Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data

Chen Jian; Reagan Kapilya

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data

Chen Jian^*

, Reagan Kapilya

Published in International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences (Volume 13, Issue 5)

Received: 27 June 2025 Accepted: 1 September 2025 Published: 19 September 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This article examines the crucial role of social dynamics in managing water resources, highlighting the importance of considering these factors for effective governance. Through a comprehensive analysis of secondary data drawn from diverse case studies and existing literature, we elucidate how aspects such as stakeholder engagement, cultural values, power dynamics, and social networks shape water management practices. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating these social factors to foster sustainable and equitable governance of water resources. Employing the Social-Ecological Systems Framework, this study systematically examines the interactions between social elements and water use, access, and conservation efforts across various communities. We present a range of case studies that exemplify successful stakeholder engagement and collaborative governance, highlighting the promising outcomes that can arise from incorporating social dynamics into water management strategies. These case studies illustrate how participatory approaches can lead to improved decision-making processes, ensuring that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and valued. Our research indicates that facilitating community involvement and aligning water management policies with local cultural values can significantly enhance both ecological health and social equity. By recognizing the interdependence of social and ecological systems, we propose that water management practices should evolve to reflect local contexts and foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders. This integrative approach not only addresses immediate water-related challenges but also promotes long-term resilience and adaptability in response to changing environmental conditions. This article advocates for a paradigm shift in water resource management that prioritizes social dynamics alongside technical and ecological considerations. By embracing this holistic perspective, we can develop more effective and just water governance frameworks that contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Our insights aim to guide policymakers and practitioners in rethinking their strategies, ultimately leading to healthier ecosystems and more equitable access to water resources for all.

Published in	International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences (Volume 13, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14
Page(s)	271-287
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Water Management, Social-ecological Systems, Sustainability, Power Dynamics, Community Values

1. Introduction

The global water crisis is exacerbated by climate change, population growth, and mismanagement. Effective water resource management must go beyond technical solutions to address the social dynamics at play. This paper aims to investigate the integration of these dynamics in managing water resources. For the majority of its uses, fresh water is a non-replaceable resource that is essential to life. However, there are numerous water-related issues, and scientific data indicates that things will only become worse in the future. Climate change's effects on the amount and caliber of available A wealth of research has been done on freshwater

[1]

. In terms of impact, water issues came in third place in the World Economic Forum's report

[2]

. Worldwide risk environment, immediately following catastrophic weather and weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, water-related concerns have consistently been listed as one of the top five global hazards for the last six years

[3]

. Our research project is centered on sustainable water management from the standpoint of the natural resource system itself, starting with the claim that the biggest challenge in management research is to contribute to sustainable development

[4, 5]

. Thus far, two reviews pertaining to water

[6]

have been released, but from a business standpoint. Recognizing sustainability necessitates using a holistic approach that incorporates social, economic, and environmental dimensions

[7, 8]

. Therefore, the assessments failed to provide specific judgments regarding the advancement of the literature concerning. Sustainable water management not only highlights the increasing interest in the topic and identifies several gaps in the studies

[7, 9]

2. Water in the Management Literature Review

Previous studies emphasize the role of social factors in water management

[10]

. Stakeholder engagement, cultural values, and power dynamics are critical in shaping water governance

[11]

. However, many frameworks overlook these aspects, leading to inequitable outcomes

[12]

. Water is a common-pool resource (CPR), meaning that it can be expensive to remove any potential user from it and that misuse can have negative impacts1

[13]

. Water represents an extreme example of CPR since it shows a shared reliance on the resource in a more acute method and across a broader range of actors than fisheries, forests, or pastures. The majority of freshwater resources are unique, and delaying them is difficult. This indicates that the resource's spatiotemporal distribution is just as important as its overall amount. Quantity of fresh water that is accessible inside a system

[14]

. Water difficulties are multifaceted, with particular emphasis on challenges related to water quantity (droughts, floods, and other disasters) and water quality (pollution, temperature, etc.). These two water resource characteristics are not always equally important to every actor. Nonetheless, The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018 shows concerning patterns in both areas, where environmental problems and climate change. Degradation increases the strain on the population and the economy

[15]

. The predictions seem to indicate that "sustainable water security" will require water management to learn how to do more with less. Won't be accomplished by using conventional methods (WWAP, 2018, p. 2. Regarding water management, there is a wide range of organizational structures, and the allocation of duties among participants differs according to regulations. When it comes to water distribution and sanitation alone (that is, ignoring issues with flood control or ecosystem management), organizational structures can be local, regional, or national. Such arrangements may be totally private, mixed, or completely open, with varying levels of accountability. The well-known case of Ostrom. Research emphasizes that the best CPR management is neither totally private nor totally public, but perhaps necessitates the creation of polycentric organizations whose management is a factor in their success. Associated issues include mutual trust between resource users, administration, and observation expenses. Thus, management theories are challenged by sustainable water management. According to

[7, 16, 17]

are not the only authors in management research to observe the dearth of focus on water and, more broadly, natural resources. This worry was also strikingly voiced by

[18]

: "We observe that, in spite of scientists' cautions of widespread, unparalleled environmental change and more pressing requests from various academic fields to take part in environmental sustainability. However, organizational studies still do not fully include the theme of the natural environment. (Section 1003). They suggested that the reason for this disregard might be that people take water for granted in a "hubris of anthropocentrism" setting (p. 1008).

The Social-Ecological System Framework

The SES framework was created by

[19]

in an effort to give academics from all different backgrounds a common language to share their work on sustainable resource management. Although this framework is still being refined

[20, 21]

, it has already attracted a lot of attention from academics in a variety of fields, particularly environmental studies. Although it is not the only framework interested in the analysis of SESs, it has been deemed the most universal and most balanced between the social and ecological aspects

[22]

, it is surprisingly little used in management research on natural resources. This is due to the belief that interdisciplinary research is essential when it comes to environmental issues. This paradigm enables us to aggregate publications that may not necessarily have a systemic perspective and that employ quite various methods, while yet developing a systemic overview of the study at hand in our literature review.

Theoretical methods. Figure 1 illustrates how this analytical tool presents an initial impression. The complicated causality of relationships inside a system, where feedback loops are to be anticipating

[23]

. Water is a natural resource that is included in several SESs, including groundwater, rivers, and lakes. Irrigation systems, or plates

[24]

. In particular, the SES framework is crucial to include the conclusions and ideas discussed in water management articles because assuming a minimum of agency among members of an SES is an assumption that we believe is not incompatible with the theoretical approaches encountered in the articles

[25]

the framework is expected to be relatively theory-neutral

[26]

. Another benefit of this framework is that it allows us to integrate all levels of analysis (institutional, organizational, and individual). For all these reasons, it seems most appropriate to use it to make sense of the articles collected in our review, since water is the common denominator in all of them. "Power dynamics impact water management by influencing decision-making processes, resource allocation, and stakeholder involvement. The dynamics of power can shape policies, implementation strategies, and the overall governance structure related to water management

[27]

Source: Organization & Environment

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. Components of the social-ecological systems framework.

3. Methodology

3.1. Journals Selection

This article utilizes secondary data from peer-reviewed journals, government reports, and case studies. Data was selected based on relevance to social dynamics in water resource management and the geographical diversity of the studies. Our goal in conducting this systematic literature evaluation is to determine whether and how management studies and organizations advance our knowledge of sustainable water management. As the "relevant intellectual territory," we concentrate our research on publications that are essential to management studies

[28, 29]

. Our starting point was the 44 journals that

[7]

utilized in their review, in order to maintain some consistency between the bibliometric analysis results. In addition, we added seven journals that were not included in that study but were listed in the FT50 (Financial Times) list and graded 4* or 4 in the ABS (Association of Business Schools)

[30]

rating.

Lastly, we expanded

[7]

emphasis on business research to include a broader perspective on organizational research. Water, as a CPR, is a highly controlled resource and a public service in the majority of countries, despite not being a totally private or public good. Therefore, it is anticipated that a sizable portion of the management research on water will be concentrated on the public management domain. As a result, we chose to include three public management journals, which were placed fourth in ABS

[31]

; as a result, we examined 54 journals in total for publications pertaining to water (see the final journal list in Table 1).

