wastewater for irrigation, minimum requirements are set only for the microbial parameters *Escherichia coli* (*E. coli*), *Legionella spp.* and helminth eggs, and several technical minimum requirements are also associated to microbial safety. Choosing *E. coli* as the general indicator to evaluate whether a reuse system is capable of producing water that is safe for the different irrigation purposes could result in a false sense of safety, as *E. coli* is very sensitive to disinfection processes in comparison to other microbial hazards [38]. Reused wastewater will generally contain more organics which stimulates microbial growth including opportunistic pathogens like *Legionella*. The requirement for *Legionella spp.* is only in greenhouses where there is a risk of aerosolization. This is potentially a high-risk setting for *Legionella pneumophila*¸ given water temperatures in these irrigation systems. However, several urban wastewater systems have been associated with *Legionella pneumophila* outbreaks [39–42], particularly linked with wastewater influenced by high organic/high temperature waste streams such as from breweries or paper mills, so inclusion of reuse systems based on these waters is warranted. In addition, the proposed monitoring of *Legionella spp.* includes many non-pathogenic *Legionella* species that can be abundant in water systems, while the vast majority of severe infections is due to *Legionella pneumophila*. Its management might even increase the risk as *Legionella* species live in competition in biofilms. Disturbing the biofilm by disinfection of *Legionella spp*. might actually allow *Legionella pneumophila* to proliferate in the new situation [43]. Setting the requirement specifically for *Legionella pneumophila* would thus be a better indicator of risk.

There is discussion about the significance of the water route for human exposure to antibiotic resistant bacteria, but it is clear that many types of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and genes are present in wastewater [44]. WHO has indicated that discharge and exposure via domestic wastewater should be kept as low as reasonably achievable [45,46]. To demonstrate this, it would be beneficial to provide guidance and select a reference for antibiotic resistance, such as extended-spectrum betalactamase (ESBL) *E. coli*, given that it is widespread and one of the resistant bacteria of concern present at relatively high concentrations with good methods available for enumeration in wastewater.

Risks of chemicals for human health or the environment depend on the hazardous properties of the concerned chemicals and the margin between safe exposure levels and the realistic exposure that is occurring [47]. Exposure levels can be monitored, but in a risk management scheme exposure levels may also be predicted to some degree based on (expected) levels in wastewater, treatment efficiency, distribution and degradation in water, soil and air, and absorbance in plants [32,48]. Wastewater presents a continually evolving composition of chemicals in complex mixtures depending on human activities. Humans can thus be exposed to chemicals in reclaimed water via different exposure routes, partly depending on (professional) activities of the exposed individuals. For persistent chemicals, concentrations in wastewater-irrigated soils may even slowly rise with each successive wastewater application [32,49].

No minimum requirements for chemicals are included in the proposed regulation, but these are to be determined for specific chemicals in specific settings based on the outcomes of the WRRMP. This plan refers to existing EU legislation on chemicals in food and the environment. A list of relevant chemicals to consider for the validation and performance monitoring of reclamation plants can be based on their known or expected presence in wastewater, legislative criteria for (ground) water, and food safety requirements for crops such as maximum residue levels. Minimum requirements for these chemicals at the point of compliance, such as the outlet of the reclamation plant, can be defined based on relevant exposure routes and realistic worst-case fate and transport processes of chemicals from the release via STP towards human and environmental exposure. Wastewater also contains nutrients that can be useful for crop production, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and organic matter [50]. Required concentrations of nutrients vary in different crop production stages and there are some associated health hazards (e.g., nitrate). Reclaimed water for irrigation may also negatively impact agricultural productivity, especially through salt content [51]. Limit concentrations of chemicals in reused wastewater are either based on crop requirements or on human or environmental health concerns. Relevant chemicals can be derived by integrating information on occurrence in wastewater and their risks including legislative food safety requirements. Following the proposed regulation, environmental monitoring systems of water reuse systems would need to include the whole water pathway, i.e., at the reclamation plant, at the point of use and further downstream in the environment. This generally exceeds the span of control of individual water providers or managers.

Indirect potable reuse through drinking water production from domestic and industrial wastewater impacted surface water has provided several decades of experience on monitoring and managing water quality risks. Due to increased knowledge on possible adverse effects and increased analytical possibilities, the number of chemical parameters included in monitoring programs of water utilities increased exponentially in the last decade [52]. In accordance with the European Drinking Water Directive [53], utilities aim at a tailored risk-based monitoring program and this approach is also applicable to water reuse applications. Risk-based monitoring programs can be designed based on knowledge of the chemical composition of the wastewater and effluent, vulnerability of receiving groundwater and potential exposure routes. It is expected that a risk-based monitoring workflow for water reuse for irrigation can be based on the available technologies currently in use for drinking water purposes [47,54]. These can be complemented with bioanalytical tools that give information on the integrated effect of mixtures of chemicals related to a specific health effect [55,56]. By referring to a list of EU legislations on microbial and chemical risks from which requirements and obligations are also to be taken into account, many additional water quality requirements are indirectly included in the proposed regulation. Guidance on which requirements from these legislations should be included in a WRRMP needs to be further developed. Practical case studies can provide insight in what monitoring is practical, feasible and meaningful.

Awareness of the number of chemicals emitted to the aquatic environment in wastewater has also resulted in increased attention for and exploration of the merits of additional post-treatment at wastewater treatment plants [57]. Additional biological and technological treatments, such as activated sludge, membrane bioreactors, moving bed biofilm reactors, and nature-based solutions such as constructed wetlands may also be used in water reuse applications to mitigate risks [58]. The relevance of a treatment technology to a specific reuse case can be evaluated based on reliable removal efficiency data. Recently developed relevance and reliability criteria support the selection of appropriate technologies [59].

### **4. Governance**

While water scarcity urges the practice of water reuse, large variation in potential hazards and risks forces to ensure responsible water reuse. This gives rise to a particular challenge in governance. A precautionary option for water reuse for irrigation would be to set a standard list of requirements, focused on expected exposures via food crops. Concentrations in harvested crop, environment, and biota can be measured or estimated based on fate and behaviour of chemicals and pathogens after release from the water treatment site [60,61]. The introduction of related uncertainty/extrapolation factors may lead to relatively conservative water quality standards that will need to be met and therefore monitored. Location specific risk-based approaches, where hazards and risk management measures

are prioritized on a case-by-case basis, are expected to be more applicable. This avoids overly stringent quality standards that could discourage the development of reuse schemes by imposing burdensome treatment and/or costly monitoring requirements [62]. However, to require each reuse system to conduct their own specific evaluation of all relevant contaminants, their toxicity and uncertainties would make the regulations very difficult to implement and harmonize between reuse systems and member states. Hence, this risk-based approach requires additional efforts to provide guidance on how to define the minimum set of requirements relevant to specific water reuse cases.

The WRRMP evaluation process can be supported by the development of a database of relevant hazard and safety levels and guidance material on the development of monitoring requirements. Existing risk management methods, databases and tools such as the AquaNES Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) tool [35] may be useful in this regard, even if they were not developed specifically for water reuse cases. Another applicable method is the framework for risk-based monitoring of groundwater sources for drinking water production established in the joint research program of Dutch and Flemish drinking water companies [52]. Also, EFSA has developed a guidance for predicting environmental concentrations of plant protection products and their transformation products [63]. Although this was originally developed for exposure assessment for soil organisms, this may also be applied for the evaluation of water reuse risks on human health and the environment.

The heterogeneity of water reuse cases and risk management needs, stresses the value of a progressive and enabling regulatory regime [64]. For a mature governance arrangement, it is critical to engage stakeholders and pursue the normalization of water reuse in society. Ensuring long-term collaboration and engagement of stakeholders and customers is one of the key success factors in the development of water reuse schemes [62]. Building confidence and gaining trust through early consultation allows for a location specific approach that deals with uncertainty regarding risks and their perception. Involvement of stakeholders is also advocated by Goodwin and co-workers in a water reuse safety plan approach [65]. An important element in the engagement of stakeholders, in particular the general public, is the societal legitimation of water reuse [66]. The use of long-term narratives around the benefits of adopting water reuse and the recognition that de facto reuse is common practice could support public acceptance [67]. A clear explanation of risks and risk management can support public acceptance by applying the principles of risk communication [68]. Unfortunately, the WRRMP in the new EU regulation for direct reuse of domestic wastewater [20] does not include stakeholder engagement requirements. This is however critical, since this WRRMP points to risk management actions that are generally beyond the control of the water provider in reuse utilities.

The governance arrangement of water reuse cases needs to address economic aspects as well. An important factor hampering the development of water reuse is related to the total costs of treatment and of monitoring the reuse system as a whole [15,62]. For those cases in which reclaimed water is used for agricultural purposes, there will also be substantial costs associated with the conveyance system and delivery management for irrigation [15]. On the other hand, water reuse cases are often undervalued as the range of (environmental) benefits are not accounted for. Giannoccaro et al. [15] point out that also often transaction costs are not considered. The costs for water reuse treatment are incurred by different organisations (public or private water industry) than those organisations benefitting from the availability of reclaimed water (e.g., farmers). This is a general challenge for the transition to the circular economy in which a new distribution of societal values is needed that goes beyond a cost–benefit analysis of a particular (e.g., water) reuse case. The circular economy will require systematic changes in the whole value chain for water, benefitting the economic development of water reuse practices [69,70].

### **5. Feasibility of the Proposed Regulation for a Specific Water Reuse Case**

The practical feasibility of the proposed regulation was evaluated by going through the WRRMP key risk management tasks for a sub-surface irrigation (SSI) case (research pilot) using effluent of a sewage treatment plant (STP) at Haaksbergen, the Netherlands. In this SSI case, STP effluent is actively added to a controlled drainage system. Such systems allow to control groundwater levels and soil moisture conditions at an agricultural field [71]. By actively adding water, controlled drainage systems become infiltration systems, or sub-irrigation systems (SSI). SSI systems can supply STP effluent to crops while the soil is used as filter and buffer zone [3]. The research pilot in Haaksbergen runs since 2015 [72].

The proposed regulation focuses on risks for water quality and health, and not on the potential benefits, or the risks of the current situation (irrigation with surface water that receives domestic wastewater). As opportunities (benefits) are not considered and the proposed risk analysis is very extensive, it is not possible to find a balance and implement responsible water reuse with this currently proposed regulation. Some specific shortcomings were identified. (i) Roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders are not clearly described. (ii) Although needed to assess potential risks, the operator likely does not have detailed information on and jurisdiction over the infrastructure from the point of release (effluent) to the point of use (irrigation). In the Haaksbergen case, irrigation takes place using an innovative subsurface system that reduces the risks from direct application of water on crops or through aerosols. However, the proposed regulation does not address subsurface irrigation and requires measurements and (environmental) monitoring which may be less relevant for this type of irrigation. (iii) In particular, for emerging chemicals and pathogens, site-specific information on their occurrence in this case study wastewater is not readily available. Also, their fate and behaviour in the soil and in crops that will be consumed by humans or cattle is unknown. Determining whether additional requirements are needed requires the operator to perform a risk assessment and compare the outcome to acceptable levels of risk or water quality. (iv) Without guidance it is an exhaustive effort to monitor all relevant exposure routes and, in practice is outside the influence of the operator, who nevertheless has this responsibility according to the proposed regulation. (v) There is no guidance on adequate validation monitoring, and this is needed to support operators and to harmonize validation monitoring.

The evaluation of the proposed guideline shed light on the challenges of the implementation of the guideline to promote responsible water reuse. It provides guidance for research agendas and needs to make practical implementation feasible. Using novel, innovative methods, feasible and uncomplicated monitoring strategies can be developed for analyses of effluent water quality at the point of release without the need to monitor (inaccessible) points of use. Rather than requesting extensive monitoring at each reuse site, decision-making tools and databases with information on environmental fate could be developed to identify whether a water reuse application may result in increased environmental exposure (soil, surface water and groundwater, crops) on or near the irrigation site, potentially resulting in risks for ecology or humans. Measuring or modelling site-specific exposure of humans, cattle, and the environment to compare to safe concentration is extensive and complex. Alternatively, national or river-basin specific risk assessments can, to some extent, be based on national concentrations of hazards in urban wastewater, efficacy of treatment processes and public health and environmental water quality standards [47,48,59]. This can be used to define a manageable set of indicator chemicals from different classes of use and with different physicochemical properties. Additional site-specific requirements may be derived by risk-based approaches. A database with acceptable risk levels or water qualities for different reuse purposes, and relevant preventive measures, would facilitate the implementation of the proposed regulations. Agriculture can benefit from treated wastewater as freshwater resource, and risks can be managed by precautionary regulations based on the most relevant exposure route. If needed, reuse can be limited to those applications with limited risk potential.

Ongoing research and innovation is already providing a basis for these goals with existing databases, novel analysis methods and innovative treatments. The EU regulation on minimum requirements for water reuse [19,20] is part of a legislative framework that is under development in the EU to support responsible reuse of wastewater for irrigation purposes. Other legislative frameworks related to water reuse are being developed worldwide (Table 1) allowing international sharing of knowledge and experience. New contaminants and new treatment technologies will continue to emerge. An integrated research agenda in the field of water reuse will support the efficient acquirement of necessary knowledge and steer innovation in the needed direction. User-friendly tools need to be developed together with end users that encapsulate this knowledge and allow stakeholders to apply this also in a non-scientific environment.

**Table 1.** Overview of existing and developing legislative frameworks of water reuse for industry, agriculture, or drinking water.


### **6. Conclusions**

Wastewater reuse is increasingly considered as an opportunity to meet the freshwater demand. This means a shift of paradigm from "safe treatment and discharge of wastewater" to "transforming used water to fit-for-purpose water". The following questions need to be addressed. To what degree are pressures on freshwater sources reduced by exploitation of treated wastewater? Which risks related to the presence of pathogens or chemicals are relevant in this particular case, and how does this impact selection of suitable water treatment technologies? What is the relevant legislation to be complied? Who are the responsible authorities and stakeholders for each of the elements of a reuse program, and are they all sufficiently involved?

