Gaps in the Accounting of Stakeholder Integrations in HydroGIS Tools to Face the Challenge of Sustainable Urban Flood Management

Due to the devastating repercussions, urban flood management has received decision-maker attention [1]–[3]. Flood management is commonly done by using hydrological models, and they manipulate the spatial data by combining Geographic Information Systems (GIS) [4], [5]. HydroGIS refers to a combination of hydrology and GIS components, while HydroGIS modelling tools are designed to perform hydrologic process computations using spatial information management capacity of GIS [6], [7]. Today, HydroGIS has become a popular tool for flood management, especially in urban areas. Hydrology has been practised over a long time, and continuous research has now reached maturity [8]. GIS came into play over fifty years ago. With the boost of technological advances, GIS is now used to improve hydrological data management with better efficiency, accuracy, and userfriendliness. Therefore, combined HydroGIS models are becoming popular tools [9]-[21].


Background
Due to the devastating repercussions, urban flood management has received decision-maker attention [1]- [3]. Flood management is commonly done by using hydrological models, and they manipulate the spatial data by combining Geographic Information Systems (GIS) [4], [5]. HydroGIS refers to a combination of hydrology and GIS components, while HydroGIS modelling tools are designed to perform hydrologic process computations using spatial information management capacity of GIS [6], [7]. Today, HydroGIS has become a popular tool for flood management, especially in urban areas. Hydrology has been practised over a long time, and continuous research has now reached maturity [8]. GIS came into play over fifty years ago. With the boost of technological advances, GIS is now used to improve hydrological data management with better efficiency, accuracy, and userfriendliness. Therefore, combined HydroGIS models are becoming popular tools [9]- [21].
Most environmental management decisions are influenced by dynamic stakeholders, rigid scientific assessments, and sensitive economic impacts [22]. Incorporation of stakeholders in decision making has been discussed since the 1960s [23], and by the 21 st Century, water professionals understood the importance of incorporating the general public, who was a missing component in water decision making [24]- [26]. The flood management decisions should be carefully incorporated with the stakeholder concerns to reach a practical and sustainable solution. Therefore, HydroGIS tool must be constructed to facilitate stakeholder needs to make and carry out sustainable flood management decisions [27].
Nevertheless, HydroGIS's prime task is to perform accurate hydrological and GIS calculations, which require considerable processing time and effort. Then those stakeholder requirements place additional pressure on the resource requirement. As a result, HydroGIS tools face a challenge because of the need for efficient and effective tools [28].
Literature has several models and frameworks, such as Bhatt et al. [29] and Alcaraz et al. [13], that have attempted to develop suitable HydroGIS tools. However, the lack of examples and documentation makes it difficult to ensure whether the stakeholder requirements have been satisfactorily met. Literature also shows that, when tools are developed, the attention is either on hydrology, GIS, or stakeholders, but not all components in a holistic manner. It is also noted that many had identified different stakeholders, their roles, and a multitude of concerns [30]- [34].
Therefore, it is necessary to understand stakeholder concerns and integrate them into HydroGIS tools to develop a practically successful HydroGIS tool.

Objective
The objective of the present work is to find the status of stakeholder integration in HydroGIS models and recommend options for the systematic development of urban flood management tools.

Identification of Components of HydroGIS
Tool Framework Four (04) approaches can be observed when integrating hydrological models and GIS models. This integration refers to the execution of process steps and data exchange between the hydrology model and the GIS model [31], [35], [36]. Reviewing those integrations could have conceptualised and identified associated specific stakeholder groups with their possible roles, as shown in Table 1.
The importance of public participation in water decisions has been discussed since the 1960s, and has become a world accepted practice by 2000 [23]- [26]; yet, the general public (recipients) is missing in the possible stakeholders (Table 1).
Therefore, 11 selected guidelines and HydroGIS tools ( [4], [16], [44], [25], [37]-[43]) were evaluated to capture all possible stakeholder involvements, as shown in Table 2. It presents the extracted information corresponding to the role of GIS, hydrology, recipient stakeholders (users/public), and the decision-makers concerning either a tool or guideline. Table 2 provides a picture of the Integrations and their frequency of occurrence while providing a guideline to identify components in a HydroGIS model development framework for urban flood management. Accordingly, there are five main components: (1) HydroGIS Model, which carries out the integrated activities to develop flood management model. The In-depth knowledge in Hydrology model automation HydroGIS modellers encapsulate the hydro and GIS models to perform the particular task; (2) Hydro Model which is created or selected to the specific situation. The Hydrology modellers perform the activity; (3) GIS model which is created by GIS modellers to provide required inputs and display outputs of the hydro model; (4) The decision-makers who make the flood management decisions finally; and (5) The recipient stakeholders who are the prime target of flood management service delivery.
When considering the frequencies of components' appearance in the 11 works of literature, nine had considered decision-makers while eight considered GIS modellers. As well, seven had considered hydrology modeller when six had considered HydroGIS modeller. The lowest consideration is to pay recipients, which is 5 out of 11.

Confirmation of Components
An online expert review was conducted with local and international professionals to confirm the identified components [45]. The experts with substantial experience were selected from hydrology, GIS, water management, and public administration areas. They were invited to comment on the sufficiency of the components to the proposed model using a five-point Likert scale (5-Strongly agree to 1-Strongly disagree) and express the elaborations to be highlighted. Various studies have suggested utilising 5 to 20 varied numbers of experts for successful evaluation [46], [47]. Nevertheless, the present work considered nine experts are sufficient since a substantial accuracy can be achieved with nine samples in HydroGIS research [48]. All experts agreed with the findings but elaborated on whom to be included in each component. Table 3 shows the summary result of the expert discussion.