Table 1. Journals and Articles Included.

Journal title	Selection from Kurland and Zell (2010)	ABS 2015	FT50	Articles found
Academy of Management Journal	X	4*	X	1
Academy of Management Perspectives	X	3		0
Academy of Management Review	X	4*	X	0
Administrative Science Quarterly	X	4*	X	0
British Journal of Management	X	4		0
Business & Society	X	3		1
Business History Review	X	4*		1
Business Strategy & the Environment	X	4		5
California Management Review	X	4*		1
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences		3		1
Corporate Governance	X	3		0
Decision Sciences	X	4	X	0
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice	X	4*		0
Family Business Review	X	3	X	0
Harvard Business Review	X	4*	X	1
Human Relations	X	4*	X	0
Human Resource Management	X	4	X	3
Information System Research	X	4		6
Interfaces	X	4		5
International Journal of Management Reviews	X	2	X	11
Journal of Applied Psychology	X	3	X	5
Journal of Business Ethics	X	3	X	5
Journal of Business Research	X	4*		0
Journ Operations Research	X	2		1
Organization & Environment	X	3		0
Organization Science	X	4*	X	2
Organization Studies	X	3		2
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Organizational Research Methods	x	4*		1
Personnel Psychology		4*		0
Production and Operations Management al of Business		4*		2
Venturing		4*		3
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal		4		0
Strategic Management Journal		4		9
Total number of Articles included				66

3.2. Article Selection

By searching for the topic "*water*" in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), we gathered publications published between January 2006 and September 2017. However, it has limitations because certain journals are either partially or completely uncovered (Business Strategy and the Environment, for example, is only covered from 2009 onward). As a result, we also used Google Scholar and other resources provided by our home university's library to scan the journals. This made it possible for us to include some of the most recent articles that were accepted by journals but were not yet officially published in the database. Every story where water had a significant impact on the analysis of the piece was included.

In order to determine the relevance of a given issue to water management, we utilized the theme taxonomy that was created by Kurland and Zell

[7]

during their literature analysis. Consequently, we classified an item as being about water if it addressed issues with freshwater contamination, water quality, quantity (i.e., inadequate allocation ranging from scarcity to floods), usage of water, sustainable water management, business management, or industry management.

Articles that mentioned water solely anecdotally, or that used the word "water" in a language phrase or the author's name, were excluded. We used a slightly stricter scope than Kurland and Zell, excluding articles where water was only mentioned in the empirical context without having any bearing on the discussion or theoretical issue raised by the article. For instance, we wouldn't include a study on intrinsic motivation and creativity where participants had to respond to a survey about their work at a water treatment plant

[32]

. Articles that discussed water merely as a small element of a larger issue were also disqualified

[33]

. These types of articles included water in passing as an illustration of the effects of global warming. Only publications pertaining to the above-mentioned water taxonomic concerns (such as water quantity difficulties) were taken into consideration. According to Kurland and Zell's technique, research on activities near water, like offshore oil exploitation, fisheries, and water transportation, were also excluded unless the issue at hand had to do with water taxonomy. Ultimately, we made the decision to only incorporate whole scholarly publications. Book reviews, editorials, and case studies without analysis were not included. We have conducted two analyses to better understand the articles' contributions to sustainable water management. To obtain a sense of the scope of the study stream, we first look at its factual features, technique, and theoretical framework. After that, we examine their content qualitatively and create a systematic view of the current status of water management research by applying the SES framework. By taking these two approaches, we are able to make compelling recommendations for further organization and management studies that focus on water and natural resources in general.

3.3. Descriptive Overview of the Research Stream

We collected 66 articles in all, split among 24 distinct journals. The majority of the research was located in publications concentrating on public management (31% of the total), operations (27%), or the natural environment (18%). The gathered articles are primarily experimentally grounded. Of the publications, 55% (49) employed quantitative methods of analysis, while 34% (30) utilized qualitative methods. Methods, with 4% (4) employing mixed approaches. The remaining 7% (6) were conceptual scholarly essays or literature reviews. Geographically, 66% (59) of the investigations are grounded in Western developed countries. Australia is the center of 9 articles. The severity of water scarcity the situation of that country alone cannot account for this overrepresentation, given the Middle East region one among the driest regions on Earth, it has merely two items. Reiterating Ostrom's (1990) appeal for a polycentric management of CPRs, 51% (45) of the studies situate their study at an institutional/interorganizational level, 31% (28) are set at the organizational level, and 4% (4) deal with the individual level. Finally, we found it intriguing that 10% (9) use multilayer techniques. Regarding the theories encountered, it is true that many publications include technical or operations backgrounds, as Kurland and Zell observed, but the issue is more intricate than that, as can be seen in Table 2. There is a vast diversity of theoretical ideas utilized from management fields or other areas, such as political science, economics, philosophy, and sociology. The essays employed theories as disparate as Karl Polanyi’s twofold movement, Gareth Morgan’s pictures of organizations, or Richard Laughlin’s organizational transformation. Also, various articles employ a multidisciplinary approach, such as Jaffee and Newman

[34]

, which uses David Harvey’s theory of accumulation by dispossession with a blend of sociological, geographical, and anthropological approaches. We found the disparity between hard-fact positivist publications emphasizing on water challenges as physical occurrences

[35]

and more interpretivist methods analyzing water as a socially constructed object

[36, 37]

Our findings seem to hint at a greater focus on water concerns among management scholars. On the exact scope of journals selected by Kurland and Zell

[7]

, we witness an average publication rate of roughly 4.7 water-related papers per year from 2010 on. Screening Kurland and Zell’s study, we identified a publication rate of 2.5 water-related publications annually on those same journals over a period of 51 years, with a sharp increase since the 2000s (see Figure 2). We believe that this comparison is significant, even though we went some way from their selection criteria. Indeed, we utilized a little stricter scope, which means that the increase would be equal or steeper if we had kept exactly the same criteria. Nonetheless, the mere analysis of the number of articles over such a long period has some limits and should be treated with caution.

Source: Organization &Environment

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 2. Evolution of yearly publication rate for water-related issues among journals selected in Kurland and Zell (2010).

The scope of publications relevant to management might have evolved. The total number of articles published per year might have increased. Also, the older items could be tougher to track through online research. In any case, an increase in the overall number of articles published does not necessarily mean that we are witnessing the birth of a consistent stream of research. Reading through the articles, we did not receive the sensation that we were in the presence of a continuous discussion among scholars, let alone a cohesive literature growth. To check that impression, we resorted to a fundamental study of the network of citation links among the articles selected. We tracked all the references among the articles selected and computed them in a binary matrix. Using R’s “digraph” program, we visualized the output in a simple directed network graph (see Figure 3), using the vertexes representing articles and edges representing references, going from the article mentioning to the paper cited.

Table 2. Theoretical Affiliations as Mentioned in the Articles (Nonexhaustive).

Theoretical affiliation mentioned	Field
Strategic response to climate change (Gasbarro, Rizzi, & Frey, 2016) Resource-based view of the firm (Porcher, 2016)	Corporate strategy
Richard Laughlin’s model of organizational change (Egan, 2015) Social learning and resilience (Colvin et al., 2014)	Management
Leadership styles, complexity leadership (Harley, Metcalf, & Irwin, 2014; Taylor, Cocklin, Brown, & Wilson-Evered, 2011)	Leadership
Fast and frugal heuristics (MacGillivray, 2014) Salience biases (Tiefenbeck et al., 2016)	Psychology
David Harvey’s accumulation by dispossession (Jaffee & Newman, 2013) Political rationalities (Behagel & Arts, 2014)	Sociopolitical approach
Institutional logics (Fan & Zietsma, 2017) Institutional theory (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2014; Schaefer, 2007) Christine Oliver’s approach to institutional theory and resource dependence theory (Tingey-Holyoak, 2014; Tingey-Holyoak & Pisaniello, 2017) Karl Polanyi’s theory of double movement (Mariola, 2011) Images of organizations (Jermier & Forbes, 2016) Environmental sociology/neo-Weberian theory (Rice, 2013) Organizational sociology/Mark Suchman’s framework of legitimacy (Wood, 2015) Ecology of games (Berardo & Lubell, 2016; Lubell, Mewhirter, Berardo, & Scholz, 2017)	Sociological approach
Dynamic capability (Dominguez, Worch, Markard, Truffer, & Gujer, 2009) Subsistence markets (Viswanathan et al., 2016)	Strategy and entrepreneurship
Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics (Lejano & Leong, 2012)	Philosophy
Inventory theory (Kolesar & Serio, 2011) Triple bottom line (Murali, Lim, & Petruzzi, 2015; Wu, Lv, Liang, & Hu, 2017) Multi-attribute utility theory (Morais & de Almeida, 2012)	Operations research
Contingent valuation (Perez-Pineda & Quintanilla-Armijo, 2013) Dynamic efficiency (Pointon & Matthews, 2016) Transaction costs economics (Porcher, 2016) Fiscal federalism (Hong, 2017)	Economics
Dependency theory (Shandra, Shandra, & London, 2011; Shandra, Shor, & London, 2008)	International relations

In this table, we only display the theoretical affiliations as reported in the articles collected. Many articles did not mention clearly the theories they based their work on, and some referred to broader streams of research than others. That is why this table is nonexhaustive.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 3. Reference network among the articles selected.