The minimum requirements for microbial and chemical hazards in the proposed EU regulation do not sufficiently cover relevant risks to protect human and environmental health. The water reuse risk management plan in the proposed EU regulation is an interdisciplinary and exhaustive task and the proposed approach is not practically feasible, because it is very complex and operator influence and proposed responsibilities do not match. To support responsible water reuse, the evaluation of water reuse cases requires expert knowledge on both the benefits and risks regarding water availability, quality, and governance. Databases (on hazards, risks, background exposures and preventive measures) are needed to consistently and efficiently develop scientific, expert, and practical knowledge. Guidance material and decision-making tools are needed to disseminate expert knowledge and support decision makers and stakeholders for responsible water reuse, i.e., to make expert knowledge available for risk managers and stakeholders.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.M.L.D.; P.W.M.H.S.; G.M.; J.F.; A.P.v.W.; K.J.R. and R.P.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.L.D.; G.M.; P.W.M.H.S. and J.F.; writing—review and editing, R.P.B.; K.J.R. and A.P.v.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was funded by the joint research program of Dutch and Flemish drinking water companies and the Dutch Government.

**Acknowledgments:** We thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **Water Resources and Governance Approaches: Insights for Achieving Water Security**

**Natalia Julio 1,2,\* , Ricardo Figueroa 1,2 and Roberto D. Ponce Oliva 2,3,4**


**Abstract:** Integrated river basin management (IRBM) has been proposed as a means to achieve water security (WS), maximizing economic and social well-being in an equitable manner and maintaining ecosystem sustainability. IRBM is regulated by a governance process that benefits the participation of different actors and institutions; however, it has been difficult to reach a consensus on what good governance means and which governance perspective is better for achieving it. In this paper, we explore the concept of "good water governance" through the analysis of different governance approaches: experimental (EG), corporate (CG), polycentric (PG), metagovernance (MG) and adaptive (AG) governances. We used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) water governance dimensions (effectiveness, efficiency and trust and engagement) as a "good enough water governance" that regards water governance as a process rather than an end in itself. Results indicate that each of the five governance theories presents challenges and opportunities to achieve a good governance process that can be operationalized through IRBM, and we found that these approaches can be adequately integrated if they are combined to overcome the challenges that their exclusive application implies. Our analysis suggests that a combination of AG and MG encompasses the OECD water governance dimensions, in terms of understanding "good enough water governance" as a process and a means to perform IRBM. In order to advance towards WS, the integration of different governance approaches must consider the context-specific nature of the river basin, in relation to its ecologic responses and socioeconomic characteristics.

**Keywords:** water management; integrated river basin management; water security; good governance

### **1. Introduction**

The diversity of ecosystem services that freshwater resources provide plays a key role in poverty reduction, economic growth and environmental sustainability [1]. All goods and services consumed by any society come from natural sources of matter and energy [2] and, therefore, economy and human well-being depend on natural systems' integrity [1]. However, the different uses that society exerts on water resources have increased considerably, causing a negative balance for ecosystems [3]. This precipitates the need to ensure water in quantity and quality for aquatic ecosystems as life-sustaining systems and to generate resilience derived from its lack (water shortage or droughts) or excess in short periods (risks due to floods), to promote human and economic development for all the inhabitants of the territory, advancing towards water security (WS) [4].

Grey and Sadoff provide a widespread concept of WS, highlighting the role of water as both a source of threat and a source of services, defining it as "the availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihoods, ecosystems and production, coupled with an acceptable level of water-related risks to people, environments

**Citation:** Julio, N.; Figueroa, R.; Ponce Oliva, R.D. Water Resources and Governance Approaches: Insights for Achieving Water Security. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 3063. https:// doi.org/10.3390/w13213063

Academic Editors: Fernando António Leal Pacheco, Antonio Lo Porto and Luís Filipe Sanches Fernandes

Received: 5 July 2021 Accepted: 26 October 2021 Published: 2 November 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

and economies" [5]. Achieving it depends on the capacity of a society to manage water resources [1,6], regarding the river basin as the appropriate territorial unit [7]. Expanding on this definition, the notion of WS has been addressed in several studies, for instance, quantifying the main threats to freshwater biodiversity from both human and ecosystem perspectives on WS [8], analyzing how WS is conceptualized and operationalized according to different geographical regions and scales [9], and analyzing the relationship between WS and governance [10]. According to these studies, the following ideas emerge: WS is an integrated concept, so water management strategies must jointly address threats to biodiversity and human water securities; water crisis mainly results from governance issues, so an integrative perspective of WS is needed to improve water governance; and, the conceptualization of WS is diverse and context-specific, so it is important to include local communities' perspectives when addressing WS issues in water management.

However, achieving WS is a complex task, since it is a multi-faceted problem that goes beyond simple balancing of water supply and demand [11]. WS focuses not only on positive, but also on negative outcomes for people (water related disasters, water-borne diseases in children, conflicts over water access, supply and/or recreation), economy (hydropower production, irrigated agriculture and economic losses related to disasters), and the environment (ecosystem health, spatial extent of wetlands and estuaries, biodiversity and water quality), which are influenced by water management [12].

The multi-faceted nature of WS also refers to the water-related challenges that the world is currently experiencing. According to the 2021 United Nations World Water Development Report [13], in terms of water availability, over two billion people live in countries experiencing water stress, 1.6 billion people face economic water scarcity (water is physically available but lacks infrastructure to be accessible), and 30% of the largest groundwater systems are being depleted. In terms of water quality, globally, about 80% of industrial waste is discharged into the environment without treatment, and almost all major rivers in Africa, Asia and Latin America are regarded as polluted. In terms of extreme events, between 2009 and 2019, nearly 55,000 deaths were caused by floods around the world, causing US \$76.8 billion in economic losses, and droughts affected 100 million people (2000 deaths), causing US \$10 billion in economic losses. In relation to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), the UN report states that, in 2017, 71% of the global population used a safely managed drinking water service and 45% used safely managed sanitation services; in addition, regarding water-related ecosystem services, 14 of the 18 categories of 'nature's contribution to people' are in detriment, including: regulation of freshwater quantity, coastal and freshwater quality and hazards and extreme events.

WS challenges are likely to become even greater because of climate change. According to the IPCC, an increase in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation in several regions is expected to occur, with global warming up by 1.5 ◦C as compared to preindustrial levels, as well as an increase in the frequency and severity of floods and droughts [14]. This implies a water crisis that requires immediate action [15].

Appropriate institutional roles and management instruments are two factors that could help in meeting WS challenges [4]. In this sense, "water crises are often primarily governance crises" [16], since the processes by which decisions are adopted and applied are critical for water resources management. As a governance measure, some authors propose that power and responsibility should be shared between water resource users and state agencies to achieve more collaborative and coordinated actions [17–20]. This can be reached through integrated water resources management (IWRM) that focus on the river basin (also termed watersheds and/or catchments) as the most appropriate spatial unit for management [21]. Consequently, integrated river basin management (IRBM) has arisen as a concept that is designed to assess integrated and multi-resource problems, considering the management of land, water and related natural resources within hydrologic boundaries to achieve long-term sustainability [22,23].

River basins, either independently or when interconnected with others, are considered the most accepted territorial unit for water resources management [22,24–27]. The

concept of a river basin (or watershed) can be defined, from a geological/hydrological perspective, as a topographically traced area drained by a stream system [28]. However, the IRBM concept is holistic, because it considers the relevance of addressing multiple uses of freshwater resources [25] and, therefore, involves different stakeholders' perspectives about the river basin (i.e., industry, irrigation, biodiversity, etc.). In this sense, taking into consideration that WS involves issues of health, livelihoods, ecosystems and production [5], the river basin is not only regarded as a geographical unit, but also as a political and ideological construct that is linked with changing scalar arrangements, in both ecological and regulatory (or governance) terms [29]. However, some studies have questioned its benefits to water management, in some specific cases, related to discrepancies among hydrological and political-administrative boundaries and among the local and higher orders of government [30–33]. In these cases, the concept about the proper unit of analysis must be revised to adequately advance towards WS.

In spite of the above, IRBM should be guided by a water governance system that is inclusive, multi-scalar and sustainable [19,34–36], and should have varied responses to uncertainty caused by the effects of climate change [37,38]. However, there has been no consensus on what the term "water governance" means or the characteristics that should include a "good water governance" system. In this paper, we try to shed light on this topic.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines water governance as a process that involves different actors and perspectives in decision-making; it is focused on administrative and institutional dynamics and includes formal and informal organizational aspects [16]. In the academic literature it is possible to find different approaches to governance. For instance, Kooiman and Jentoft address three governance modes: hierarchical, self-governance and co-governance [39]. For their part, Turton et al. briefly analyse three broad types of governance: corporate, network and adaptive governances [40]. Partelow et al. have synthesized and compared eight different governance theories: polycentricity, network governance, multilevel governance, collective action, governmentality, adaptive governance, interactive governance theory and evolutionary governance theory, in terms of their application to coastal systems [41], while Monkelbaan has compared five governance theories: transition theory, metagovernance, polycentricity, network governance and experimentalist governance, in terms of their relevance in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) [42].

In this paper, we seek to advance towards an understanding of good water governance, with a focus on the OECD Water Governance Framework, by analyzing five governance approaches: corporate governance, experimentalist governance, polycentric governance, metagovernance and adaptive governance, in terms of addressing the complex task of advancing towards WS. We go further than previous studies on governance classification, arguing that these approaches could, to some degree, include features that suit the OECD water governance dimensions (effectiveness, efficiency and trust and engagement) and can be applied to freshwater systems and IRBM. For this purpose, in Section 2, we provide the theoretical background, analyzing the concept of good governance and the five governance approaches. We highlight the OECD water governance dimensions as a perspective that focuses on water governance as a process rather than an end to achieve, and we analyze these approaches to governance in accordance with their objectives, role of private and public actors and their relationship, leadership and expected outcomes. In Section 3, we assess the strengths and possible failures associated with these approaches to address the OECD framework. Then, we inform possible integration mechanisms to achieve appropriate forms of good water governance (Section 4). In this way, a particular governance approach (or a combination of them) may be more effective in solving particular environmental problems. This latter attribute supports the idea of "good water governance" as a dynamic and context-specific process, that is, a means to achieve WS, which is operationalized through IRBM [43]. We provide our main conclusions in Section 5.

### **2. Theoretical Background: "Good Water Governance" and Governance Approaches** *2.1. Good Water Governance*

Advancing towards IRBM depends on an integration of actors, institutional roles and water management instruments, where policies, guidelines and institutions must adequately address the way in which water resources are used, in order to protect the natural adaptive capacity of the ecosystems.

Different authors and international institutions have proposed different indicators or characteristics that help to resolve if governance is being well implemented. For example, the United Nations Asia Pacific Social and Economic Commission (ESCAP) suggests eight key parameters for good governance: it is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law [44]. Likewise, the World Bank developed the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, establishing six indicators of good governance, some of which are similar to those of ESCAP: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption [45]. In particular, some specific indicators for good water governance have been proposed by Lautze et al.: openness and transparency, broad participation, predictability and ethics, including integrity (as control of corruption) [43].

According to the definition of water governance cited above, it is worth emphasizing that good governance is a process. This is supported by Grindle, who states that it is important to focus on how to change for the better, increasing the understanding of how institutions emerge, evolve and improve, suggesting moving to a concept of 'good enough governance' [46]. Particularly for water, Ashton states that good governance is a complex and multi-dimensional process guided by a philosophy or set of operating principles that facilitate interaction towards a desired situation or consequence [47]. This interaction is better achieved by the promotion of a trialogue among science, society and governments, who have specific and complementary roles in water management. Both perspectives sustain to some extent what the OECD states, regarding water governance as "a means to an end, not an end in itself" [19].

In relation to the above, a framework that we consider represents the idea of 'good enough water governance' as the one represented by the OECD through the Principles on Water Governance [19]. According to this organization, governance is good if "it can help to solve key water challenges, using a combination of bottom-up and top-down processes while fostering constructive state-society relations". These principles are grouped into three main dimensions: effectiveness, efficiency, and trust and engagement.

Governance must be effective, defining clear, sustainable water policy goals, to implement them and to meet expected targets. Among its principles, we highlight: "clearly allocate and distinguish roles and responsibilities for water policymaking, policy implementation, operational management and regulation, and foster co-ordination across these responsible authorities; encourage policy coherence through effective cross-sectoral coordination, especially between policies for water and the environment, health, energy, agriculture, industry, spatial planning and land use; and adapt the level of capacity of responsible authorities to the complexity of water challenges to be met, and to the set of competencies required to carry out their duties".

Governance must be efficient in terms of maximizing the benefits of sustainable water management at the least cost to society. Among its principles, we highlight: "produce, update, and share timely, consistent, comparable and policy-relevant water and water related data and information, and use it to guide, assess and improve water policy; ensure that sound water management regulatory frameworks are effectively implemented and enforced in pursuit of the public interest; and promote the adoption and implementation of innovative water governance practices across responsible authorities, levels of government and relevant stakeholders".

Governance should build trust and engagement, ensuring the inclusion of actors through democratic legitimacy and fairness for society. Among its principles, we highlight: "promote stakeholder engagement for informed and outcome-oriented contributions to water policy design and implementation; encourage water governance frameworks that help manage trade-offs across water users, rural and urban areas, and generations; and promote regular monitoring and evaluation of water policy and governance where appropriate, share the results with the public and make adjustments when needed".

The complexity of water-related problems has led to the emergence of different governance approaches which, in some way, aim to achieve a 'good enough water governance' process.

### *2.2. Governance Approaches*

### 2.2.1. Corporate Governance

Corporate governance (CG) is the system by which companies (whether public or private) are directed, governed and controlled, promoting transparency and responsibility between stakeholders that belong to corporations or other types of organizations [48]. The objective of this governance approach is to create a regulatory and operational framework, so that companies, owners and regulators are more transparent, accountable and efficient in the decision-making processes. In this sense, well-governed companies could have lower financial and non-financial costs associated with risks related to WS issues.