Assessment of Integrations
During HydroGIS tool development, the key is to find integration between each stakeholder group responsible for each component's activities. Evaluation of the integration between components would enable the assessment of current guidelines available for satisfactory HydroGIS tool development. A critical review of the existing literature was performed for this evaluation. Various types of scientific documents on HydroGIS systems were assessed by considering (1) the scientific value of the publication; (2) the depth of scientific investigation corresponding to each integration; and (3) the description of the influence of integration in publication.

Acceptance (5-Strongly agree to 1-Strongly disagree)
Elaborated on 1 15 Agreed (4) Considered the recipients as vital in flood management and suggested three components: (1) a Social Science method to handle stakeholders; (2) Web-based tools for collaborating and educating the stakeholders; and (3) Hydrology model 2 12 Highly Agreed (5) Considered that hydrology and GIS are the essential components in flood risk management.

45
Agreed (4) Commented that it is difficult to state what to include in the model; yet, it is necessary to consider the stakeholders and elements in the Flood managements phases, such as (1) Planning and forecasting, (2) Early warning and (3) Rescue.
Highlighted the attention to additional stakeholders such as decision-implementors (Drainage constructors to drainage cleaners).

15
Highly Agreed (5) Shared local experience highlights 14 different stakeholders and their role.

35
Agreed (4) Highlighted the trans-boundary decision-makers such as countries and flood management agencies.

10
Agreed (4) Suggested to consider three main models, i.e., (1)prediction model, (2)protection model, and (3) damage assessment model. 7 30 Agreed (4) Pursued on individual stakeholders such as Water Resources Department of the State, Ministry of Water Resources, prominent academic institutions of the locality, disaster management cell, local administration, active NGOs working in the related field and renowned hydrologists.
Agreed (4) Stated that the Government and the people in upstream and downstream are a specific component.  (5) Researchers.

Average 23.8 Above Average (4.2)
In the absence of a clear methodology to evaluate each of the above, the present work incorporated qualitative, judgmental specific Likert-scale based conceptualisation.

Scientific Value of Publication
The scientific value was assessed by considering the degree of review of contents in each publication. Assigned weight for each type was rationalised by using a small group discussion and a questionnaire survey. Thirtyfour university academics participated in the survey, and Table 4 describes the types and weights found in the study.

Depth of Scientific Investigation
The depth of scientific investigation (conclusiveness) is the detail to which research has analysed and concluded a particular Integration. A 5-point Likert-scale was developed, the same as the previous (Table 5).

Influence of Integration in Publication
The third and critical influence identification criteria were assessed by the explicitness of the results point given in each document (influence). Again, a 5-class Likert-scale was used for this assessment (Table 6).

Class C.* Description
Very High** (VH) 5 Publication comprehensively analyses the integrations in an identified system.

High (H) 4
A clear and specific conclusion of integration is presented.
An implicit result of integration is presented with analysis and conclusion.

Low (L) 2
Indicates a relevant result within the result section or in discussion but not conclude.

Very Low (VL) 1
Only an indication reflects the value of integration either in the introduction or in the literature review. Use of explicit terminology such as "Very much, much, highly, must-have, important, sine-quo-none" to describe the integration.

High (H) 4
Qualitative descriptions in between moderate and extremely high groups.

Medium (M) 3
Use of explicit terminology such as "Moderate, also important." Qualitative description in between moderate and very low groups.
Use of terminology such as "Interesting, should consider, supportive factor, at least consider." * Influence

Evaluation of Literature
Five possible integrations were discovered among the five main components identified earlier. Next, 32 works of literature were evaluated to find the values for conclusiveness (Table 5) and influence (  (Table 7) was developed using the equal weight method. The status of each integration was reclassified into a 1-5 scale by using such a matrix (Table 8).
Those reclassification values were multiplied to compute the overall levels corresponding to the investigation depth of each integration (Level of the Depth of Investigation); Table 9 shows the details. Table 10 presents the Depths of Investigation of individual integrations. The same information is illustrated in Figure 1. Both show that the scientific communication between the hydro modeller and GIS modeller has been extensively studied.

Results and Discussion
The interaction between the management components and scientific components, denoted through the communication between HydroGIS modeller -decision-makerrecipients, has an average depth of interest. Few researchers have conducted in-depth studies on internal integrations that appear in scientific modelling (between hydro-GIS-HydroGIS models). HydroGIS modeller and Accordingly, recognition of the status of integrations in the HydroGIS tool development revealed very low coverage values that reflect the need for a significant effort for improved tool development (Figure 3).
The relative comparison implies that the transfer of HydroGIS requirements to the hydrologic and GIS model Integration is at a very low volume (0.94 out of 5), and the HydroGIS is lying in between management and scientific components. This indicates that the possibility of impractical flood management decision-making due to ineffective communication facilitates the systems to optimise scientific model requirements with stakeholder needs.

Conclusion
Evaluation of the standard-setting in the HydroGIS model development for urban flood management enabled to identify the framework for stakeholder Integrations.
The rationalised qualitative assessment in the present work reveals that the current status of incorporating the stakeholder concerns is at a low level in all integrations.
The percentage values computed for the relative coverage signifies a gap in transferring of the decision-makers and recipients' concerns to hydro modellers and GIS modellers through HydroGIS modellers. CxM* : Value in Table 5 corresponding to Conclusiveness column classification is multiplied by Value in Table 6 corresponding to Magnitude column classification 13 ENGINEER Table 9