It is evident that there are very few references in the papers. The appearance of a stream of research on water management appears to be merely correlated with an increase in the number of publications published, most of which are unrelated to one another. Of the two literature reviews that are monitored, 21 are found inside the 50 internal references

[7, 38]

. These are the pieces that Figure 3's bottom left agglomeration is made of. As a result, our initial examination of the articles demonstrates that management research can approach water-related issues from a wide variety of theoretical perspectives, but it also highlights the possibility that water management research could take multiple parallel paths without researchers building on each other's findings. At the moment, management theories do not contribute to a better comprehension of sustainable water management. This is similar to what

[39]

said about SES research:

However, this procedure is hard since several disciplines analyze their respective portions of the complex multilayered whole using completely different frameworks, theories, and models. It takes a shared classification framework to support interdisciplinary activities aimed at improving our understanding of complicated SESs. Page 420.

Surprisingly, only 17 of the 89 papers gathered, primarily from the public management and governance domain, acknowledge

[40]

study, despite the fact that it is regarded as a basic work in CPR management. Organization and management research has mostly disregarded Ostrom's caution and her SES paradigm Analysis Through the Social-Ecological Systems Framework variables.

Table 3. Social-Ecological Systems (SES) Framework (Updated From McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014).

First-tier variables

Second-tier variables

Social, economic, and political settings (S)

S1 Economic development

S2 Demographic trends

S3 Political stability

S4 Other governance systems

S5 Markets

S6 Media organization

S7 Technology

Resource systems (RS)

RS1 Sector (e.g., water, forests, pasture, fish)

S2 Clarity of the system boundaries

RS3 Size of the resource system

RS4 Human-constructed facilities

RS5 Productivity of the system RS6 Equilibrium properties

RS7 Predictability

RS8 Storage characteristics

RS9 Location

Governance systems (GS)

GS1 Government organizations

GS2 Nongovernment organizations

GS3 Network structure

GS4 Property rights systems

GS5 Operational-choice rules

GS6 Collective-choice rules

GS7 Constitutional-choice rules

GS8 Monitoring and sanctioning processes

Resource units (RU)

RU1 Resource unit mobility

RU2 Growth or replacement rate

RU3 Interaction among units

RU4 Economic value

RU5 Number of units

RU6 Distinctive characteristics

RU7 Spatial and temporal distribution

Actors (A)

A1 Number of relevant actors

A2 Socioeconomic attributes

A3 History or past experiences

A4 Location

A5 Leadership/entrepreneurship

A6 Norms (trust reciprocity)/ social capital

A7 Knowledge of SES/mental models

A8 Importance of the resource

A9 Technologies available

Interactions (I)

I1 Harvesting

I2 Information sharing

I3 Deliberation processes

I4 Conflicts

I5 Investment activities

I6 Lobbying activities

I7 Self-organizing activities

I8 Networking activities

I9 Monitoring activities

I10 Evaluative activities

Outcomes (O)

O1 Social performance measures

O2 Ecological performance measures

O3 Externalities to other SESs

Related ecosystems (ECO)

ECO1 Climate patterns

ECO2 Pollution patterns

ECO3 Flows into and out of focal SES

However, a comprehensive grasp of the phenomena associated with natural resources requires addressing the entire SES framework. As

[41]

put it, "the universal elements that any theory relevant to the same kind of phenomena would need to include" (p. 2), one way to conceptualize the elements of the SES framework. Consequently, a comprehensive theory of sustainable natural resource management that excludes one or more of those components would be lacking and have little capacity to explain phenomena, even while individual research on water management may concentrate on a particular selection of variables. First, we tracked elements in the articles linked to the code of second-tier variables (S1, S2, etc.) from the SES model updated by

[41]

(see Table 3). For each variable, we ended up with a collection of statements that had been formulated by the authors based on theory or empirical evidence; some codes were covered by none of the articles, indicating an absence of research. This first step allowed us to obtain a qualitative overview of the characteristics of the SES framework that had been addressed by the literature. the claims, conclusions, and revelations pertaining to every element of the SES framework that can be found in the management literature on water management. In the part that follows, we provide this synopsis.

Since some of the topics in the articles were repeated, we do not list every article in detail.

We noted that there is a disagreement in the literature but do not take a side when articles have differing opinions on a single topic (such as the governance network structure).

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

Only a small percentage of the gathered articles express concern for this SES framework element. While

[42]

demonstrates that economic growth in less developed countries becomes a threat to water quality, particularly with the development of export markets (S5) and industrial activities,

[43]

highlights the need for specific economic development policies (S1) to ensure wider access to clean water. One possible explanation for the paucity of research on the relationship between political stability (S3) and water-related difficulties is the overrepresentation of Western nations in the papers, where the issue is not as pressing. Nevertheless, because water utilities are public services, the political environment can have a significant administrative impact on water management, even in industrialized nations.

[44]

highlighted the danger that municipal services may pursue insufficient water policies due to short-term electoral pressures in a study that focused on South Korea. Robust water policies necessitate a longer-term perspective. In the meantime, a cross-national study on less developed nations indicates that democracy and water quality are positively correlated

[45]

. Water systems face extra constraints from urbanization and demographic growth (S2). No research has examined the effects of available media (S6), such as newspapers and television channels, or other governance systems (S4), i.e., those not directly involved in water management, on water systems. Nonetheless, it is likely that these governance structures and media channels will contribute to the development of an actor-wide awareness of the SES. Finally, we discovered that while technology advancements (S7) may also directly affect water management—as demonstrated by the case of smart water—we found that this was not given much thought in the articles we gathered.

Resource Systems (RS)

A lot of papers

[46, 47]

concentrate on the river basin as a unit of study for water resources while discussing the system boundaries (RS2). The European Water Directive, for example, establishes hydrographic basins as the primary level of management in the majority of cases

[48]

. Similarly, the natural and regulatory contexts mostly take the scale of the water resource system (RS3) for granted. The planning of controlled flooding in the United States Grand Canyon or the use of water allocation optimization models are two examples of how these water systems' high levels of uncertainty and unpredictability (RS7) influence decision-making

[49]

. Furthermore, a wide range of sectors are impacted by water systems (RS1), including local communities, the manufacturing sector, electricity suppliers, farmers, ecosystems, and recreational pursuits. Insofar as several sectors rely on shared water resources, decision-making processes at the water system level must take these demands into account. All of them also have an effect on those common resources, as demonstrated by the relationship between hydropower production and irrigation or leisure along the Columbia River in the United States

[50]

However, the natural environment is still viewed as the "muted stakeholder" by management scholars and practitioners alike

[7]

. The available facilities (RS4), the productivity of the system (RS5), its equilibrium features (RS6), its storage qualities (RS8), and its location (RS9) are not taken into account in the gathered articles.