In terms of the relationship among actors, company's employees and suppliers take leadership in CG due to their importance in decision-making. They are related to a company that has intrinsic attributes: mission/vision, corporate culture (reflected in its values), nature of its financial structure (capital, incomes, debts and profits) and the sector/industry where it operates. Companies are also affected by other actors: (i) clients/customers demand products/services, including price and quality, and their preferences may be shaped by their attitude towards sustainability; (ii) governments act as regulators of companies' behavior, setting and overseeing the framework in which they operate, such as policies, prices/tariffs, taxes, water allocation, water planning, environmental laws and compliance regimes, among others; (iii) investors (shareholders, lenders and fund managers) provide finance, pursue responsible investment and can have their own systems for information access and verification, in relation to the company's behavior [48].

In the case of water, CG is closely linked to the concept of corporate water stewardship, which, within a IWRM framework, is regarded as "actions by water users themselves to contribute to the management of the shared resource towards public good outcomes" [49]. This concept is related to the role of corporations in water stewardship, which is in turn defined as "the use of water that is socially equitable, environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial, achieved through a stakeholder-inclusive process that involves site and catchment based actions" [50]. In these terms, we understand that an expected outcome of corporate water stewardship is to promote dialogue and collaboration between corporations and water users to achieve WS. Therefore, companies (as large water users) are especially asked to understand the impacts generated by water's use, to be part of the solution to water problems and to work collaboratively and transparently with other actors to have more sustainable management at the basin scale [51]. In this context, companies are asked to act as custodians of water as a public good [52].

### 2.2.2. Experimentalist Governance

Experimentalist governance (EG) has been defined as a recurrent process of goal setting and periodic revision based on learning, that is achieved through a comparison of the different alternatives existing under different contexts [53]. This governance approach corresponds to a form of coordination based on practice and experimentation, in the sense that "systematically provokes doubt about its own assumptions and practices [ . . . ] and treats all solutions as incomplete and corrigible" [42]. EG constantly adjusts its outcomes and means to achieve them through social learning, therefore, its main objective is to achieve a systematic way of constant reformulation and iteration [42].

In terms of the relationship among actors, EG promotes a decentralized and diverse structure, including various sources of resource and expertise [54]. EG, also called democratic experimentalism, would be a response to the demands from political objectives and methods that can no longer be pre-determined. Instead, they have to be discovered during the problem-solving process [55], requiring a high degree of commitment from the involved actors to advance in water management. In EG, actors performing at the lower-level are granted enough freedom to create place-based mechanisms to achieve all-encompassing framework outcomes, and sharing their experiences enables policy learning [56].

Some authors point out that EG is practiced through an iterative cycle, which consists of five steps [42,53]: first, actors discuss and agree about a common problem; second, local and central actors set overall goals and metrics for their implementation in a provisional way; third, local actors (public and/or private) are free to move towards the resolution of these objectives in any way they deem appropriate; fourth, due to their autonomy, local actors should regularly inform about their performance and participate in a peer review process to compare their results with those of others who use different means to achieve the same objectives. Finally, objectives, indicators and decision-making processes are periodically reviewed based on the challenges and opportunities revealed, and the cycle is repeated. In this sense, an expected outcome for EG is to perform this cycle in a coherent way, through active participation and deliberation; thus, leadership is taken by local actors in this process.

### 2.2.3. Polycentric Governance

Polycentric governance (PG) corresponds to complex systems where governance is related to different purposes, organizations and territories that jointly interact to form new systems, characterized by various decision centers at different levels [57]. According to Ostrom et al., initiators of the concept of polycentrism, this occurs when a large number of decision-making centers are formally independent from each other [58]. According to Ostrom, in a polycentric system the responsibilities at different levels of government (local, regional, national and international) are organized in such a way that they can efficiently provide public services at the local level [59]. In this sense, the main objective of PG is to effectively distribute decision-making at different levels to address water-related problems.

These different decision-making centers are composed by actors who are capable of resolving conflicts and regard each other in competitive and cooperative relationships [60]. PG distributes duties and capabilities in a way that perverse incentives and information issues at one level are counterbalanced by positive incentives and information competencies for actors at other levels [61]. This is possible through the development of nested institutions, which are norms and rules that are part of a broader system, so the local is connected to what is located on a larger scale [17]. In this sense, connection and consistency are expected outcomes for PG, since they help to achieve better responses than those observed at either highly centralized or fully decentralized structures [62].

Another characteristic of PG is that traditional and local knowledge is much more likely to be considered, since it encourages the exchange of knowledge at different spatialtemporal scales [63]. In this framework, it is important to emphasize that PG is connected to experience [64], since knowledge promotes social learning and therefore encourages trust and cooperation between actors. From this, decision-making centers are composed not only of formal bodies, but also by informal forms of organizations composed of water user groups [62,65]. In these terms, leadership in PG is more diverse than other governance perspectives, because decision-making is not concentrated in one specific group of actors and/or levels.

### 2.2.4. Metagovernance

Metagovernance (MG) is aimed towards the design and management of a composition of different processes related to three modes of governing: (i) hierarchical, (ii) market-based governance, and/or (iii) network-based governance, which differ in the degree of formality of institutions and actors involved and the logic of interactions between them [20,42,66]. This "governance of governance" approach [67] provides an understanding about how

these governance modes relate, interact and coordinate to achieve more effective water management.

The hierarchical way of governing water is common in state structures. The fundamental idea is to preserve and strengthen public responsibility to ensure water allocation to all sectors of society [68]. This mode of governance is reliable, highly predictable and based on technocratic knowledge and the expertise of those who advise those who govern [20].

Market-based governance favors water-related decision making in a decentralized way [67]. It is based on encouraging the regulatory function of the free market through competition between the different water users, favoring resource distribution based on the greatest economic value [69]. This approach uses formal and informal rules designed to guide the economic behavior of individuals, organizations and governments [70]. Water markets belong to this mode of governance, and its proponents argue that it has been increasingly used as a strategy to deal with water scarcity, allocating water in an economically efficient way [71].

Network-based governance corresponds to the management of complex networks, which are composed of a large number of actors at local, regional and national levels, constituting political groups to civil society [66]. In this mode of governance, actors from the state, markets and civil society interact through conflict negotiations, within a framework of formal and informal rules, norms, knowledge and social imaginaries, facilitating the creation of self-regulated policies [72].

These three modes of governance have a particular way of addressing the relationship among actors. In hierarchies, formal institutions of the state take center stage and the actors involved in water resources management mostly belong to the public sector. Markets, on the other hand, give less predominance to public actors in decision-making, considering the role of the state as a protector of property rights. In network governance, civil society actors are involved in resource management decisions through informal institutions, which are generally based on traditional knowledge, transmitted orally and formed at the local level [73].

The main objective of MG is to take advantage of each of the attributes of each mode of governance, relating and applying them in a joint and coordinated manner [20]. In this sense, the relationship among actors in MG becomes complex, therefore, the figure of a meta-governor (usually state agents) takes the lead [66]. It is important to highlight that this leadership is not observed at the decision-making level, but rather at the coordination level, to achieve the expected outcome to legitimize and balance this hybridization to face specific environmental problems [66].

### 2.2.5. Adaptive Governance

Adaptive governance (AG) is a process that aims to create transformability [74]; this means, the capacity to create new systems (i.e., new ways of living) when economic, ecological and/or social conditions have created an unsustainable system [40]. Its premise is that, for managing a system, it is necessary to know it in depth [75]. This form of governance provides an alternative to the conventional paradigm that separates the creation of knowledge (the research) from its application (management) and, therefore, has been promoted as a necessary basis for sustainable development [76–78]. In this sense, we understand that the expected outcome of AG is to achieve sustainable societies.

AG is regarded as an ongoing problem-solving process in which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are verified and reviewed in a dynamic and self-organized process of learning by doing [79]. The adaptive paradigm conceptualizes WS as a term that is constantly generating new objectives according to the changing biophysical, social and institutional challenges and opportunities, regarding WS as a process rather than an end to achieve [76]. AG invites decision-makers to leave the conventional paradigm behind, moving towards new ways of acting (integrated and informed), learning (part of doing and inclusive), understanding (social learning) and working together (integrated and inclusive). In this sense, AG encourages decision-making processes which are based on innovation to better address complex environmental problems [42].

In terms of the relationship among actors, AG also implies a broader range of stakeholders who play a role in decision-making, encouraging a form of social coordination which connects individuals, agencies and institutions at multiple organizational levels and supports flexible and learning-based approaches to water management [80]. Consequently, AG concentrate leadership on the groups of actors that provide innovative ways of managing water, however, they are challenged to provide feedback and make informed and conscious decisions [81].

### **3. Methods: Assessing Strengths and Failures of Each Governance Approach**

Based on the features of each governance approach, we identified the main strengths and failures in order to integrate their contributions to a "good enough water governance". The analysis of each governance approach shows similitudes and differences in key elements that may contribute to the OECD water governance dimensions. The differences among their focus, leadership and expected outcomes (Table 1) highlight the interdependency that exists between the different actors that compose a river basin. From this, we understand that the association among actors and their involvement in water governance is fundamental to achieve the expected outcomes.


### **Table 1.** Key elements of each governance approach.

Strengths observed in different governance approaches can mean opportunities for achieving a "good enough water governance" that advances towards WS; however, they could present some weaknesses resulting in governance failures, defined as "the ineffectiveness of governance goals, a governance framework or the management thereof, to achieve policy goals" [82]. Specifically, for WS, a governance failure occurs when the institutional dimensions in water management and decision-making do not effectively consider the needs of all actors (especially the most vulnerable), encompassing administrative economic and public policy dimensions [83]. Taking this into consideration, governance fails when it does not consider different perspectives in a decision-making process that involves institutional and organizational aspects, which are reflected through mechanisms and policies related to water management. Thus, coordination at multiple levels must be considered.

### **4. Results and Discussion**

Figure 1 illustrates the analyzed approaches and their relationship to the concept of "good enough water governance", which is embodied by the three water governance dimensions proposed by the OECD [19]. In this figure, the colored areas represent the strengths that help each governance theory to contribute to the achievement of these dimensions, while the white areas represent those dimensions that are not covered by each governance approach, due to potential failures. These approaches can be adequately integrated if they are combined to overcome the challenges of its exclusive application.

**Figure 1.** Water governance has different approaches on three dimensions proposed by the OECD, which can be adequately integrated if they are combined to overcome the challenges of its exclusive application. Source: Adapted from the OECD [19].

> Figure 1 shows the relationship among the five governance approaches. The blue area represents CG, whose main objective is to create a regulatory and operational framework, so that companies, owners and regulators are more transparent, accountable and efficient in the decision-making processes. The main strengths of CG include the relationship between a company, its shareholders and society, as well as the promotion of fairness, transparency and accountability, the use of mechanisms to "govern" managers and the guarantee that the interests of key stakeholder groups are considered with the actions taken by the company [84]. Furthermore, the opportunity to engage companies in CG includes the consideration of issues about the regulatory environment, appropriate risk management measures and the responsibility of the senior manager and the board of directors [85].

> A condition that occurs in corporate governance systems is that ownership and control are separated: the former lies with distant and diffuse shareholders, while the latter is exercised by hired managers [86]. This could mean a strength in terms of enabling economies of scale when large firms are functioning and the hiring of talented and highly qualified managers; however, this separation could enhance problems such as incentive misalignment, managers following self-serving behaviors and concentration of power in managers who lack the necessary knowledge to perform in changing environments [87].

This governance failure could be particularly important when CG seeks to safeguard accountability and respond to WS problems.

Another issue in CG is related to privatization of water and sanitation services, which are essential for other actors in the river basin, who act as customers/clients. Taking into consideration that the most economically efficient solution is not necessarily the most ethical one, company's activities must consider political economy and equity factors to deliver socially desirable outcomes in water management [85,88,89]. In this sense, CG could be appropriate in river basins that have an institutional framework in which the state plays an active role as regulator [89].

CG could be a good alternative to achieve effectiveness and efficiency. In relation to effectiveness, the clear allocation and coordination across responsible authorities and the clear distinguishing of roles and responsibilities can be observed if companies' activities are regulated by the state and take responsibilities as custodians of water. In terms of efficiency, companies usually have financial resources to update and share water-related data and information to guide, assess and improve water policy. However, some of its governance failures do not allow effectiveness to be completely addressed, in relation to achieving cross-sectoral coordination between environmental policies, other sectors (i.e., agriculture, energy, health) and the corporation's activities, and in relation to achieving the capacity to meet complex water challenges that need other actors' involvement. In terms of efficiency, CG could fail to ensure that regulatory frameworks are implemented and enforced in pursuit of the public interest, and it is not forced to adopt innovative water practices. The practice of CG sometimes becomes an obstacle to addressing trust and engagement, when CG does not involve the needs of local actors that do not perform as clients/customers. The lack of capacity to address the latter two dimensions can be solved if it is complemented by EG (purple area), since it promotes innovative practices and the active involvement of local actors in water management.

The main strength of EG is its deliberation. It promotes openness to reconsider settled practices and use the experiences of actors and their reactions to current problems to generate novel possibilities for solutions [53]. This attribute is suitable for dealing with the complexity and uncertainty of climate change effects, because it takes into consideration the local social–ecological conditions of the river basin and can adapt faster than other governance regimes. Other advantages of EG are: it provides space for diversity by adapting common goals to varied local contexts instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all solution; it creates a system for coordinated learning from local experimentation, comparing different approaches to advance to the same outcome; the provisional character of the goals and the means for achieving them are revised by experience, thus problems identified in one phase of implementation can be amended in the next iteration [90].

A failure in EG could appear when actors' interests become too diverse to promote the common interest, thus additional incentives are needed to engage these actors in collective problem solving [91]. In this sense, the transformative attribute of EG depends on other forms of governance (i.e., hierarchies) to be effective [91]. In this case, as we explain below, the hierarchical component and the coordination attributes of MG provide a good alternative to support EG.

