*2.2. Data*

Through the above steps, we identified five components (main stakeholder categories) as shown in Figure 1. However, in practice, the hydro specialists and GIS specialists were also integrated into the HydroGIS model.

**Figure 1.** Main components (stakeholder categories) of flood managemen<sup>t</sup> model. (The lines between components indicating existing integrations. The numbers in the circles indicate how many research works have considered such integration. Source: Author.

Then, rationale was developed to weigh the depth of scientific investigation carried out by the researchers on each integration shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, we analysed the depth of investigation level (scale of Very low to Very high) on each integration carried out by each study by utilising the modified MAUT. However, we observed that studies analysed the integrations in either Very high, High, Medium, or Low depths only (Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** Distribution of investigation depth classes among the integration types. Source: Author.

By generalizing the individual study's investigation depths to develop a final decision, we developed a rationale for weighting the scientific value of the publication [15]. Thereafter, the depth of investigation for each integration was calculated using WAP, and the values are on a 1–5 scale, where 5 is Very high and 1 is Very low. The comparative level of the investigation depths among the integrations was also calculated. Another understanding made during the step is that there are two groups in which the components can be accumulated considering the main undertaking of the flood managemen<sup>t</sup> model. The present work called them "scientific components" and "management components" (Figure 3).

**Figure 3.** The present investigation depth status of the integration of main components in flood managemen<sup>t</sup> modelling. The average depth of investigation in each integration is shown as a fraction. The comparative level of the investigation depths is shown as percentages (computed%) (Adapted from Ref. [11]).

Then, we reclassified the investigation depths according to a 1–5 scale and computed the deviation from the mean comparative value of 20% (if equal attention is being paid to all 5 integrations, the 20% is the mean value) using Equation (1). The positive values exhibited exaggerations of attention, while negatives showed an understatement of attention (Table 1).

Deviation from mean comparative value = ((computed% ÷ 20) − 1) × 100 (1)


**Table 1.** Computation results.

### **3. Results and Discussion**

The resulting flood model development framework, which demonstrates all the roles involved in the flood managemen<sup>t</sup> modelling with the levels of present attention on integrations, is shown in Figure 4. This work found two definitions for the present level of researchers' interest distributions: (1) The individual interest: the investigation depth of each integration, which is independent of other integrations; (2) the comparative interest: the comparative level of investigation, which demonstrates how the total attention of the researchers is distributed over all possible integrations.

As per the scale of investigation depth defined in the present work, all assessment values that were received were less than 2. This means the present interest in all the integrations is below the "Low" level. Furthermore, we observed that the researchers' attention levels regarding incorporating the perspectives of scientific component modellers with managemen<sup>t</sup> modellers (hydro/GIS specialists and HydroGIS modellers), HydroGIS modellers with recipients, and recipients with decision makers are in the "Very low" level. Therefore, our findings prove the importance of one of the concepts behind IWRM, namely integrating the recipients into water decision making.

According to the analysis, we found that the researchers understate 37% of the optimum when integrating the scientific modellers' (hydro and GIS modellers) concerns into the managemen<sup>t</sup> model via the HydroGIS modellers. However, we found that the most challenging requirements being discussed in public at the present include integrating the general public's (recipient) perspective into flood management, which must be satisfactorily attended to, as it received a 5% understatement value. In the meantime, the results show that there is a level of 32% exaggerated attention paid to integrating the hydro modellers' and GIS modellers' perspectives.

**Figure 4.** Descriptive view of flood managemen<sup>t</sup> model development framework. Source: Author.