Resource Units (RU)

Opinions on the application of market logics to water resources as a preservation incentive vary with respect to the economic worth of resource units (RU4). The topic of how much to charge for water is delicate. However, substantial state subsidies on water pricing, as in Kuwait, for example, encourage resource waste even in situations when there is knowledge of water scarcity

[51]

. Some regulatory initiatives have adopted an incentive strategy to assign an accurate economic value to the services offered by water, in order to encourage sustainable water usage

[52, 53]

The availability and quality of water (RU5) and quantity (RU6) influence the mobilization of change agents. Crisis situations involving water scarcity, for instance, are cited as motivators for actors' knowledge and participation. Whether in Jordan in the Middle East or along the Delaware River in the United States, water systems design considers time variability (RU7) brought on by seasonal fluctuations

[54]

Nevertheless, it is evident from the management articles collected that important facets of the natural environment are underrepresented. These topics include resource unit mobility (RU1), growth or replacement rate (RU2), and interaction among resource units (RU3).

Governance Systems (GS)

The difficulty of efficiently handling the complexity of water concerns is mentioned in the majority of papers on governance. A number of public management articles discourage a top-down authoritative approach to water regulation with regard to government organizations (GS1) because a coercive, centralized water management policy can cause conflict among private actors. Nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and local economic actors must be included, as there appears to be agreement. When implementing sustainable practices, integrated institutional frameworks are less likely to encounter resistance

[55]

. However, there is still disagreement about whether local or central government is a superior way to manage water resources

[45]

. In general, organizations continue to view regulation, or the possibility of future regulation and fines, as a motivator for sustainable water management activities

[56]

Collaborative governance models, in which nongovernmental organizations participate actively in decision-making, such as local communities, businesses, and NGOs, frequently rely on regulatory frameworks that specify which actors belong in CPR institutions and what their individual roles and rights are

[57]

. To guarantee compliance, Tensions arose in the Delaware River case when it was discovered that the decrees were favoring lower-basin players over those in the upper-basin. Any policy established can lead to conflict between groups when players have divergent interests.

There are many different actors involved in water management, as well as numerous regulatory bodies. Most of the time, multiple public authorities—many of which lack a clear hierarchical structure—are involved in handling all aspects of water issues in a particular location; this can cause confusion and raise questions about legitimacy

[58, 59]

. Regulatory frameworks must be viewed as fair and suitable by all parties involved. Generally, a multilevel network (GS3) of governmental and nongovernmental organizations governs water resources. According to

[60]

, local policy networks are considered crucial for the implementation of sustainable policies among players, particularly in cases when monitoring expenses are substantial. Decentralized water initiatives in underdeveloped nations recognize that local communities are capable of rationally self-managing their water resources.

The efficacy of deliberative democratic governance has been questioned due to the perception that it may exacerbate power imbalances

[61]

. It has also been observed that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to water governance; rather, institutions are anticipated to change over time in response to shifting concerns. An article on collective-choice rules (GS6) poses the topic of what voting scheme is best for accurately aggregating preferences among river basin players

[62]

. Constitutional-choice rules (GS7) are not discussed in the meantime.

The majority of technical and operation articles are designed to give public authorities operational guidelines for decision-making (GS5). These are offered as tools for optimizing decision-making to assist in handling the complexity of water-related problems. Water service quality evaluation tools, dikes cost-benefit optimization

[63]

, and water allocation rules are a few examples.

Few articles in the management section address the subject of property rights and water ownership (GS4). Municipal water service is the primary emphasis of those who do

[64, 65]

. Still, there remain debates on how to handle water as a commodity. While some articles treat water as a good whose allocation needs to be optimized based on hydrological models, others (Jaffee & Newman, 2013; Rice, 2013) defend a less anthropocentric vision of the natural resource.

Monitoring systems (GS8) are described as a necessary first step for any sustainable water management process for adaptation measures against increasing water scarcity

[66]

. Monitoring systems are central to proper CPR management to ensure user compliance. Information collecting is not equally important to all participants at the river basin level, thus regulations must make sure that the cost of monitoring is split equally. When water governance entities are not elected, accountability is also essential to their legitimacy. Even if the monitoring system might strengthen external legitimacy, its environmental benefits are unclear if its use is only bureaucratic and mechanical

[67]

. New accounting and monitoring systems must be implemented in response to regulatory changes, such as the European Union's Water Framework Directive. However, operationalizing the concept of sustainability through monitoring systems is still difficult

[68]

Actors (A)

The decision-making processes of the actors involved in water systems are influenced by their incredibly varied socioeconomic profiles (A2). There is evidence that several heuristics are applied in the decision-making process of water management, with respect to knowledge of the SES and mental models (A7)

[67]

. Furthermore, the actors—who range from full-time water experts to novices—have wildly disparate levels of comprehension of the technical SES data. Cooperation becomes more expensive as a result of these knowledge gaps

[68, 69]

. Water-related problems may be the catalyst for any interaction at all between the players. As a result, there may be a lack of trust between them at first due to differences in norms and values and poor social capital (A6). However, the establishment of novel standards can incite fruitful cooperation within a community that was not inclined towards it. In addition, some studies emphasize the political and ethical aspects of water management due to the necessity of water and the high level of interdependence among the actors

[70, 71].

Making the case that businesses must take into account actor relationships, their own personal goals, and public policy reactions when it comes to corporate water responsibility. The significance of champions or leaders (A5) in promoting sustainable water management techniques was examined in a number of papers

[72]

. For instance, leaders may contribute to the development of actor trust.

Studies on the role of policy entrepreneurs in promoting changes also exist from the perspective of public management

[73]

Actors' perceptions of the resource vary not just in their cognitive (A7) and normative (A6) aspects, but also in their degrees of awareness of their reliance on it (A8). Water-related problems are deemed wicked because of this: It is problematic for actors to simply define the issue as such

[74]

. Prior to taking any action, firms must accurately identify and assess their exposure to water-related concerns at the organizational level. Beyond opinions, having access to clean water is a matter of life or death. According to

[75]

, the econometric calculation of the deprivation cost of water in a humanitarian setting includes a terminal value, set at 120 hours, equivalent to the individual's point of death from a lack of water. Reduced child mortality is associated with access to clean water

[45, 46]

. As recently demonstrated by

[76]

in their research conducted in Tanzania, pressure on water resources can have a significant impact on community life and their subsistence market. In terms of history or prior experiences, several publications (A3) describe how water systems have evolved historically through longitudinal research without emphasizing path dependency. The differing interests can be explained by location (A4) within a water system, as this has been partially observed with upper- and lower-river users at odds with one another. Lastly, no paper discusses how different actors in a water system may have varying access to technologies (A9).

Action Situations: Interactions (I)

Ostrom's SES framework, far from being static, considers the relationships between all of its elements, including units, actors, governance systems, and resource systems.

This section takes interactions covered in the articles into consideration. Information sharing (I2) is a primary requirement for actor coordination, as it is essential to deliberative processes (I3). Multicriteria decision-making procedures, or parts of the governance system, that incorporate a variety of interest groups are necessary for such debate to be done in an optimal manner

[77]

. However, there are problems with transparency, information availability, and interpretability due to time constraints, complexity, and disparate mental models of the SES across players (A7). Debates centered on the reuse of treated wastewater as freshwater demonstrate that presenting objective scientific data is insufficient to resolve disagreements between civil society and politicians

[78]

Actors' (A) disparities in normative views and analytical biases foster conflicts (I4). The evolution of linked ecosystems (ECO) or the social, economic, and political environment (S) also has an impact on them: It is anticipated that the reduction in climate change-related available water resources (RU) will intensify competition between various entities for the same resource. The competition between parties with competing interests is the subject of several studies, such as the case of various US states, bottled water companies, and local communities. Given that they serve as discussion platforms, governance systems (GS) like river basin organizations are anticipated to be crucial in preventing or resolving conflicts. River boards have been examined as a form of boundary organization since actors are still enmeshed in the logic of their home organizations

[79]

. While there are few examples of self-organizing activities (I7) in the papers gathered, research on Japan has examined the state's role in assisting the process of self-organization. In addition to the preceding discussion of governance networks (GS3), it should be noted that the execution of networking operations (I8) is expensive and difficult, raising issues of trust and power imbalances (A6). No article discusses the expense of monitoring (I9) or evaluating actions (I10) when it comes to networking activities. The role of outside parties in pressuring organizations for sustainable water management is briefly discussed in lobbying actions (I6), but no comprehensive research on the subject could be located. No management or organizational article in our sample examines the investment activities (I5) of players in water systems and how these investments affect interorganizational connections, with the exception of technical and economics papers on the optimization of investment decisions. Similarly, while harvesting (I1) activities are recognized as a cause of conflict amongst actors, nothing is known about how different harvesting patterns differ or about possible areas of overlap in the literature. The underappreciation of resource units (RU) and resource systems (RS) may be the cause of both findings.