In relation to the OECD water governance dimensions, EG could be a good alternative to achieve efficiency, trust and engagement. In terms of efficiency, EG could promote the obtention of policy-relevant water-related data and information to guide, assess and improve water policy; in addition, due to its experimental approaches, it helps to promote the adoption of innovative water governance practices. In terms of trust and engagement, due to its deliberative process, it could take local actors' opinions into consideration to promote stakeholder engagement in water policy design and implementation and promote regular monitoring and evaluation where appropriate, and to share results and make adjustments where needed. However, the diversity of actors' interests does not allow EG to address effectiveness, since it becomes an obstacle to clearly allocate and distinguish roles and responsibilities, and to foster cross-sectoral coordination and thus adapt the level of

capacity to respond to complex water challenges. Also, EG cannot be completely efficient, because the possible lack of coordination could create regulatory frameworks that do not represent the public interest. This affects the capacity to overcome trade-offs across water users, so EG cannot entirely address trust and engagement. In spite of these issues, the lack of effectiveness can be solved if EG is complemented with PG (orange area), since it promotes coherence and soundness.

The main objective of PG is to distribute decision-making. The main strengths of PG are the promotion of structures where actors can innovate through experimentation and learning, and the distribution of decision-making authority reduces costs of enforcing rules by reaching legitimacy at local levels of governance [62]. In addition, PG's structures promote collaboration among policy stakeholders and equitably distribute the resources generated by policy interactions [92]. Bringing autonomy in decision-making at the local level can enhance reciprocity and voluntary cooperation and reduce failures in the implementation of rules and norms, compared to the high cost associated with the use of command-and-control mechanisms [60]. This autonomy can strengthen the sense of self-determination, and thus generate motivation to cooperate with the decisions made [93].

Besides their attributes, PG has some associated failures, such as high transaction costs related to coordination, especially in larger or geographically dispersed systems [94]. Another governance failure that could emerge is the dispersion of responsibilities, which can be challenging in terms of holding decision-makers accountable for their performance [94]. Meuleman describes some cases where dialogues culminate in never-ending talks without results, and where there were too many demands from quite a small group of participants [82]. Pahl-Wostl et al. state that problems of accountability may arise in complex polycentric systems when rules do not match with the decentralized decision-making processes [36].

In relation to the OECD water governance dimensions, PG can help to achieve effectiveness, efficiency and trust and engagement; in terms of effectiveness, due to the promotion of nested institutions and collaboration, PG brings coherence through cross-sectorial coordination among different users. PG's mutual monitoring and learning mechanisms [95] allow adaptation of the level of capacity to complex water challenges. In this sense, as we mentioned above, PG's coherence could help to avoid EG failures, because it helps to reach a common understanding of challenges and opportunities across national, regional and local levels, valuing different local experiences. In terms of efficiency, PG ensures that water management regulatory frameworks are effectively implemented in pursuit of the public interest, and in terms of creating trust and engagement, PG promotes stakeholder engagement in water policy design and implementation.

However, PG cannot be completely effective, because it could present failures related to the distinguishment of clear roles and responsibility for policy implementation, due to the numerous decision-making centers and the dispersed responsibility. In terms of efficiency, the characteristics of PG do not ensure the production and updating of relevant water data or the implementation of innovative water practices. However, these could be easily implemented if PG governance structures followed the iterative cycle of EG (identify problem—set broad goals—locals implement—report and peer review—revision of goals) and the continuous focus on monitoring. In terms of trust and engagement, the excessive dispersion of roles and responsibilities and potential accountability problems can be a problem to encourage water governance frameworks that help manage trade-offs among users. In this sense, MG (green area), through the adequate combination of hierarchies, markets and networks, could promote the reduction of trade-offs, as is explained below.

The hybridization attribute of MG allows each governance mode to be taken advantage of. Hierarchies are sometimes used to solve conflicts that require immediate actions and networks can develop more solutions to the same problem, while markets have been used to encourage civil society's involvement [66]. Investing in network-based governance has also been considered for creating trust of different actors, to increase the acceptability of hierarchical interventions when crises have arisen [72]. Also, a hierarchical intervention

has been promoted when "never-ending talks" have occurred in network processes, and a network intervention has been used when a solution to a problem has not been broadly accepted through a hierarchical process [66,82]. In this sense, MG promotes democratic, participatory and context-specific decision-making through the coordination of collective action in water resource management.

MG can have some failures related to the inefficiency of efforts to combine hierarchical, network and market governance. The underlying culture influences the feasibility of certain forms of hybridization. For instance, in a consensus society, it is very difficult to implement a hierarchical mode of governance [66]. At the sectoral level, every policy division may have its own preferred governance mode, obstructing its coordination. For instance, a ministry of economic affairs may prefer a market-based governance style, while a ministry of environment may have an inclination for a hierarchical style (norms, command-andcontrol mechanisms, standards). From this, metagovernors have to be informed about the history, current dynamics, possible futures of a decision-making process, organizational characteristics and the type of policy problem [66]. This means that metagovernors have to be reflexive, understanding that knowing about a system could help them to adapt to constant changes and, therefore, combine and switch governance modes in a flexible way.

In relation to the OECD water governance dimensions, MG encourages effectiveness, efficiency and trust and engagement. In terms of effectiveness, MG promotes the clear allocation and distinguishment of roles and responsibilities for water policymaking and coordination across responsible authorities, policy coherence through cross-sectoral coordination among different users and adjusts the level of capacity to address complex water challenges. In terms of efficiency, the role of the metagovernor in MG seeks to ensure that water management regulatory frameworks are effectively implemented in pursuit of the public interest. In terms of trust and engagement, through a suitable hybridization of hierarches, markets and networks, MG tends to encourage governance frameworks that help manage trade-offs among users, areas and generations. However, the main goal of MG is to coordinate and balance hierarchies, markets and networks, therefore, in terms of efficiency, the production and update of water relevant data and the use of innovative water governance practices do not seem to be a priority. Governance failures could impede MG's complete achievement of trust and engagement, because of the potential difficulty to, for instance, engage stakeholders that used to organize in networks and do not accept hierarchical organizations or market-based instruments to solve a particular problem. Trust and engagement also relate to the promotion of regular monitoring and evaluation of water policy and governance, and MG could achieve it through the support of the innovative and flexible characteristics of AG (red area). AG could help MG in its decision-making process to react effectively to the social–ecological characteristics of the changing environment, achieving efficiency and trust and engagement.

In AG, decision makers develop the capacity to confront the high variability of uncertainty, which is characteristic of complex social–ecological systems [96]. AG systems self-organize as network structures that connect stakeholders at multiple organizational levels, where key persons have leadership, trust, vision and meaning and create a learning environment where knowledge and experiences develop a common understanding in decision making [79].

AG is focused on experiential and experimental social learning, as well as collaboration, which is inclusive and observed at horizontal and vertical levels. Both features are necessary to understand and respond to complex social–ecological systems. This is possible through the development of innovative institutional arrangements and incentives across diverse scales of space and time, monitoring and assessment interventions and opportunities to link science and policy [97]. In this sense, AG encompasses the innovation attributes of EG.

It is important to mention some similarities among AG and PG and the network-based governance mode in MG. PG systems are regarded as complex adaptive systems with emergent, self-organizing properties [61], which is coincident to some statements about AG relying on polycentric institutional arrangements operating at multiple scales [65,93]. Additionally, AG and polycentricity are supported by network structures [80,94] and AG has been considered as a variation of the network-based governance mode in MG [82]. In this sense, AG relies on PG and network structures to achieve sustainable societies, and, in turn, assists PG to adopt innovative water governance practices and regular monitoring and evaluation.

AG is the governance perspective that most encompasses the OECD water governance dimensions. It addresses effectiveness in terms of policy coherence through cross-sectoral co-ordination among different users and adapting the level of capacity to complex water challenges. It addresses efficiency in terms of produce, update and share policy-relevant water-related data as information to guide, assess and improve water policy, ensuring that water management regulatory frameworks are effectively implemented in pursuit of the public interest and promoting the adoption and implementation of innovative water governance practices. It addresses trust and engagement in terms that promote stakeholder engagement in water policy design and implementation and promote regular monitoring and evaluation where appropriate, to share results and make adjustments where needed.

Although AG has major attributes to be regarded as a "good enough water governance", some critiques have arisen in terms of operationalizing the theory. AG is regarded as a process that is often neither very precise nor stable and does not give clear guidance on follow-up actions [98]. Some scholars state that AG should go beyond understanding how things are, to focus on understanding how things ought to be, since it lacks the use of repeated patterns that could help to understand how governance can stop failing [99]. In addition, it is not very clear whether AG could address unequal power relations underpinning governance structures and coordination of institutions [98]. In this sense, the coordination attributes of MG could be a complement of AG to achieve a clear distinguishment of roles and responsibilities for water policymaking and coordination across responsible authorities, and to encourage governance frameworks that help manage tradeoffs among users, areas and generations. Therefore, if AG is complemented with MG in this way, it is possible to completely achieve effectiveness, efficiency and trust and engagement.

Taking all of the above into consideration, it is important to highlight the contribution that each governance theory can provide towards WS in a river basin. AG and EG are adequate to respond effectively and generate resilience towards uncertainty, mitigating climate change effects through innovation. Polycentrism shows us the importance of informal institutions that have been created through local knowledge, which is suitable for water management at the river basin scale, and which are generally invisible due to the predominance of formal institutions, which are generally acting at the macro level. MG expresses that a good coordination of different modes of governing water can generate adequate responses to specific problems. On the other hand, CG promotes that large corporations (that generally consume more water) take a more active role in the conservation of ecosystem services.

Taking this into consideration, depending on their social-ecological characteristics, there are problems that could be solved using a combination of two or three governance perspectives, while others would need to use a combination of the five governance perspectives that we show in this paper (Figure 2).

Figure 2 illustrates two possible combinations of governance approaches aimed at addressing specific WS issues. For instance, a river basin where corporations are the major users could need a CG to promote their involvement in water management and act as custodians of water. CG, in this case, can be complemented with an EG that promotes innovative practices in corporative stewardship as well as, in the case of corporation that perform at the national and international levels, the inclusions of local perspectives (Figure 2a). On the other hand, complex problems that need adaptation and transformation in accordance with the changing environment need an AG approach that promotes polycentric structures coordinated by a metagovernor that has enough knowledge to hybridize different governance modes to be flexible and to adapt (Figure 2b).

**Figure 2.** Two possible combinations of governance approaches to address specific WS issues. (**a**) combination of CG and EG; (**b**) combination of PG, MG and AG. Source: adapted from the OECD [19].

### **5. Conclusions**

To advance towards water security, IRBM must recognize the multiple interconnections and associations that exist between ecological and socioeconomic systems. This should be determined by a process of sustainable and multi-scaling governance, which considers freshwater ecosystems as complex social–ecological systems and has varied responses to change and uncertainty, and where power and responsibility must be shared between water resource users and government entities in order to achieve more collaborative and coordinated actions that can better adapt to uncertainty.

In this study we observed that a combination between MG and AG could encompass the OECD water governance dimensions, complementing each other to improve strengths and to overcome failures. In this sense, an integration of these governance theories can achieve "good enough water governance", in terms of understanding it as a process and a means to operatize IRBM and advance towards WS. However, although CG, EG and PG do not encompass the three water governance dimensions, their combined application could be considered according to the problem to be solved (i.e., to achieve companies' engagement, perform local innovative practices, etc.). This integration must be dynamic, understanding that it will not necessarily work for all realities, so it is important for decision-makers to consider the context-specific ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of each territory.

There is still no consensus regarding a good water governance; however, we highlight that we can achieve a "good enough water governance" system, focusing on the process and integrating different governance approaches that have been proposed over time, which differ in their objectives, interaction between actors involved and how power and responsibility are distributed between them. For a "good enough water governance" process to exist, more instances must be generated for debate and participation, to include

these different perspectives in a decision-making process that responds adequately to the social–ecological context. We invite decision makers at the national, regional and local levels to review the different proposals that exist to govern water, and to consider that focusing on one sole approach could generate water insecurity situations related to the minimal observation capacity offered by a small number of actors.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, N.J., R.F. and R.D.P.O.; investigation, N.J.; resources, N.J., R.F. and R.D.P.O.; writing—original draft preparation, N.J.; writing—review and editing, N.J., R.F. and R.D.P.O.; supervision, R.F. and R.D.P.O.; project administration, N.J.; funding acquisition, R.F. and R.D.P.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by ANID/FONDAP/15130015, and ANID PIA/BASAL FB0002.

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

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors acknowledge the support given by the Doctoral Programme of Environmental Sciences, Continental Aquatic Systems, Universidad de Concepción and project PATSER/ANID/R20F0002.

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

### **References**


66. Meuleman, L. *Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets*; Contributions to Management Science; Physica-Verlag HD: Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; ISBN 978-3-7908-2053-9.


### *Article* **A Novel Method to Assess the Impact of a Government's Water Strategy on Research: A Case Study of Azraq Basin, Jordan**

**Mohammad Alqadi 1,\* , Ala Al Dwairi <sup>1</sup> , Sudeh Dehnavi <sup>2</sup> , Armin Margane <sup>3</sup> , Marwan Al Raggad <sup>4</sup> , Mohammad Al Wreikat <sup>5</sup> and Gabriele Chiogna 1,6**


**Citation:** Alqadi, M.; Al Dwairi, A.; Dehnavi, S.; Margane, A.; Al Raggad, M.; Al Wreikat, M.; Chiogna, G. A Novel Method to Assess the Impact of a Government's Water Strategy on Research: A Case Study of Azraq Basin, Jordan. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 2138. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w13152138

Academic Editors: Fernando António Leal Pacheco, Luís Filipe Sanches Fernandes and Athanasios Loukas

Received: 4 May 2021 Accepted: 28 July 2021 Published: 3 August 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

**Abstract:** Water scarcity drives governments in arid and semi-arid regions to promote strategies for improving water use efficiency. Water-related research generally also plays an important role in the same countries and for the same reason. However, it remains unclear how to link the implementation of new government strategies and water-related research. This article's principal objective is to present a novel approach that defines water-related research gaps from the point of view of a government strategy. The proposed methodology is based on an extensive literature review, followed by a systematic evaluation of the topics covered both in grey and peer-reviewed literature. Finally, we assess if and how the different literature sources contribute to the goals of the water strategy. The methodology was tested by investigating the impact of the water strategy of Jordan's government (2008–2022) on the research conducted in the Azraq Basin, considering 99 grey and peer-reviewed documents. The results showed an increase in the number of water-related research documents from 37 published between 1985 and 2007 to 62 published between 2008 and 2018. This increase should not, however, be seen as a positive impact of increased research activity from the development of Jordan's water strategy. In fact, the increase in water-related research activity matches the increasing trend in research production in Jordan generally. Moreover, the results showed that only about 80% of the documents align with the goals identified in the water strategy. In addition, the distribution of the documents among the different goals of the strategy is heterogeneous; hence, research gaps can be identified, i.e., goals of the water-strategy that are not addressed by any of the documents sourced. To foster innovative and demand-based research in the future, a matrix was developed that linked basin-specific research focus areas (RFAs) with the MWI strategy topics. In doing so, the goals that are not covered by a particular RFA are highlighted. This analysis can inspire researchers to develop and apply new topics in the Azraq Basin to address the research gaps and strengthen the connection between the RFAs and the strategy topics and goals. Moreover, the application of the proposed methodology can motivate future research to become demand-driven, innovative, and contribute to solving societal challenges.

**Keywords:** research gap; water strategy; Azraq Basin; water management; water governance

### **1. Introduction**

Water scarcity is a severe problem for Jordan [1–3] and undermines the country's societal and economic development [4]. Research in the water sector is important and

necessary. Essential investments in water-related research have been made using internal funding and international aid [5]. Although collaboration between academia and decisionmakers at different levels, from governmental institutions through to water works and private stakeholders owing water rights, offer multiple benefits for both [6], the impacts of new water-related policies on research outcomes and vice versa remains unclear.

Academia could provide policymakers and practitioners with evidence-based knowledge from the research findings that directly feed the decision-making process [7]. Even if some research findings do not directly contribute to the decision-making process, those findings can indirectly affect policy development and practitioners' actions [8]. Therefore, decision-makers are advised to use evidence in making policy decisions [9,10] and should consider research findings in the policy development process [11].

Although there is a growing emphasis on research-based policy decisions, such as "research utilization", "knowledge transfer", "knowledge brokering", and "evidencebased policy" [12], factors such as financial constraints, shifting timescales, and decision makers' experiential knowledge may reduce the direct influence of research evidence on decision making [13]. In this work, the aim is to present a methodology based on an extensive literature review and analysis to evaluate the impact of the Jordan's water strategy (2008–2022), developed by the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, on research production. The water strategy contains a set of goals to achieve a better management of the kingdom's water resources to achieve the vision of the ministry in 2022. In particular, the focus is on the identification of research gaps that have not been accounted for during the period of implementation of the strategy.

One of the aims of conducting and publishing this research is to identify research gaps and propose ways to advance and harness knowledge in order to fill these gaps [14]. The definition of a research gap is context-dependent and can differ from topic to topic [15]. In general, Robinson et al. [16] refer to a research gap as "When the ability of the systematic reviewer to draw conclusions is limited" [16] (p. 1). Accordingly, a research gap is deemed to be a missing body of information, information that is needed to address a specific and pressing research question [17]. Understanding the nature of research gaps and their origin is regarded as the most critical step in producing good-quality research [18].

Moreover, while substantial methodological guidance already exists to identify the scope, conceptualization, analysis, and further synthesis of a "systematic literature review", a methodology to identify research gaps from these systematic reviews is still a matter of debate [18,19]. Based on the works of Müller-Bloch and Kranz [17] and Robinson et al. [16], Miles [18] identified seven types of literature gaps, namely: (1) evidence gaps arise when new-found research contradicts the conclusions of the previous study; hence, a need to collect more evidence to arrive at a concise conclusion; (2) knowledge gaps indicate the lack of knowledge (e.g., theories, methodologies) in a particular field or the delivery of some unexpected results from studies; (3) practical-knowledge gaps convey the need for new research when there is a difference between actual professional practices and research findings on a specific topic; (4) methodological gaps explore the conflict that may arise between research methods, the effects of research methods on research results, and the lack of research methods for a specific study area; (5) empirical gaps arise when a particular study area or topic has not been previously explored empirically in past research; (6) theoretical gaps explore the conflict that may arise when a certain topic is explored with a single theory or when one theory becomes superior to other theories; and (7) population gaps arise when a certain group of the population categorized based on race, ethnicity, economical status, etc. is underrepresented in the research.

Our work aims to present a comprehensive methodology for defining and identifying water-related research gaps, which can support demand-driven research, inspire new research topics to transform future research to become imaginative and innovative, and help the government to achieve the goals set within its strategy. Furthermore, the methodology developed helps to show the heterogeneous impact of the governmental strategy on various research focus areas (RFAs) and highlights the scientific fields contributing the most to the

(m asl)).

**3. Methodology** 

*3.1. Collection Process* 

**2. Study Area** 

government and academia.

governmental strategy. The methodology was developed to evaluate the impact of Jordan's water strategy [20] on research involving the Azraq Basin (specifically) but can be applied to evaluate any context of impacts between government and academia. A total of twelve river basins exist in Jordan [21]. The Azraq Basin is located in the north-eastern region of Jordan and covers approximately 12,700 km2; about 94% of the basin lies in Jordan, while about 5% and 1% are in Syria and Saudi Arabia, respectively.

governmental strategy on various research focus areas (RFAs) and highlights the scientific fields contributing the most to the governmental strategy. The methodology was developed to evaluate the impact of Jordan's water strategy [20] on research involving the Azraq Basin (specifically) but can be applied to evaluate any context of impacts between

### **2. Study Area** The basin is the second-largest basin in size and the second most exploited after the

*Water* **2021**, *13*, 2138 3 of 30

A total of twelve river basins exist in Jordan [21]. The Azraq Basin is located in the north-eastern region of Jordan and covers approximately 12,700 km<sup>2</sup> ; about 94% of the basin lies in Jordan, while about 5% and 1% are in Syria and Saudi Arabia, respectively. The basin is the second-largest basin in size and the second most exploited after the Amman-Zarqa basin [21,22]. Topographically, the basin is located within the highland region in Jordan, where the elevation ranges from 490 m above sea level in the Azraq Mudflat area, in the center of the basin, to more than 1300 m above sea level on Jabal Druze area in Syria (Figure 1). Jabal Druze is considered the main recharge area of basalt aquifer [23–26]. The Azraq Basin climate is arid to semi-arid, with a dry and hot season extending from May to September, with a wet and cold season extends from October to April [27–29]. The primary water resource of the basin is categorized as renewable groundwater sources [21], and its importance is threefold: Firstly, besides supplying the Azraq area, the basin provides drinking water for major urban areas in Jordan, mainly Amman and Zarqa cities, [30–33]. Secondly, it provides water for agricultural activities surrounding the basin area [21,34–36]. Finally, the basin's ecological importance is manifested through the Azraq wetland, a prosperous provider of ecosystem services in the area, which has deteriorated over time due to over-pumping of groundwater resources [37,38]. Amman-Zarqa basin [21,22]. Topographically, the basin is located within the highland region in Jordan, where the elevation ranges from 490 m above sea level in the Azraq Mudflat area, in the center of the basin, to more than 1300 m above sea level on Jabal Druze area in Syria (Figure 1). Jabal Druze is considered the main recharge area of basalt aquifer [23–26]. The Azraq Basin climate is arid to semi-arid, with a dry and hot season extending from May to September, with a wet and cold season extends from October to April [27– 29]. The primary water resource of the basin is categorized as renewable groundwater sources [21], and its importance is threefold: Firstly, besides supplying the Azraq area, the basin provides drinking water for major urban areas in Jordan, mainly Amman and Zarqa cities, [30–33]. Secondly, it provides water for agricultural activities surrounding the basin area [21,34–36]. Finally, the basin's ecological importance is manifested through the Azraq wetland, a prosperous provider of ecosystem services in the area, which has deteriorated over time due to over-pumping of groundwater resources [37,38].

**Figure 1.** The elevation and extension of the Azraq Basin (the elevation unit is meters above sea level **Figure 1.** The elevation and extension of the Azraq Basin (the elevation unit is meters above sea level (m.a.s.l.)).

Between December 2019 and January 2020, the research team led a one-month field

research trip/excursion to Jordan. The trip/excursion consisted of 18 unstructured

### **3. Methodology**

### *3.1. Collection Process*

Between December 2019 and January 2020, the research team led a one-month field research trip/excursion to Jordan. The trip/excursion consisted of 18 unstructured interviews with current and retired employees of the Jordanian Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) and employees of cooperation projects between the MWI and international partners. The visit aimed to (a) understand the current archiving process of project reports in the MWI, (b) collect the final reports that were conducted under the umbrella of the MWI, and (c) propose the development of an archiving system for final reports, taking into consideration the recommendations of the MWI and international partners. We have been able to collect 2200 digital documents (e.g., final reports, report sections, letters, incomplete reports, presentations, or report drafts) present in the Ministry's record, spanning from 1963 to 2019.

In addition to the collected research from MWI, grey literature was searched online through Google searching, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) engines, and the websites of the MWI and the MWI partners' websites (e.g., Helmholtz-Zentrum Umweltforschung GmbH (UFZ), Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)). In this work, we consider only conference proceedings and final reports from the government and their partners as grey literature. Dissertations, Master's and Bachelor's theses, and posters are excluded in the review and analysis (Table 1).

**Table 1.** Type of literature included/excluded in this study.


The search for peer-reviewed publications was collected using Google Scholar (GS), Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) search engines. The literature collection process started with GS, given that it is the most comprehensive web search engine for literature, where it contains 95% and 92% of literature that exists in WoS and Scopus, respectively [39,40]. To ensure the search remained as vast as possible, queries were used with general keywords (e.g., "Azraq Basin" OR "East\* Jordan" AND "Water"). The obtained results were reviewed, and only research results related to water in the Azraq Basin were added to the literature inventory up to the year 2018; research published in and after the year 2018 was excluded. The same procedure was repeated using Scopus and WoS search engines, utilizing Publish and Perich 7 software to search and analyze academic citations [41].

### *3.2. Analysis Process*

The MWI published the "Jordan's Water Strategy 2008–2022" report [20], aiming to ensure the availability of water for people, businesses, and nature by accomplishing a set of goals within the topics of water demand, water supply, institutional reform, water for irrigation, wastewater, and alternative water resources in the year 2022. To achieve the objective of this paper, the goals of the collected research were compared to the water strategy goals, highlighting whether or not these research goals contributed to one or more of the MWI water strategy goals (Table 2). Some of the MWI strategy goals are excluded from the analysis as they focused on a specific study area different to the Azraq Basin. For example, the MWI water strategy goal 6.b., which states, "Desalination projects at the Red Sea are operational", cannot be compared with the collected research goals because this goal targets the Red Sea; consequently, we excluded goal 6.b. from the analysis of this paper.

In the analysis process, we followed the framework that Müller-Bloch [17] introduced to identify research gaps. Research gap results were first identified by synthesizing a systematic literature review of the subject by using straightforward localization methods such as the chart method. This method organizes the reviewed literature into a chart according to the MWI strategy goals. A goal in the chart can be associated with one or more literature documents, indicating that at least one document addresses this goal, or it can be left empty, indicating a research gap. After locating a research gap, verification processes continued by double-checking if no research could be sourced to fill the gaps; finally, the goals were presented according to the number of documents that were associated with each goal. According to the classification of Miles [18], the comparison between the conducted research and the MWI goals allow the identification of a "practical-knowledge gap".

Any MWI goal that registers no contribution by the collected research is considered a research gap, and any research that contributed to the MWI strategy goals is regarded as potentially demand-driven research. To better assess the topic of demand-driven research, a comparison was conducted between the collected studies before and after the implementation of the MWI strategy, to highlight if a change in the research direction towards the MWI goals could be identified.

To study the variable impact on research involving the basin from different types of research institutions (i.e., academic, non-academic, national, and international), the peer-reviewed studies were first categorized based on the affiliations of the author. Such a procedure was only applied for peer-reviewed literature because the affiliation of each of the authors of specific grey literature is not always defined. Furthermore, the specific research focus of each study was then identified and listed according to nine main RFAs: agriculture, energy, hydrogeological field measurements, geophysics, modeling, remote sensing, socio-economy, laboratory soil sample analyses, and laboratory water sample analyses (Table 3). It is noted that the subdivision depends on the available literature, and it can vary in different catchments. The selection of the RFA is to some extent arbitrary and it is based on the main keywords and topics covered in the analyzed documents. The applied methodology, however, is not significantly affected by this choice. In fact, the key point of defining RFAs is not to identify which discipline is contributing more or less to the strategy goals, but to classify the available contribution to the goals from different communities of researchers and in terms of interdisciplinarity. Each document will have only one primary RFA and can have several secondary RFAs. The number of conducted studies were compared within each RFA before and after implementing the MWI strategy. Additionally, each RFA was categorized according to which MWI topic it targeted. A schematic diagram of the methodology we followed is shown in Figure 2.

As stated previously, the collected research did not include studies conducted after the year 2018, because the MWI published a new strategy in 2016 for the period 2016–2025, which modified the older strategy. Considering the typical time needed for writing and publishing scientific works, it was assumed that the impact of the old strategy may still have an effect on water-related research up to two years after the publication of the new strategy.

### **Table 2.** The topics and goals of MWI strategy (2008–2022).



**Analyses** Any study related to surface or groundwater samples to conduct chemical, biological or physical analyses.

**Table 3.** Description of the categorization of the research focus areas (RFAs) in the collected studies.

**Figure 2.** Schematic figure for the methodology we followed in this paper**. Figure 2.** Schematic figure for the methodology we followed in this paper.

### **4. Results**

### *4.1. Collection Process*

It was noticeable that there was no systematic way for archiving project reports at the MWI. When a project is concluded within the MWI or with international partners, the final report is usually submitted to the principal employee from the MWI (focal person of the project). At times, the final reports would be submitted to more than one person. Subsequently, these submitted reports remained scattered in different departments of the institution and were not allocated to a specific storage location, system, or person. For example, to have access to a specific report, the project's focal person must be identified and contacted to retrieve a copy of the report. In some instances, the employee may have already retired, which made the retrieval process difficult.