Action Situations: Outcomes (O)

Scholars of management have been more interested in examining interactions than their results. While several of the papers in the collection offer insightful explanations for particular behaviors or interactions, few of them particularly addressed the short- or long-term social and environmental effects of those interactions (O1, O2). "The lack of evidence concerning the environmental outcomes of collaborative governance. According to him, methodological issues and a lack of data may be the cause of the paucity of research on environmental outcomes.

Comparably, externalities to other SESs (O3), such as the water-energy nexus, receive relatively less attention

[80]

. Due to the challenge of quantifying the effects of regulations, some researchers have assessed the performance of governance systems using the perception of effectiveness among stakeholders or the application of environmental policies. Given the unpredictability of water systems, even though those are significant variables, they do not demonstrate the socio-ecological relevance of those governance systems. Other studies evaluate the effects of human activity on water systems using one-dimensional variables, like groundwater quantity. For instance, demonstrates how centralized control may boost the effectiveness of the water network while lowering social satisfaction. Moreover, urban water supply security may be impacted by the ecological preservation of water bodies. These are still insufficient gauges of the complex reality of water SESs, notwithstanding their advantages.

The measurement of multidimensional outcomes is a topic rarely covered in papers. Using the triple-bottom-line method in the context of municipal water services, for example, there are some technical and operations studies that examine many performance indicators collectively from a positivist perspective

[81]

. Finding a more precise measurement technique will take more work than these initial stages. For instance, solely employs water affordability as a stand-in for socioeconomic.

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

This SES framework component is virtually nonexistent in the literature, much like other elements from the natural environment (RS, RU). A lack of information has been published about pollution patterns (ECO2) and flows into and out of local SES (ECO3), despite the fact that several papers discuss the effects of climate change (ECO1) on water systems, with declining water quantity and quality. Water transfers at the water utility level are allegedly influenced by economies of scale and water scarcity.

4. Findings and Discussion

Structuring Management Research on Water

Our review covers a wide range of ideas and methods from organizational, management, and business literatures that have been used to studies on the topic of sustainable water management. It does not follow that we disregard theories in favor of concentrating on an empirical phenomenon. Such agnostic phenomenon-based literature evaluations can provide “insights that transcend specialized language and assumptions. Sustainable water management is a critical societal concern that management, an applied discipline, seeks to address through problem-solving and social betterment. However, our reference network analysis reveals nearly nonexistent references in all of the chosen articles: The management literature's papers about water are like drops in a torrent of study; they don't add up to a body of knowledge about sustainable water management. While it is true that research on sustainable water management should incorporate ideas from various theoretical discussions and other disciplines of study, it is also necessary to build on earlier studies of the phenomena in order to examine an empirical setting as complicated and particular as water management. This further highlights the paucity of theoretical advancements in the management and organizational studies literature that are particular to sustainable water management. By organizing the contributions on water management within the framework of the SES, we hope to counteract the well-known inclination to concentrate on a certain theoretical silo and encourage greater equilibrium between theoretical and phenomenon-based considerations in subsequent research. However, the SES framework is not limited to aiding in the analysis of current material. Management academics must, in fact, improve on current theories that haven't been able to adequately take into account environmental realities in order to meet that societal problem

[82]

. Despite coming from the social sciences, Ostrom's SES framework is thought to strike a balance between social and ecological aspects

[83]

. This means that it can assist scholars in properly situating organizations and their role in relation to CPR issues within the SES in which they are embedded as actors of a governance system. Stated differently, using the SES framework as the foundation for any management theory analysis results in a significant shift in focus from only social to ecological and social components, and from the survival and growth of individual organizations to the survival and growth of the system as a whole. Therefore, we think that theories that focus on how managers focus their attention and what logics they employ

[84]

may find special meaning in this paradigm.

Future Research Avenues

Numerous facets of the SES framework remain unexplored in organization and management studies on water conducted in the last 12 years, according to our review of the literature, which leaves a great deal of space for future research. As if organizational relationships and management choices were not shaped by and embedded in geographical and biophysical contexts, we discover that the literature frequently ignores the elements most closely associated with the natural environment (RS, RU, and ECO). Despite belonging to the social sciences, the gathered publications examine environmental issues. However, our analysis reveals that the "ecological" in SES is still absent from water management research. As factors influencing sustainable water management, such components ought to be included more thoroughly in theoretical advancements. Building on the SES framework, researchers should look into how much natural environment features, like a water system's size (RS3), storage capacity (RS8), or water quantity and quality (RU5), affect the way actors make decisions (A), how governance systems (GS), and how they interact (I). Additionally, we think that concentrating on the interactions between the various elements of the SES framework will yield richer research perspectives: how the social, political, and economic context (S) can either support or undermine the sustainability of a water system, or how the governance system (GS) can best fit the physical realities (RS) and the characteristics of the actors (A) of the resource system. Above all, the literature review indicates that more work needs to be done in quantifying the social and environmental outcomes (O) of actors' interactions (I), not just in the water system but also in other SESs like the energy system. Our conclusions about the absence of measurement of real results are consistent with earlier findings in the organization and environment research as a whole: Researchers are interested in how organizations affect the environment, but most evaluations of this impact are indirect, distant, or socially constructed

[85, 86]

. Researchers must be able to accurately assess the social-ecological effects of different approaches to water management. According to

[87]

, despite significant regulatory efforts made since 2000 under the European Union Water Framework Directive, it seems unlikely that the goals established for the good quality of surface waters by 2020 will be met. Less than half of the rivers were regarded as having reached that state in 2015, with only 53% of surface water bodies reported to have done so

[88]

. This demonstrates that significant efforts made in the area of water governance have not yet resulted in tangible environmental gains.

We contend that since economic and climatic changes are expected to increase the strain on ecosystems, it is critical to establish a connection between water management methods and environmental results. Furthermore, as the idea of sustainability is centered on the next generation

[89]

, future research should focus more on medium- and long-term effects rather than taking a short-sighted approach to environmental results. We think more comparative longitudinal studies connecting interactions to social and environmental effects ought to be conducted, despite the methodological difficulties this kind of research entails. Because "there is no single 'cause' or driver, [but rather] 'circular causality'"

[90]

when it comes to environmental transitions, the study of socio-ecological outcomes in all of their multidimensional complexity is even more crucial. Although developing methods for measuring a river's environmental state is outside the purview of management scholars, it is nonetheless vital for us to hunt for these measures in other literatures and apply them to our research. To create a fully comprehensive, multifaceted evaluation of the results of interactions at the watershed level, we may also combine those measurements with more sophisticated social indicators of the pleasure of the various actors.

Future study could examine the relationship between the specific environmental effects of collaborative governance institutions and the involvement patterns of actors within such organizations, by tying together various parts of the SES framework.

Reconciling Positivist and Interpretive Approaches on Water Management

The manner in which the natural and organizational settings are analyzed appears to differ significantly from how they are represented in the scholarly discourse and in the empirical situations that the papers under review cover

[91],

It is so challenging to develop strategies that integrate or harmonize multiple contexts. For this reason, as has been done previously, management researchers should seek to incorporate the various SES framework components into their study rather than leaving them to be looked at by researchers from other disciplines, such as economists or environmentalists

[92]

. This necessitates revising conventional management theories to incorporate environmental elements and developing new analytical approaches.

As was previously mentioned, we collected papers on water-related topics that presented a clear division between positivist and interpretive methods. Since water issues are socially constructed, a strictly positivist approach to evaluating sustainable water management is insufficient, and a more comprehensive approach than the triple-bottom-line is required. If the actors themselves cannot understand how the sustainability of water governance is evaluated, it will have no practical significance. As a result, researchers must also look at how various stakeholders define sustainable water management, how results are currently monitored, and how a comprehensive evaluation of the sustainability of river basins might be created that takes into account the many perspectives of stakeholders.