A total of 2200 documents were collected from the MWI. From these files, 26 final reports related to water resources in the Azraq Basin were extracted. This number is not to be taken as a representation of the total number of final reports on the Azraq Basin in the MWI, given that some reports were difficult to access because they were not available as digital copies. In addition, three reports were recovered through online research, as well as nine conference proceeding articles, totaling 37 grey literature sources. During the collection process, 62 peer-reviewed articles were recovered online, encompassing the period 1980 to 2018.

Figure 3a shows that the production of research documents increased between 1985 and 2020. The oldest grey literature report included was published in 1985 by Rimawi and Udluft [42], and the oldest peer-reviewed article included in this analysis was from 1992 by El-Waheidi et al. [43]. Overall, it is observed that peer-reviewed research production in the Azraq Basin has continuously increased since 1998. However, the only exception was for the year 2011, with no research relating to the basin published. The years 2014 and 2016 evidenced the largest number of conducted research studies (both grey literature reports and peer-reviewed articles combined) with nine studies. The year 2018 had the highest number of peer-reviewed articles, with eight published articles compared to all other years since 1985. Conversely, the years 1996, 2014, and 2015 showed the highest grey literature number with four studies per year.

This result is consistent with overall research production in Jordan (Figure 3b). According to the database of Scopus, the total number of produced studies in Jordan increased from 139 to 4456 between 1985 and 2018. These studies consider all topics, including waterrelated topics. The percentage of studies that include the word "water" in the title, abstract, and keywords ranges between 8% and 16% over the whole period. At the same time, the number of studies that include the word "water" in the title, abstract, and keywords increased from 21 to 376. Therefore, the increasing trend in research production in the Azraq Basin follows the same upward trend of the number of studies produced in Jordan from all disciplines.

Most of the peer-reviewed publications were led by academic institutions. In 42 publications, only academic institutions contributed to the publication, while 12 publications were conducted by a combination of both academic and non-academic institutions. Conversely, nine publications were led by members from non-academic institutions, with only one of them in cooperation with an academic institution (Figure 4a). Academic international and national institutions published 11 and 43 studies, respectively. In contrast, non-academic international and national institutions published only three and six studies (Figure 4b).

### *4.2. Analysis Process*

The analysis process categorized the documents based on their contribution to the MWI strategy goals and their research focus. The results showed that a total of 79 documents addressed at least one of the MWI strategy goals, 29 before and 50 after the water strategy; 20 documents are not aligned to the MWI strategy (8 before and 12 after the implementation of the water strategy). Additionally, the number of RFAs that were considered within each

research varies between one and five focuses. Figure 5 shows a summary of the results of the conducted analysis process of peer-reviewed and grey literature. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 2138 9 of 30

**Figure 3.** (**a**) Number of grey and peer-reviewed literature spanning the period (1985–2020). (**b**) Total number of documents that exist in the Scopus database produced by Jordanian institutions (blue column), percentage of number of documents stating the word "water" in the body of the document (orange line), percentage of number of documents stating the word "water" in a title, abstract or keyword of the document (grey line)**. Figure 3.** (**a**) Number of grey and peer-reviewed literature spanning the period (1985–2020). (**b**) Total number of documents that exist in the Scopus database produced by Jordanian institutions (blue column), percentage of number of documents stating the word "water" in the body of the document (orange line), percentage of number of documents stating the word "water" in a title, abstract or keyword of the document (grey line). *Water* **2021**, *13*, 2138 10 of 30

This result is consistent with overall research production in Jordan (Figure 3b).

**Figure 4.** Number of peer reviewed research studies conducted by (**a**) only academic, only non-academic and combination of academic and non-academic institutions, and (**b**) national and international institutions based on the affiliation of the first author of the literature. **Figure 4.** Number of peer reviewed research studies conducted by (**a**) only academic, only non-academic and combination of academic and non-academic institutions, and (**b**) national and international institutions based on the affiliation of the first author of the literature.

documents addressed at least one of the MWI strategy goals, 29 before and 50 after the water strategy; 20 documents are not aligned to the MWI strategy (8 before and 12 after the implementation of the water strategy). Additionally, the number of RFAs that were considered within each research varies between one and five focuses. Figure 5 shows a summary of the results of the conducted analysis process of peer-reviewed and grey

*4.2. Analysis Process* 

literature.


*Water* **2021**, *13*, 2138 11 of 30

**Figure 5.** Summary of the results of the analysis process. **Figure 5.** Summary of the results of the analysis process.

#### *4.3. MWI Goals Analysis 4.3. MWI Goals Analysis*

The MWI strategy consists of 43 goals covering six topics (Figure 6). To define the research gaps in the Azraq Basin, the collected research goals were categorized with the MWI strategy goals (Figure 6). As stated previously, 79 studies are aligned to one or more of the MWI strategy goals. A total of 15 and 60 studies align with goals related to the two topics of water demand and supply, respectively. Water irrigation and alternative water resource goals are addressed in 13 studies and only two studies focus on goals related to wastewater. The MWI strategy consists of 43 goals covering six topics (Figure 6). To define the research gaps in the Azraq Basin, the collected research goals were categorized with the MWI strategy goals (Figure 6). As stated previously, 79 studies are aligned to one or more of the MWI strategy goals. A total of 15 and 60 studies align with goals related to the two topics of water demand and supply, respectively. Water irrigation and alternative water resource goals are addressed in 13 studies and only two studies focus on goalsrelated to wastewater.

### 4.3.1. Goals Related to Water Demand

The number of studies contributing to the improvement of the water demand topic recorded the second-highest number of instances after the topic of water supply. Unlike the water supply goal, each of the studies listed under the improving water demand goal contributes to only one of the goals related to water demand. However, the 15 studies focusing on water demand contributed to three of the six goals. Three studies contributed to goal 1.a., aiming to reduce the water use for agriculture in the basin. These studies investigate the options of purchasing water rights from farmers [44], introducing energy farming [45] and incentives for farmers [36], acting as a guide to the ministry in issuing legislation for these alternatives. Goal 1.b. aims to increase the awareness of people about water scarcity and the importance of conserving water resources, where five studies focus on this topic; for example, Hamberger, K. et al. [46] mapped stakeholder networks to identify the links between the main stakeholders by interviewing farmers of the basin and Al Naber, M. and Molle, F. [47] investigated the response of the farmers towards the

challenges that they face and evaluated the factors that impacted the cost of the crops. Such studies may help the MWI to target the appropriate stakeholder groups who are unaware of/deny water scarcity. Al-Bakri, J. T [35], and Al-Bakri et al. [48] defined areas and the volume of illegal abstractions, and one study included the farmers in an association and conducted regular meetings that included technical and non-technical messages aiming to increase the awareness of water scarcity among farmers [49]. Goal 1.c. focuses on improving water resource management, considering the impact of climate change on the water balance. From seven studies that address this goal, three studies investigated the impact of climate change on temperature, rainfall, and runoff [32,50,51]; three studies considered the impact of climate change as an input to a groundwater model [52–54]; and one study examined droughts [55]. No study addressed the options to reduce water demand within each sector (goal 1.d.), evaluating the water tariff (goal 1.e.) or aiming to reduce the non-revenue water in the basin (goal 1.f.). *Water* **2021**, *13*, 2138 12 of 30

**Figure 6.** Number of grey and peer-reviewed studies that align with MWI water strategy goal 2008–2022 (**a**) before and (**b**) after the water strategy. **Figure 6.** Number of grey and peer-reviewed studies that align with MWI water strategy goal 2008–2022 (**a**) before and (**b**) after the water strategy.

> 4.3.1. Goals Related to Water Demand 4.3.2. Goals Related to Water Supply

The number of studies contributing to the improvement of the water demand topic recorded the second-highest number of instances after the topic of water supply. Unlike the water supply goal, each of the studies listed under the improving water demand goal contributes to only one of the goals related to water demand. However, the 15 studies focusing on water demand contributed to three of the six goals. Three studies contributed to goal 1.a., aiming to reduce the water use for agriculture in the basin. These studies Approximately 60% of the references collected contribute to seven out of nine goals related to water supply; goal 2.a., which focuses on developing a secure and safe water supply in the area, is included in six studies; four focus on allocating new water sources [56–59], and two studies focus on sustainable management [52,60]. While six studies were found to be aligned with goal 2.b., which focuses on using desalinated water as a major source for water supply, four focused on saline water intrusion [43,61–63], one on hydrochemistry [42],

investigate the options of purchasing water rights from farmers [44], introducing energy

water scarcity and the importance of conserving water resources, where five studies focus on this topic; for example, Hamberger, K. et al. [46] mapped stakeholder networks to identify the links between the main stakeholders by interviewing farmers of the basin and Al Naber, M. and Molle, F. [47] investigated the response of the farmers towards the challenges that they face and evaluated the factors that impacted the cost of the crops. Such studies may help the MWI to target the appropriate stakeholder groups who are unaware of/deny water scarcity. Al-Bakri, J. T [35], and Al-Bakri et al. [48] defined areas and the volume of illegal abstractions, and one study included the farmers in an association and conducted regular meetings that included technical and non-technical messages aiming to increase the awareness of water scarcity among farmers [49]. Goal 1.c. focuses on improving water resource management, considering the impact of climate

and one on salinization scenarios [64]. Additionally, a total of 18 studies contributed to the MWI strategy goal 2.c., which focuses on protecting drinking water resources from pollution. Jasem and Alraggad [65], Al-Adamat et al. [66], and Ibrahim and Koch [67] presented a groundwater vulnerability map for the area, Gassen et al. [68] delineated the protection zones of AWSA wellfield, and the remainder contributed to this goal by investigating the quality of groundwater in AWSA wellfield area [61,62,64,69–73], in the northern region of the basin [74,75], in the southern region of the basin [76], in Qaser tuba landfill [77] and the Azraq Basin as a whole [26]. Furthermore, 18 studies contributed to goal 2.d., which focuses on improving the efficiency of storing and utilizing surface water, with 17 addressing various opportunities to utilize the surface water quantity and defining the suitable locations for managed aquifer recharge (MAR) [51,78–93]. Only Salameh et al. [94] addressed the topic of investigating the surface water quality.

Moreover, a total of 16 studies align with goal 2.f., which focuses on improving data availability and the monitoring system. Baïsset, M. et al. [73] described how to improve the data availability and monitoring system, and the remaining studies focus on assessing the availability and sustainable exploitability of water resources in the basin [23–26,29,31,52,54,64,95–99]. Only BGR/ESCWA [100] indirectly targeted goal 2.i., which focuses on the protection of shared water rights. BGR/ESCWA [100] focused on investigating the shared water resources in Jordan and Syria rather than protecting the Jordanian share rights. Contrarily, the remaining two goals related to water supply, namely: goal 2.e. "Treated wastewater effluent is efficiently and cost-effectively used." and 2.h. "the concept of utilizing greywater and rainwater is fully embedded in the codes and requirements of buildings" were neither addressed by peer-reviewed literature nor by grey literature.

### 4.3.3. Goals Related to Institutional Reform

Concerning goals related to institutional reform, only Leyroans [101] contended the one focusing on achieving sustainable and collective governance of groundwater resources: the Azraq Basin first needs to be recognized as a resource in "the commons" category, differentiated from being a private or public resource; second, the state needs to hold a subsidiary function that ensures the effective implementation of water management decisions made by the local population at the local level through adopting participatory methods. These recommendations mainly align with the suggested legislation to manage the issues of "traditional water rights in Jordan", aiming to balance the traditional water rights with the state's water rights moving towards achieving a national water law that is enacted and enforced (goal 3.a). The remainder of the goals were not addressed directly by the collected studies.

### 4.3.4. Goals Related to Water for Irrigation

According to the MWI water strategy 2008, irrigation practices in the highland region, including irrigation in the Azraq Basin, are not adequately controlled, and are categorized as exhibiting poor irrigation efficiency practices. Therefore, the MWI addressed the water irrigation topic in the strategy. The first goal 4.a. aims to reduce the annual water allocation for irrigation in the area, and a total of four studies were aligned with this goal; while GIZ [45] and Al-Tabini, R. et al. [44] analyzed the economic return of reallocation water use to sectors other than agriculture, Octavio, R. et al. [102] focused on conducting a survey to evaluate factors affecting agriculture water use, and Demilecamps, C. and Sartawi, W. [36] proposed project ideas to reduce water use in agriculture. Goal 4.d. recorded the largest number of studies contributing to the topic of water irrigation; four of the six studies focused on monitoring the abstractions in the basin, and two focused on establishing and empowering farmers' forums.

Furthermore, Al Naber, M. [47], and Molle, F. and Al-Naber, M. [103] investigated the economic returns of different crops in the basin, which aligned with goal 4.e., aiming to introduce a new tariff and incentive system to promote water efficiency in irrigation and

higher economic returns for irrigated agricultural products. The promotion of methods and technology to enhance the irrigation water supply (goal 4.f.) is addressed only by Al-Zubi, J. et al. [89], who focused on water harvesting feasibility for irrigation use in the Wadi Muhweir catchment in the basin. The collected studies are neither aligned with the goal 4.b., which states, "Efficient bulk water distribution as well as efficient onfarm irrigation systems are established." nor with goal 4.c., which states that "All treated wastewater generated will be used for activities that demonstrate the highest financial and social return including irrigation and other non-potable uses.".

### 4.3.5. Goals Related to Wastewater

The ministry aims to expand the wastewater network in the kingdom and consequently increase the amount of treated wastewater for non-drinking purposes. Hence, eight goals were listed under the wastewater topic. However, only Baban et al. [74] addresses goal 5.b., by estimating the impacts of cesspools on groundwater in the basin under various scenarios; the estimation and analysis of these impacts will inform the MWI of future locations for implementing treatment plants, in order to minimize the threats of wastewater disposal on adjacent drinking water resources. Additionally, Al-Adamat et al. [75] targeted goal 5.d., which aims to protect the public health and environment; this study set specifications and standards procedures of septic tank usage in the Azraq Basin. The remainder of the goals related to wastewater were not addressed in any of the previous studies.

### 4.3.6. Goals Related to Alternative Water Resources

Given that Jordan's renewable water resources are limited [21], one of the MWI aims is to explore new water resources such as treated wastewater, greywater, and desalinated water. Therefore, the alternative water resources topic was addressed in the MWI strategy of 2008. Only two goals were addressed in the collected literature: firstly, goal 6.c., which aims to promote and encourage rainwater harvesting, where 11 studies addressed the potential of implementing rainwater harvesting in rural areas of the basin [78,80,81,84–89,91,92]. These studies differ from each other mainly in that there is primary focus on different locations of the basin. Secondly, goal 6.e., which aims to find an alternative energy resource for desalination, was found to have only two contributing studies: Sawariah [104] defined the areas with high potential for thermal water sources, and Mohsen [105] studied the feasibility of using solar energy for water desalination in the basin. The remainder of the goals in this topic were not addressed by a reference.

### *4.4. Research before and after the MWI Strategy*

Figure 6 shows that the number of grey literature studies in alignment with the MWI strategy goals increased after the MWI water strategy implementation by 30%. A greater increase is observed in the peer-reviewed literature, where the total publications doubled during the same period. While this result may be expected considering the overall increasing trend in research production shown in Figure 3, it is noteworthy to observe that prior to the implementation of the strategy, only two studies aligned with the goals related to water demand, while this number increased to 13 studies after the implementation of the strategy. More specifically, the number of studies that align with water supply only increased from 27 studies (four of which contributed to two goals) to 33 studies (six of which contributed to two goals) before and after the MWI strategy, respectively. No study aligned with the water irrigation goals before the MWI water strategy, while 13 studies align with water irrigation goals after implementing the water strategy. Furthermore, the number of studies that align with goals related to wastewater goals reduced from two to zero before and after implementing the MWI strategy.

### *4.5. Research Focus Areas Analysis*

The analysis showed that 60 studies of the collected studies have more than one RFA, indicating that a large part of the collected studies are interdisciplinary. In such cases, the

RFAs were categorized as either primary or secondary in nature, where the secondary area supports the primary RFA; for example, in the work of Abu Rajab and El-Naqa [63], geophysics is the study's primary RFA. However, the researchers collected and analyzed water samples to support the geophysics analysis; in this case, the laboratory water sample analyses are categorized as a secondary RFA. The following section represents a review of the collected studies categorized according to the primary RFA. Moreover, a complete overview is given in Appendix A.

About 35% of the collected documents focused on modeling in terms of: (a) estimating the recharge rate [50,106], (b) enhancing the recharge amount [78,80,81,84,85,87–90,92], (c) studying the impact of climate change on water resources [53], (d) assessing surface water and drought [51,55,107], (e) locating potential areas for groundwater abstraction [58,59], (f) analyzing time series [32,108], (g) building water quality models [70], (h) building groundwater models [29–31,54,96–98], (i) delineating isohyetal maps for rainfall [93], (j) creating vulnerability maps [65–67], and (k) proposing sustainable water management plans [52,60].

Although the modeling RFA had the most significant percentage among the collected literature, the basin was still an exciting area for researchers to conduct geophysical investigations to (a) study the saline water body in the basin [43,57,61–63,69,109], (b) investigate the suitability of water harvesting of Laval tunnels in the north of the basin [86,110], in the Dier al Kahif region [82], and in the Asra dam [83]; (c) investigate the impact of Qaser Tuba landfill on groundwater [77]; and (d) identify the geological formations of the Bishrya dam [111].

Socio-economy was the main focus of the studies that investigated: (a) the water governance in the basin [22,101], (b) the farming system and practices [36], (c) the socioeconomic factors that impact the farmer's practices [44,46,102,112,113], (d) the impact of governmental regulations and socio-economic impacts on farmers and agriculture practices [47,103,114], (e) the challenges of managing groundwater in the basin [49], action plan to manage the groundwater [115], and (f) the socio-economic impact of applying solar farming in the basin [45]. Furthermore, two studies focused mainly on energy topics: one study to investigate the feasibility of applying solar energy for water desalination in the basin [105], and another study to investigate the potential for using thermal water as an alternative energy source [104].

Beyond the studies that conducted sampling campaigns as secondary RFAs [61,63,66,67,77,87,88], sampling campaigns were the main RFA in 20 studies. Water samples were collected, and isotopes were analyzed to (a) study the recharge rate in the Azraq Basin [23], (b) define the recharge origin in the basin [24,25,116], (c) group water types [26,42,76], (d) study the salination process [64,71–73], (e) evaluate nitrate leaching to groundwater [74,75], and (f) inspect the eutrophication process of surface water [94]. Soil samples were collected in the basin to (a) explore soil suitability for agriculture [117–119], (b) define the source of sulfur and gypsum [120], (c) estimate the recharge rate [33], and (d) map the soil moisture of the Al-Bagureyya area [121].

Hydrogeological field measurement was the main RFA to (a) review the groundwater resources [79,95,99,100]; (b) create geological maps [122]; (c) delineate protection zones [68]; and (d) to set an action plan [56]. Furthermore, Remote sensing techniques were used in the basin to (a) estimate the abstraction [34,35,123,124]; (b) create hydrological maps [91,125], and (c) study land change over time in the basin [126–129]. The agriculture RFA was not the main focus of any of the collected research; however, it was considered in 13 studies [36,45,47,49,52,60,74,103,112–114,124,130], and more reports with regard to agriculture are expected to be found in the ministry of agriculture, as shown in Table A1.

Figure 7 shows that the number of studies increased in all the RFAs after the implementation of the strategy, except in the laboratory sample analysis; the number of studies that focus on soil and water analysis decreased from 8 and 10 before the strategy to four and eight studies after the strategy, respectively. However, in the laboratory water sample

*Water* **2021**, *13*, 2138 16 of 30

(d) map the soil moisture of the Al-Bagureyya area [121].

shown in Table A1.

analysis RFA, the number of peer-reviewed studies increased from five studies before the strategy to six studies after the strategy. sample analysis RFA, the number of peer-reviewed studies increased from five studies before the strategy to six studies after the strategy.

Figure 7 shows that the number of studies increased in all the RFAs after the implementation of the strategy, except in the laboratory sample analysis; the number of studies that focus on soil and water analysis decreased from 8 and 10 before the strategy to four and eight studies after the strategy, respectively. However, in the laboratory water

types [26,42,76], (d) study the salination process [64,71–73], (e) evaluate nitrate leaching to groundwater [74,75], and (f) inspect the eutrophication process of surface water [94]. Soil samples were collected in the basin to (a) explore soil suitability for agriculture [117–119], (b) define the source of sulfur and gypsum [120], (c) estimate the recharge rate [33], and

Hydrogeological field measurement was the main RFA to (a) review the groundwater resources [79,95,99,100]; (b) create geological maps [122]; (c) delineate protection zones [68]; and (d) to set an action plan [56]. Furthermore, Remote sensing techniques were used in the basin to (a) estimate the abstraction [34,35,123,124]; (b) create hydrological maps [91,125], and (c) study land change over time in the basin [126–129]. The agriculture RFA was not the main focus of any of the collected research; however, it was considered in 13 studies [36,45,47,49,52,60,74,103,112–114,124,130], and more reports with regard to agriculture are expected to be found in the ministry of agriculture, as

**Figure 7.** Research focus of the collected literature before and after the implementation of MWI water strategy**. Figure 7.** Research focus of the collected literature before and after the implementation of MWI water strategy.

Energy and agriculture were not the focus of any grey literature study before the MWI strategy implementation. However, after 2008, the work of GIZ [45] and Mesnil A. et al. [115] considered energy in their research and eight grey literature documents considered agriculture by calculating crop water requirement [35,124], investigating farming systems [36,49,103,112,113], and evaluating the economic return of current agriculture activities [45]. Additionally, the socio-economic component was only considered by Al-Adamat et al. [75] and Ibrahim [122] among the grey literature studies and by Al-Zu'bi et al. [60] among the peer-reviewed studies before the implementation of the water strategy, while it increased to 11 grey literature studies Energy and agriculture were not the focus of any grey literature study before the MWI strategy implementation. However, after 2008, the work of GIZ [45] and Mesnil A. et al. [115] considered energy in their research and eight grey literature documents considered agriculture by calculating crop water requirement [35,124], investigating farming systems [36,49,103,112,113], and evaluating the economic return of current agriculture activities [45]. Additionally, the socio-economic component was only considered by Al-Adamat et al. [75] and Ibrahim [122] among the grey literature studies and by Al-Zu'bi et al. [60] among the peer-reviewed studies before the implementation of the water strategy, while it increased to 11 grey literature studies [22,36,45,46,56,87,102,103,112,113] and seven peer-reviewed studies [44,47,52,80,88,101,114] beyond 2008.

[22,36,45,46,56,87,102,103,112,113] and seven peer-reviewed studies [44,47,52,80,88,101,114] beyond 2008. The total number of RFAs within each literature varied between one and five RFAs in both grey and peer-reviewed literature. The percentage of literature that focused only on one or two RFAs was approximately 86% of the peer-reviewed literature and 57% of grey literature. Furthermore, the documents that considered three RFAs represent The total number of RFAs within each literature varied between one and five RFAs in both grey and peer-reviewed literature. The percentage of literature that focused only on one or two RFAs was approximately 86% of the peer-reviewed literature and 57% of grey literature. Furthermore, the documents that considered three RFAs represent approximately 13% of peer-reviewed literature and approximately 28% of grey literature. Approximately 13% of the collected grey literature studies considered four RFAs, while no peer-reviewed study considered four RFAs. However, only a single report [87] and an article [88] considered five RFAs, both of which were publications of a project conducted by the BGR in the basin. No peer-reviewed study, conducted by academic institutions, considered more than three RFAs (Figure 8).

In Figure 9, it was shown that before the implementation of the water strategy, only the studies with a research focus on remote sensing and modeling targeted three topics of the strategy [29–31,42,50,51,60,64,74,85,91,96,97,100,105,125]. In contrast, after the MWI strategy publication, the studies with a research focus on remote sensing, modeling, socioeconomy, and hydrological field measurement targeted four of the five water strategy topics, wherein each of the conducted studies was targeting one or two topics of the MWI strategy. Only the modeling work of Al-Zubi [89] targeted three topics, namely: water supply, water for irrigation, and alternative water supply. The water supply topic was targeted by all research focuses, except energy, which targeted water demand, irrigation water, and alternative water resources only after the MWI water strategy came into effect. Conversely, only CES [50] and Ayed [51] include modeling as an RFA and targeted the water demand topic's goals before the strategy. Laboratory soil and water sample analyses and geophysics have neither contributed to the water demand topic before nor after the water strategy.

considered more than three RFAs (Figure 8).

approximately 13% of peer-reviewed literature and approximately 28% of grey literature. Approximately 13% of the collected grey literature studies considered four RFAs, while no peer-reviewed study considered four RFAs. However, only a single report [87] and an article [88] considered five RFAs, both of which were publications of a project conducted by the BGR in the basin. No peer-reviewed study, conducted by academic institutions,

**Figure 8.** Number of research focus areas in grey and peer-reviewed studies. **Figure 8.** Number of research focus areas in grey and peer-reviewed studies. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 2138 18 of 30


**Figure 9.** Relationship between the research focus areas (RFAs) and the MWI strategy topics. **Figure 9.** Relationship between the research focus areas (RFAs) and the MWI strategy topics.

#### *Goals 4.6. Analysis of Research Topics Addressed by Documents Not Aligned to the Water Strategy Goals*

*4.6. Analysis of Research Topics Addressed by Documents Not Aligned to the Water Strategy* 

As stated previously, 20 documents did not align with the MWI water strategy goals (Figure 10). These documents covered topics such as geology [99,110,121,123], soil [33,118–120,122,128], land use change [126,128,129], and time series analysis [107,108]. Although the research of Ibrahim [122], Al-Amoush and Rajab [110], Ahmad and Davies [120], Al Adamat et al [131] and UN-ESCWA and BGR [99] aimed to deepen the knowledge of the hydrogeological conditions of the Azraq Basin, these publications do not align with the MWI water strategy goals on the basis that they do not explicitly answer questions related to water management and availability, which are the core of the strategy. Nonetheless, the references [57,99,110,120,122] provide valuable information for the activities under the responsibility of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Similarly, the MWI strategy did not explicitly address the topics of soil and land use change, which is a competence of the Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, three studies [126,128,129] focusing on land use change, and six studies [33,117–119,121,127] focusing on soil science cannot directly contribute to the goals of the strategy. Amro et al. [33] contains important isotopic analysis that could be used to estimate the groundwater recharge in the catchment. However, since such an analysis is missing, the research was not considered to be aligned with the MWI strategy. Molle et al. [22] and Al Naber and Molle [114] represent a comprehensive overview of Jordan's water governance and policy, and their impact on Azraq Basin water resources as well as the responses of people to these policies. Such an assessment is needed for all individual basins of Jordan; this would provide the government with a compass to achieve improved water governance; however, such an assessment is not foreseen in the water strategy. The works of Shatnawi et al. [107] and Goode et al. [108] focus on time series analysis of hydrological variables. However, neither aligned with the MWI water strategy because their analyses did not explicitly address any of the goals. In particular, Goode et al. [108] presented trend analyses for groundwater levels and groundwater quality in the Azraq Basin, as a result As stated previously, 20 documents did not align with the MWI water strategy goals (Figure 10). These documents covered topics such as geology [99,110,121,123], soil [33,118–120,122,128], land use change [126,128,129], and time series analysis [107,108]. Although the research of Ibrahim [122], Al-Amoush and Rajab [110], Ahmad and Davies [120], Al Adamat et al [131] and UN-ESCWA and BGR [99] aimed to deepen the knowledge of the hydrogeological conditions of the Azraq Basin, these publications do not align with the MWI water strategy goals on the basis that they do not explicitly answer questions related to water management and availability, which are the core of the strategy. Nonetheless, the references [57,99,110,120,122] provide valuable information for the activities under the responsibility of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Similarly, the MWI strategy did not explicitly address the topics of soil and land use change, which is a competence of the Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, three studies [126,128,129] focusing on land use change, and six studies [33,117–119,121,127] focusing on soil science cannot directly contribute to the goals of the strategy. Amro et al. [33] contains important isotopic analysis that could be used to estimate the groundwater recharge in the catchment. However, since such an analysis is missing, the research was not considered to be aligned with the MWI strategy. Molle et al. [22] and Al Naber and Molle [114] represent a comprehensive overview of Jordan's water governance and policy, and their impact on Azraq Basin water resources as well as the responses of people to these policies. Such an assessment is needed for all individual basins of Jordan; this would provide the government with a compass to achieve improved water governance; however, such an assessment is not foreseen in

of a cooperation project between USGS and the MWI, and still it did not align with the goals outlined in the MWI strategy. A similar event occurred in two reports [112,113],

present a comprehensive socio-economic survey of groundwater wells of the basin, and it is stated in the reports that "This study was requested by the Ministry of Water and

the water strategy. The works of Shatnawi et al. [107] and Goode et al. [108] focus on time series analysis of hydrological variables. However, neither aligned with the MWI water strategy because their analyses did not explicitly address any of the goals. In particular, Goode et al. [108] presented trend analyses for groundwater levels and groundwater quality in the Azraq Basin, as a result of a cooperation project between USGS and the MWI, and still it did not align with the goals outlined in the MWI strategy. A similar event occurred in two reports [112,113], which were a result of the cooperation project between USAID and MWI. Both reports present a comprehensive socio-economic survey of groundwater wells of the basin, and it is stated in the reports that "This study was requested by the Ministry of Water and Irrigation". In these cases, there is, however, no output that explicitly fits the water strategy goals. Therefore, the fact that these 20 documents did not match the MWI strategy goals does not necessarily mean that these documents were not demand-driven research. Moreover, our analysis shows that the water strategy may in the future consider a more holistic approach in the definition of its goals. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 2138 19 of 30 Irrigation". In these cases, there is, however, no output that explicitly fits the water strategy goals. Therefore, the fact that these 20 documents did not match the MWI strategy goals does not necessarily mean that these documents were not demand-driven research. Moreover, our analysis shows that the water strategy may in the future consider a more holistic approach in the definition of its goals.