4.1. Stakeholder Engagement

Effective engagement of local communities enhances trust and leads to better decision-making. For instance, in the participatory water management initiatives in South Africa

[93]

, stakeholder involvement improved water distribution equity.

4.2. Cultural Values

Understanding local cultural perceptions of water significantly influences management strategies. In Indigenous communities, traditional ecological knowledge has been integral to sustainable practices.

4.3. Power Dynamics

Power imbalances can result in unequal access to water resources. Case studies from India show how marginalized groups often lack representation in water management decisions

[94]

. "Power dynamics impact water management by influencing decision-making processes, resource allocation, and stakeholder involvement. The dynamics of power can shape policies, implementation strategies, and the overall governance structure related to water management.

4.4. Social Networks

Social networks facilitate the sharing of information and resources. Community-led initiatives in Latin America demonstrate how networks enhance collaborative water management

[95]

5. Case Studies

South Africa: Successful stakeholder engagement in participatory water management.

India: Power dynamics affecting marginalized communities' access to water.

Latin America: Community networks fostering cooperative management.

6. Conclusion

Integrating social dynamics into water resource management is essential for achieving sustainability and equity. Policymakers should prioritize inclusive practices and further research on these dynamics to improve governance. Our analysis of the descriptive and qualitative literature on water published since 2006 demonstrates the meager contribution of management and organization studies to sustainable water management. By adopting the viewpoint of the natural resource system, we supplement earlier, commercially focused assessments of the literature with a critical critique that is greatly required. The fact that neither substantial theoretical growth nor information acquisition is occurring is a first cause for concern. Currently, we discover some raindrops in place of a common stream of study on water management. Scholars studying organizations have begun to explore water-related issues using a wide range of theoretical perspectives, but they haven't built on each other's previous research. We argue that for organizational and management studies, a specialized scholarly discourse on sustainable water management ought to emerge. Research projects pertaining to organization and management studies on environmental concerns should prioritize sustainability, which necessitates gaining a system-level understanding of natural resources. We used Ostrom's SES framework to classify the available research in order to meet this demand. By doing this, we created the first comprehensive analysis of the current situation in the literature on water management. According to our analysis, there are a lot of research opportunities, which emphasizes the urgent need to comprehend the social-ecological effects of water management institutions. Theoretical frameworks that enable management researchers to incorporate the natural environmental components of SESs into their reasoning are still a requirement.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. Routledge.
[2]	López, M. J., & Rojas, C. (2014). Social Networks and Water Governance in Latin America. Water International, 39(3), 348-363.
[3]	Merrey, D. J. (2007). Improving the Effectiveness of Water Management: Lessons from the IWRM Agenda. Water Policy, 9(3), 293-308.
[4]	Molle, F. (2008). Water and Power: Lessons from the 2004 Water Framework Directive. Water Resources Development, 24(2), 215-232.
[5]	Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions Towards Adaptive Management of Water Facing Climate and Global Change. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 5-24.
[6]	Shah, T., et al. (2006). Water Crisis in India: Cause and Effect. Water Policy, 8(1), 1-22.
[7]	Kurland, N. B., & Zell, D. (2010). Water and business: A taxonomy and review of the research. Organization & Environment, 23, 316-353.
[8]	Vogel, R. M. (2015). An Interdisciplinary Approach to Water Resource Management. Water Resources Research, 51(2), 821-832.
[9]	Ann, Crabbé. "The institutional dynamics of water management in the low countries." In Institutional dynamics in environmental governance. 93114. Dordrecht Springer Netherlands, link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/1-4020-5079-8.pdf#page=103
[10]	Juliet, Willetts, et al. Participation and Power Dynamics Between International Non-governmental Organisations and Local Partners: A Rural Water Case Study in Indonesia. Water Alternatives, 2019, www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol12/v12issue3/550-a12-3-6/file
[11]	Margreet, Z., et al. Gendered Dynamics of Participation in Water Management in Nepal and Peru: Revisiting the Linkages Between Membership and Power. Routledge, www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781849774574-14/gendered-dynamics-participation-water-management-nepal-peru-revisiting-linkages-membership-power-margreet-zwarteveen-pranita-bhushan-udas-juana-vera-delgado
[12]	Pinto, F. S., A. S. Costa, J. R. Figueira, and R. C. Marques. "The quality of service: An overall performance assessment for water utilities." Omega 69(2017): 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.08.006
[13]	The quality of service: An overall per-formance assessment for water utilities. Omega, 69, 115-125. Pointon, C., & Matthews, K. (2016).
[14]	Dynamic efficiency in the English and Welsh water and sewerage industry. Omega, 58, 86-96. Porcher, S. (2016). Neither market nor hierarchy: Concurrent sourcing in water public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 800-812.
[15]	Raffensperger, J. F., Milke, M. W., & Read, E. G. (2009). A deterministic smart market model for ground-water. Operations Research, 57, 1333-1346.
[16]	Rice, J. (2013). Controlled flooding in the Grand Canyon: Drifting between instrumental and ecological rationality in water management. Organization & Environment, 26, 412-430.
[17]	Sarker, A. (2013). The role of state-reinforced self-governance in averting the tragedy of the irrigation com-mons in Japan. Public Administration, 91, 727-743.
[18]	Schaefer, A. (2007). Contrasting institutional and performance accounts of environmental management systems: Three case studies in the UK water and sewerage industry. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 506-535.
[19]	Schlager, E., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Left high and dry? Climate change, common-pool resource theory, and the adaptability of Western water compacts. Public Administration Review, 71, 461-470.
[20]	Scott, T. A. (2016). Is collaboration a good investment? Modeling the link between funds given to collab-orative watershed councils and water quality. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 769-786.
[21]	Shandra, C. L., Shandra, J. M., & London, B. (2011). World Bank structural adjustment, water, and sanita-tion: A cross-national analysis of child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. Organization & Environment, 24, 107-129.
[22]	Shandra, J. M., Shor, E., & London, B. (2008). Debt, structural adjustment, and organic water pollution: A cross-national analysis. Organization & Environment, 21, 38-55.
[23]	Shrestha, M. K. (2013). Self-organizing network capital and the success of collaborative public programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 307-329.
[24]	Skinner, R. M. (2017). Water policy in a time of climate change: Coping with complexity. Public Administration Review, 77, 13-16.
[25]	Spar, D., & Bebenek, K. (2009). To the tap: Public versus private water provision at the turn of the twentieth century. Business History Review, 83, 675-702.
[26]	Srdjevic, Z., Kolarov, V., & Srdjevic, B. (2007). Finding the best location for pumping stations in the Galovica drainage area of Serbia: The AHP approach for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 502-511. Taylor, A.,
[27]	Cocklin, C., Brown, R., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2011). An investigation of champion-driven leadership processes. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 412-433.
[28]	Teodoro, M. P. (2010). Contingent professionalism: Bureaucratic mobility and the adoption of water con-servation rates. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 437-459.
[29]	Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
[30]	Tiefenbeck, V., Goette, L., Degen, K., Tasic, V., Fleisch, E., Lalive, R., & Staake, T. (2016). Overcoming salience bias: How real-time feedback fosters resource conservation. Management Science, 64, 1458- 1476.
[31]	Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and pro-social motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73-96.
[32]	Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George, G. (2014). Climate change and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 615-623.
[33]	Jaffee, D., & Newman, S. (2013). A bottle half empty: Bottled water, commodification, and contestation. Organization & Environment, 26, 318-335.
[34]	Almiñana, M., Escudero, L. F., Landete, M., Monge, J. F., Rabasa, A., & Sánchez-Soriano, J. (2010). WISCHE: A DSS for water irrigation scheduling. Omega, 38, 492-500.
[35]	Porcher, S. (2016). Neither market nor hierarchy: Concurrent sourcing in water public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 800-812.
[36]	Martinez, F. (2015). A three-dimensional conceptual framework of corporate water responsibility. Organization & Environment, 28, 137-159.
[37]	Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419-422.
[38]	Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[39]	McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continu-ing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2), Article 30. Retrieved from https://www.ecologyandsociety. org/vol19/iss2/art30/
[40]	Jorgenson, A. K. (2007). Does foreign investment harm the air we breathe and the water we drink? A cross-national study of carbon dioxide emissions and organic water pollution in less-developed countries, 1975 to 2000. Organization & Environment, 20, 137-156.
[41]	Jorgenson, A. K. (2009). Foreign direct investment and the environment, the mitigating influence of insti-tutional and civil society factors, and relationships between industrial pollution and human health: A panel study of less-developed countries. Organization & Environment, 22, 135-157.
[42]	Hong, S. (2017). What are the areas of competence for central and local governments? Accountability mechanisms in multi-level governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27, 120-134.
[43]	Harley, C., Metcalf, L., & Irwin, J. (2014). An exploratory study in community perspectives of sustainabil-ity leadership in the Murray Darling Basin. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 413-433.
[44]	Kolesar, P., & Serio, J. (2011). Breaking the deadlock: Improving water-release policies on the Delaware River through operations research. Interfaces, 41, 18-34.
[45]	Hovik, S., & Hanssen, G. S. (2015). The impact of network management and complexity on multi-level coordination. Public Administration, 93, 506-523.
[46]	Wang, S., & Huang, G. H. (2014). An integrated approach for water resources decision making under inter-active and compound uncertainties. Omega, 44, 32-40.
[47]	Hu, Z., Putz, J., Sutjandra, Y., Chan, A., Mount, E., & Baker, K. (2015). The energy authority optimizes water routing and hydroelectric generation on the Columbia River. Interfaces, 45, 43-57.
[48]	Aljamal, A., Speece, M., & Bagnied, M. A. (2016). Kuwait water challenges: Building a research agenda for policy impact and student experiential learning. Journal of Business Research, 69, 5065-5070.
[49]	Mariola, M. J. (2011). The commodification of pollution and a preemptive double movement in environ-mental governance: The case of water quality trading. Organization & Environment, 24, 231-248.
[50]	Whittaker, G., Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Barnhart, B., Bostian, M., Mueller-Warrant, G., & Griffith, S. (2017). Spatial targeting of agri-environmental policy using bilevel evolutionary optimization. Omega, 66, 15-27.
[51]	Elimam, A. A., & Girgis, M. A. (2012). Optimization of water resources planning for Jordan’s Aqaba spe-cial economic zone. Interfaces, 42, 528-543.
[52]	Heikkila, T. (2017). Evidence for tackling the complexities of water governance. Public Administration Review, 77, 17-20.
[53]	Nikolic, S. J. S., & Koontz, T. M. (2007). Nonprofit organizations in environmental management: A com-parative analysis of government impacts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 441-463.
[54]	Tingey-Holyoak, J. (2014). Sustainable water storage by agricultural businesses: Strategic responses to institutional pressures. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2590-2602.
[55]	Egan, M. (2015). Driving water management change where economic incentive is limited. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 73-90.
[56]	Koski, C., & May. (2005). Interests and implementation: Fostering voluntary regulatory actions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 329-349.
[57]	Cashman, A., & Lewis, L. (2007). Topping up or watering down? Sustainable development in the privatized UK water industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 93-105.
[58]	Lubell, M., Mewhirter, J. M., Berardo, R., & Scholz, J. T. (2017). Transaction costs and the perceived effec-tiveness of complex institutional systems. Public Administration Review, 77, 668-680.
[59]	Wood, M. (2015). Beyond accountability: Political legitimacy and delegated water governance in Australia. Public Administration, 93, 1012-1030.
[60]	Bell &Fulton (2007). Climate change alterations to ecosystem dominance: how might sponge‐dominated reefs function? Ecology, 99(9), 1920-1931.
[61]	Behagel, J. H., & Arts, B. (2014). Democratic governance and political rationalities in the implementation of the water framework directive in the Netherlands. Public Administration, 92, 291-306.
[62]	Morais, D. C., & de Almeida, A. T. (2012). Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings. Omega, 40, 42-52.
[63]	Eijgenraam, C., Brekelmans, R., den Hertog, D., & Roos, K. (2017). Optimal strategies for flood preven-tion. Management Science, 63, 1644-1656. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2395
[64]	Murali, K., Lim, M. K., & Petruzzi, N. C. (2015). Municipal groundwater management: Optimal allo-cation and control of a renewable natural resource. Production and Operations Management, 24, 1453-1472.
[65]	Warner, M. E., & Bel, G. (2008). Competition or monopoly? Comparing privatization of local public ser-vices in the US and Spain. Public Administration, 86, 723-735.
[66]	Gasbarro, F., Rizzi, F., & Frey, M. (2016). Adaptation measures of energy and utility companies to cope with water scarcity induced by climate change: Water scarcity means risk or opportunity for compa-nies? Business Strategy and the Environment, 25, 54-72.
[67]	Fuenfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2014). The structuration of socio-technical regimes: Conceptual founda-tions from institutional theory. Research Policy, 43, 772-791.
[68]	Weible, C. M., & Moore, R. H. (2010). Analytics and beliefs: Competing explanations for defining problems and choosing allies and opponents in collaborative environmental management. Public Administration Review, 70, 756-766.
[69]	MacGillivray, B. H. (2014). Fast and frugal crisis management: An analysis of rule-based judgment and choice during water contamination events. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1717-1724.
[70]	Kurland, N. B., & Zell, D. (2011). Regulating water: A naturological analysis of competing interests among company, town, and state. Business & Society, 50, 481-512.
[71]	Weber, E. P. (2009). Explaining institutional change in tough cases of collaboration: “Ideas” in the Blackfoot watershed. Public Administration Review, 69, 314-327.
[72]	Tingey-Holyoak, J. L., & Pisaniello, J. D. (2017). Strategic responses to resource management pressures in agriculture: Institutional, gender and location effects. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 2590-2602.
[73]	Taylor, A., Cocklin, C., Brown, R., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2011). An investigation of champion-driven leadership processes. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 412-433.
[74]	Colvin, J., Blackmore, C., Chimbuya, S., Collins, K., Dent, M., Goss, J., & Seddaiu, G. (2014). In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: A design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry. Research Policy, 43, 760-771.
[75]	Holguín-Veras, J., Amaya-Leal, J., Cantillo, V., Van Wassenhove, L. N., Aros-Vera, F., & Jaller, M. (2016). Econometric estimation of deprivation cost functions: A contingent valuation experiment. Journal of Operations Management, 45, 44-56.
[76]	Viswanathan, M., Venugopal, S., Minefee, I., Guest, J. S., Marinas, B. J., Bauza, V.,... Jones, M. (2016). A bottom-up approach to short-term immersion in subsistence marketplaces: Methodological and substantive lessons on poverty and the environment from Tanzania. Organization & Environment, 29, 438-460.
[77]	Dominguez, D., Worch, H., Markard, J., Truffer, B., & Gujer, W. (2009). Closing the capability gap: Strategic planning for the infrastructure sector. California Management Review, 51(2), 30-50.
[78]	Lejano, R. P., & Leong, C. (2012). A hermeneutic approach to explaining and understanding public contro-versies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 793-814.
[79]	Fan, G. H., & Zietsma, C. (2017). Constructing a shared governance logic: The role of emotions in enabling dually embedded agency. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 2321-2351.
[80]	Lubell, M., & Fulton, A. (2007). Local policy networks and agricultural watershed management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 673-696.
[81]	Llopis-Albert, C., Palacios-Marques, D., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2015). Decision-making and stakeholders’ constructive participation in environmental projects. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1641-1644.
[82]	Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 413-453.
[83]	Winn, M. I., & Pogutz, S. (2013). Business, ecosystems, and biodiversity: New horizons for management research. Organization & Environment, 26, 203-229.
[84]	Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P. W. G., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of frameworks for analyz-ing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(4), Article 26. Retrieved from https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss4/art26/
[85]	Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20, 874-907.
[86]	Bansal, P., & Gao, J. (2006). Building the future by looking to the past: Examining research published on organizations and environment. Organization & Environment, 19, 458-478.
[87]	Boons, F. (2013). Organizing within dynamic ecosystems: Conceptualizing socio-ecological mechanisms. Organization & Environment, 26, 281-297.
[88]	European Environment Agency. (2016). Environmental indicator report 2016: In support to the monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. Retrieved from http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:THAL16030:EN:HTML
[89]	Arenas, D., & Rodrigo, P. (2016). On firms and the next generations: Difficulties and possibilities for busi-ness ethics inquiry. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 165-178.
[90]	Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criti-cisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1, 24-40.
[91]	Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992–present: A review. Journal of Management, 33, 637-664.
[92]	George, G., Schillebeeckx, S. J. D., & Liak, T. L. (2015). The management of natural resources: An over-view and research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1595-1613.
[93]	Vander Zaag, R. (2014). Trends in CIDA funding to Canadian religious development NGOs: analysing conflicting studies. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 35(3), 458-474.
[94]	Shah, D., Rust, R. T., Parasuraman, A., Staelin, R., & Day, G. S. (2006). The path to customer centricity. Journal of service research, 9(2), 113-124.
[95]	López, V., Julio, C., Morales, M., Rojas, C., & Pérez, M. V. (2014). Barreras culturales para la inclusión: políticas y prácticas de integración en Chile. Ministerio de Educación.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Jian, C., Kapilya, R. (2025). Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 13(5), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Jian, C.; Kapilya, R. Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data. Int. J. Econ. Finance Manag. Sci. 2025, 13(5), 271-287. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Jian C, Kapilya R. Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data. Int J Econ Finance Manag Sci. 2025;13(5):271-287. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14,
  author = {Chen Jian and Reagan Kapilya},
  title = {Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data
},
  journal = {International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences},
  volume = {13},
  number = {5},
  pages = {271-287},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijefm.20251305.14},
  abstract = {This article examines the crucial role of social dynamics in managing water resources, highlighting the importance of considering these factors for effective governance. Through a comprehensive analysis of secondary data drawn from diverse case studies and existing literature, we elucidate how aspects such as stakeholder engagement, cultural values, power dynamics, and social networks shape water management practices. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating these social factors to foster sustainable and equitable governance of water resources. Employing the Social-Ecological Systems Framework, this study systematically examines the interactions between social elements and water use, access, and conservation efforts across various communities. We present a range of case studies that exemplify successful stakeholder engagement and collaborative governance, highlighting the promising outcomes that can arise from incorporating social dynamics into water management strategies. These case studies illustrate how participatory approaches can lead to improved decision-making processes, ensuring that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and valued. Our research indicates that facilitating community involvement and aligning water management policies with local cultural values can significantly enhance both ecological health and social equity. By recognizing the interdependence of social and ecological systems, we propose that water management practices should evolve to reflect local contexts and foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders. This integrative approach not only addresses immediate water-related challenges but also promotes long-term resilience and adaptability in response to changing environmental conditions. This article advocates for a paradigm shift in water resource management that prioritizes social dynamics alongside technical and ecological considerations. By embracing this holistic perspective, we can develop more effective and just water governance frameworks that contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Our insights aim to guide policymakers and practitioners in rethinking their strategies, ultimately leading to healthier ecosystems and more equitable access to water resources for all.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data