**Figure 10.** Percentage of studies that do not align with the MWI water strategy. The numbers above the bars represent the number of documents that do not align with MWI strategy and the total number of documents per year (the figure only represents the years, where the documents do not align with the MWI strategy goals). **Figure 10.** Percentage of studies that do not align with the MWI water strategy. The numbers above the bars represent the number of documents that do not align with MWI strategy and the total number of documents per year (the figure only represents the years, where the documents do not align with the MWI strategy goals).

#### **5. Discussion 5. Discussion**

### *5.1. Research Gaps 5.1. Research Gaps*

Beyond the "practical-knowledge gap" identified in the comparison between conducted research and the MWI goals, the literature review allowed the recognition of a "knowledge gap", as defined by Miles [15]. In fact, a standard methodology to define a "practical-knowledge gap" in water-related research was not found; this study contributes to filling this gap. Decision-makers in the water sector need comprehensive studies and research to decide on a particular goal in a governmental water strategy. When missing research hinders taking a decision about a goal, it was deemed to be a "water-decision-research-gap", which is the inability to take a final decision about a governmental water strategy goal through conducting a systematic peer and greyliterature review at the basin level. It is essential to highlight when studies and research contribute to a specific goal; this contribution, however, does not guarantee that the necessary research is enough to make a decision related to the goal, and it could be that further research is needed. For instance, many studies contributed to the goal 2.d. [51,78– 93], which aims to store and utilize surface water efficiently; however, only Salameh et al. [94] focused on the surface water quality of the Rajil dam in the basin, while the remainder (17 studies) focused on the amount and the suitable location for surface water harvesting. Therefore, the lack of surface water quality research hinders the decision-maker's ability to derive a conclusion from the literature review to make well-informed decisions related Beyond the "practical-knowledge gap" identified in the comparison between conducted research and the MWI goals, the literature review allowed the recognition of a "knowledge gap", as defined by Miles [15]. In fact, a standard methodology to define a "practical-knowledge gap" in water-related research was not found; this study contributes to filling this gap. Decision-makers in the water sector need comprehensive studies and research to decide on a particular goal in a governmental water strategy. When missing research hinders taking a decision about a goal, it was deemed to be a "water-decisionresearch-gap", which is the inability to take a final decision about a governmental water strategy goal through conducting a systematic peer and grey-literature review at the basin level. It is essential to highlight when studies and research contribute to a specific goal; this contribution, however, does not guarantee that the necessary research is enough to make a decision related to the goal, and it could be that further research is needed. For instance, many studies contributed to the goal 2.d. [51,78–93], which aims to store and utilize surface water efficiently; however, only Salameh et al. [94] focused on the surface water quality of the Rajil dam in the basin, while the remainder (17 studies) focused on the amount and the suitable location for surface water harvesting. Therefore, the lack of surface water quality research hinders the decision-maker's ability to derive a conclusion from the literature review to make well-informed decisions related to the goal 2.d. Thus,

to the goal 2.d. Thus, the lack of surface water quality studies in various locations in the

for example, to the study by Al-Zubi [89], which compared the feasibility of implementing water harvesting techniques at a micro and macro level in Wadi Muhweir for irrigation purposes. Goal 2.d. could be achieved if similar studies in all the locations (e.g., all main wadis and dams) were to be conducted. Furthermore, some goals (such as wastewater as an alternative water supply) in the strategy are found to be codependent, and they were not achieved because they required other goals (the goals related to wastewater) to be

the lack of surface water quality studies in various locations in the basin, in this case, is a water-decision research gap.

Furthermore, although several researchers have studied water harvesting at the local level, it is still necessary to conduct further studies at the same level (local level), similar, for example, to the study by Al-Zubi [89], which compared the feasibility of implementing water harvesting techniques at a micro and macro level in Wadi Muhweir for irrigation purposes. Goal 2.d. could be achieved if similar studies in all the locations (e.g., all main wadis and dams) were to be conducted. Furthermore, some goals (such as wastewater as an alternative water supply) in the strategy are found to be codependent, and they were not achieved because they required other goals (the goals related to wastewater) to be achieved prior, such as goal 6.a., which promotes treated wastewater as an alternative resource for agriculture; however, to study the treated wastewater viability as an alternative water resource, the goals in the wastewater topic (topic 5) must be further studied. This leads to the conclusion that a timeline for the strategy's topics and goals would help researchers to conduct demand-driven research.

It is crucial to clarify that when it is stated that a goal is not covered by literature, that this is in reference to the collected literature for the Azraq Basin within this research. The goal may be partially addressed by research work conducted on the national level, such as [132,133], that targeted the goals of wastewater topic in Jordan, or addressed by research performed in other regions or subbasins that share similar hydrological and socio-economic conditions, or addressed by reports that are not accessible according to the presented methodology, such as studies that were conducted by private engineering companies and were shared with the ministry.

### *5.2. Heterogeneity Impact of Research on Goals*

A clear presentation of goals in governmental water strategies, such as the MWI water strategy 2008–2022, can be perceived as a prerequisite for increasing the researcher's ability to conduct demand-driven research and to contribute to achieving these goals. As stated previously, the impact of the research on the strategy goals varies, where some of the RFAs have contributed to most of the topics that were addressed by the governmental strategy (e.g., modeling RFA), while other areas contributed the least (e.g., energy RFA). Such an assessment helps the government and researchers to address the goals from a different perspective. For instance, the energy RFA contributed to the goals related to water demand, the water for irrigation, and alternative water resources with only three studies. Consequently, beyond the aforementioned topics, there is a strong argument for the need to conduct more studies about energy and water supply or energy and wastewater in the basin.

### *5.3. Implications for the Identification of Research Needs*

The application of the proposed methodology to the Azraq river basin demonstrated that some goals were not addressed by any of the research study collected (Figure 6), which directly translates to a research gap existing. However, there can be multiple reasons that justify the occurrence of such a gap and that can explain the lack of research documents. For instance, the lack of infrastructure for a centralized wastewater treatment in the basin partially hinders research for goals 5.a., 5.e., 5.f., 5.g., 5.h., and 6.a. In fact, the Arzaq Basin is not yet connected with wastewater treatment plants but only cesspools at the present time. Therefore, studies evaluating the current impact of all wastewater disposal sites on groundwater are needed, especially for newly proposed locations that might threaten the groundwater quality, contributing to goals 5.b. and 5.d. Beyond the environmental impact assessment of the proposed sites, socio-economic assessments, technical and economic feasibility assessments are equally crucial for installing new wastewater treatment systems in the area. Therefore, it is essential to highlight that during the field visit to the MWI in January 2020, MWI staff indicated that reports on the new wastewater plant proposal in Azraq exist but could not be accessed.

The fact that a goal is addressed by several research studies does not necessarily imply that further research is not required. For example, setting a cap on water use for agricultural purposes was addressed partly by three studies [36,44,45]. However, innovative approaches to upgrade tools and technologies focusing on optimizing energy consumption and irrigation efficiency are urgently needed such that Jordanian farmers can contribute to the achievement of the goal. Goal 1.b. aims to increase awareness within the Jordanian society on the issues of water scarcity and some of the collected studies already provided measures for the farmer's awareness [46,47]. Still, there is a need to conduct similar studies that analyze the level of awareness for other social groups, such as students and industrial stakeholders, including tourism, to set up effective educational programs concerning water scarcity for different grades. Likewise, the following areas of assessment and evaluation still require further investigation to achieve the MWI's strategic goals:


### *5.4. Application to Other Areas*

The developed methodology could be applied to other basins and other water strategies. However, the RFAs can be modified according to the collected research topics and the strategy's goals. If a new topic is presented, it can be added to one of the existing research areas or a new RFA may be added. Furthermore, when the methodology is applied at a national level, the corresponding national goals should be added to the methodology, and the goals addressed at a basin level should be removed. Conversely, mapping the RFAs and governmental goals can be implemented in topics other than water. This concept creates demand-driven research and helps researchers to address the goals by using the RFAs not addressing specific governmental goals.

Furthermore, to have a comprehensive water management strategy, the responsibility should not only be on the water provider [134] and the method could be developed to include other governmental strategies besides the water strategy. For instance, in the case of Jordan, this method could further be extended to cover the goals of the strategy of the ministry of agriculture and the ministry of environment. The method could be developed as a platform that connects different ministries and research institutions, where researchers can update the platform with new research and address the gaps that are identified with the methodology presented in this work. Finally, the governmental body may update the strategy goals accordingly.

### **6. Conclusions**

A comprehensive methodology to define research gaps in water-related studies was developed and tested by investigating the impact of Jordan's water strategy (2008–2022) on research production in the Azraq Basin. The number of documents focusing on the basin increased after issuing the MWI strategy but there is no significant proof that this increase is due to issuing the MWI strategy, as the total number of published studies in Jordan addressing all topics also shows a positive rate of increase. Therefore, categorization of the research produced according to the MWI strategy goals is suggested, to better identify if and how they are addressed by peer-reviewed and grey literature. The results showed that the number of documents that align with the MWI strategy varies depending on the goal of the strategy and the RFAs considered within the document.

Involving governmental actors in the research design and literature collection process represents one of the most innovative and relevant points in the proposed methodology. In fact, grey literature is generally not easily accessible without involving actors from the ministries and its relevance in filling research gaps has been demonstrated in our work. The methodology allows the identification of a methodological research gap. This lack of research may hinder taking decisions related to governmental water strategy goals at the basin level. Thus, the inability to take decisions related to governmental water strategy goals through conducting a systematic peer and grey-literature review at the basin level was defined in this paper as the "water-decision research gap". Although the methodology indicates that the conducted research in the basin aligns with the ministry's water strategy, it does not guarantee that the research affects the strategy, mainly because proper communication between the government and researchers does not exist.

The methodology not only defines the research gaps but also evaluates the relationship between academia and government. In the Azraq Basin, 54 of the 62 peer-reviewed literature documents are led by academic institutions, and approximately 75% of them are conducted without cooperating with any governmental body or non-academic institution. Furthermore, approximately 75% of the peer-reviewed documents published by academic institutions are produced by national universities. This shows the vital role of the national academic institutions in water-related research and the importance of strengthening the relationship between academia and the government.

It is expected that the water strategy would have had a larger impact on the produced research if the goals of the strategy were formed based on the research outputs of each basin individually. This would help researchers to fill the gaps accordingly, and the conducted research would then be more demand-driven. Conversely, if researchers were to explicitly state the goals of the MWI strategy that were targeted in their work, this would help the ministry to update the strategy and develop a living document of the water strategy. The concept of linking the RFAs with the governmental strategy goals would inspire researchers to target the strategy's goals with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches that address all of the strategy topics. We expect that this link will enhance research production in the basin by reflecting the RFAs across each strategy topic for every goal. This may lead to the creation of innovative and imaginative research and eventually improve the connection between decision-makers and researchers. The government could further profit by conducting a systematic literature review to optimize the allocation of the budget available for future studies.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.A. and G.C.; methodology, M.A. and G.C.; investigation, M.A., A.M. and M.A.W.; resources, M.A.W.; data curation, M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, G.C., M.A., A.A.D. and S.D.; writing—review and editing, G.C., M.A., A.A.D., S.D., M.A.R. and M.A.W.; visualization, M.A.; supervision, G.C. and M.A.R.; project administration, M.A.; funding acquisition, G.C., M.A.R. and S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** Funding for this project came from Stiftung Fiat Panis, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD), BMBF (Stärkung der innovationsrelevanten Rahmenbedingungen und angewandten Forschung in MENA-Ländern)-WD2D. This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in the framework of the Open Access Publishing Program.

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

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors are grateful for MWI, Water D2D project, Stiftung Fiat Panis and the DAAD scholarship. We would also like to thank Christopher Cochrane for proofreading the manuscript.

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

### **Appendix A**

**Table A1.** List of the analyzed documents, goals, and RFAs.



### **Table A1.** *Cont.*


**Table A1.** *Cont.*

### **References**


MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 Fax +41 61 302 89 18 www.mdpi.com

*Water* Editorial Office E-mail: water@mdpi.com www.mdpi.com/journal/water

MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland

Tel: +41 61 683 77 34 Fax: +41 61 302 89 18

www.mdpi.com ISBN 978-3-0365-4109-9