AU  - Chen Jian
AU  - Reagan Kapilya
Y1  - 2025/09/19
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14
T2  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JF  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JO  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
SP  - 271
EP  - 287
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-9561
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14
AB  - This article examines the crucial role of social dynamics in managing water resources, highlighting the importance of considering these factors for effective governance. Through a comprehensive analysis of secondary data drawn from diverse case studies and existing literature, we elucidate how aspects such as stakeholder engagement, cultural values, power dynamics, and social networks shape water management practices. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating these social factors to foster sustainable and equitable governance of water resources. Employing the Social-Ecological Systems Framework, this study systematically examines the interactions between social elements and water use, access, and conservation efforts across various communities. We present a range of case studies that exemplify successful stakeholder engagement and collaborative governance, highlighting the promising outcomes that can arise from incorporating social dynamics into water management strategies. These case studies illustrate how participatory approaches can lead to improved decision-making processes, ensuring that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and valued. Our research indicates that facilitating community involvement and aligning water management policies with local cultural values can significantly enhance both ecological health and social equity. By recognizing the interdependence of social and ecological systems, we propose that water management practices should evolve to reflect local contexts and foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders. This integrative approach not only addresses immediate water-related challenges but also promotes long-term resilience and adaptability in response to changing environmental conditions. This article advocates for a paradigm shift in water resource management that prioritizes social dynamics alongside technical and ecological considerations. By embracing this holistic perspective, we can develop more effective and just water governance frameworks that contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Our insights aim to guide policymakers and practitioners in rethinking their strategies, ultimately leading to healthier ecosystems and more equitable access to water resources for all.

VL  - 13
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Chen Jian

Yuanzhi Business School, Guangzhou Southern University, Guangzhou, China

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3266-3039
Reagan Kapilya

Beijing Normal University Business School, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

http://orcid.org/0009-0003-1426-8227

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Jian, C., Kapilya, R. (2025). Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 13(5), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Jian, C.; Kapilya, R. Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data. Int. J. Econ. Finance Manag. Sci. 2025, 13(5), 271-287. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Jian C, Kapilya R. Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data. Int J Econ Finance Manag Sci. 2025;13(5):271-287. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14,
  author = {Chen Jian and Reagan Kapilya},
  title = {Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data
},
  journal = {International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences},
  volume = {13},
  number = {5},
  pages = {271-287},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijefm.20251305.14},
  abstract = {This article examines the crucial role of social dynamics in managing water resources, highlighting the importance of considering these factors for effective governance. Through a comprehensive analysis of secondary data drawn from diverse case studies and existing literature, we elucidate how aspects such as stakeholder engagement, cultural values, power dynamics, and social networks shape water management practices. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating these social factors to foster sustainable and equitable governance of water resources. Employing the Social-Ecological Systems Framework, this study systematically examines the interactions between social elements and water use, access, and conservation efforts across various communities. We present a range of case studies that exemplify successful stakeholder engagement and collaborative governance, highlighting the promising outcomes that can arise from incorporating social dynamics into water management strategies. These case studies illustrate how participatory approaches can lead to improved decision-making processes, ensuring that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and valued. Our research indicates that facilitating community involvement and aligning water management policies with local cultural values can significantly enhance both ecological health and social equity. By recognizing the interdependence of social and ecological systems, we propose that water management practices should evolve to reflect local contexts and foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders. This integrative approach not only addresses immediate water-related challenges but also promotes long-term resilience and adaptability in response to changing environmental conditions. This article advocates for a paradigm shift in water resource management that prioritizes social dynamics alongside technical and ecological considerations. By embracing this holistic perspective, we can develop more effective and just water governance frameworks that contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Our insights aim to guide policymakers and practitioners in rethinking their strategies, ultimately leading to healthier ecosystems and more equitable access to water resources for all.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Integrating Social Dynamics in Water Resource Management: Insights from Secondary Data

AU  - Chen Jian
AU  - Reagan Kapilya
Y1  - 2025/09/19
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14
T2  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JF  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JO  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
SP  - 271
EP  - 287
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-9561
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20251305.14
AB  - This article examines the crucial role of social dynamics in managing water resources, highlighting the importance of considering these factors for effective governance. Through a comprehensive analysis of secondary data drawn from diverse case studies and existing literature, we elucidate how aspects such as stakeholder engagement, cultural values, power dynamics, and social networks shape water management practices. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating these social factors to foster sustainable and equitable governance of water resources. Employing the Social-Ecological Systems Framework, this study systematically examines the interactions between social elements and water use, access, and conservation efforts across various communities. We present a range of case studies that exemplify successful stakeholder engagement and collaborative governance, highlighting the promising outcomes that can arise from incorporating social dynamics into water management strategies. These case studies illustrate how participatory approaches can lead to improved decision-making processes, ensuring that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and valued. Our research indicates that facilitating community involvement and aligning water management policies with local cultural values can significantly enhance both ecological health and social equity. By recognizing the interdependence of social and ecological systems, we propose that water management practices should evolve to reflect local contexts and foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders. This integrative approach not only addresses immediate water-related challenges but also promotes long-term resilience and adaptability in response to changing environmental conditions. This article advocates for a paradigm shift in water resource management that prioritizes social dynamics alongside technical and ecological considerations. By embracing this holistic perspective, we can develop more effective and just water governance frameworks that contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Our insights aim to guide policymakers and practitioners in rethinking their strategies, ultimately leading to healthier ecosystems and more equitable access to water resources for all.

VL  - 13
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download