It should be noted that the academic discourse discussed here is limited to the analysis of peer-reviewed articles, where sampling limitations might influence findings. Indeed, it is challenging to include all publications on water security aspects in Central Asia; still, the articles were searched in the leading databases and publishing houses such as Scopus, Web of Science, and cross-checked in the Nazarbayev University library, which has access to the enormous academic databases. There is a chance that water security dimensions would be addressed differently in academic literature in the Russian language. Thus, the findings require additional verification. It is acknowledged that the scope of analysis is based on the AWDO framework (2013, 2016, 2020). Other water security assessments and indices suggested by scholars and international organizations might differ in terms of water security dimensions and attributes. The AWDO framework was chosen since it represents a comprehensive vision of water security, especially for Asia and the Pacific, developed by leading water research institutes and researchers and followed by consecutive updates in 2013, 2016, and 2020.
The Delphi findings are in line with the common perception about water resources in the region as input for the economic growth of independent republics, particularly in irrigated agriculture and hydropower generation (Abdullaev & Rakhmatullaev, 2016; Allouche, 2007; Varis
& Kummu, 2012; WB, 2020; Xenarios et al., 2019, 2020). Indeed, employment in agriculture (%
of total employment) is high in the region, varying from 40% in Tajikistan and Afghanistan to 15% in Kazakhstan, while the contribution of agriculture to GDP ranges from 5% in Kazakhstan to 26% in Uzbekistan (World Bank, 2021). Experts suggested strengthening water security in Central Asia by investing in economic and urban & household dimensions: upgrading water infrastructure including drinking water supply systems, irrigation systems, wastewater treatment facilities, etc.
Achieving water security is context-specific; hence, experts set different priorities for Central Asia countries because of socioeconomic and political situations, institutional settings, and geographical features. This finding confirms the distinction among countries regarding water security challenges and the segregation of countries by not treating all countries as the same in the Central Asia region (Assubayeva, 2021; Stucki & Sojamo, 2012; Zakhirova, 2013). The highest agreement rate among experts was reached on investing in irrigation systems in Uzbekistan that inherited the massive irrigation canals for cotton production. Experts also reached a consensus in improving river basin management in Kazakhstan, a pioneer in the region in implementing the river basin approach. Unexpected findings on water security priorities for upstream countries in Central Asia contradict the common perception of the importance of water for hydropower generation. For instance, experts highlighted the importance of investing in the drinking water supply in Afghanistan and enhancing irrigation management in Tajikistan. In comparison, a low agreement rate was reached in developing hazard plans from landslides in Kyrgyzstan. Conflict of
interests in water needs between upstream and downstream riparian countries and different interpretations of water security among Central Asia countries discourage joint initiatives in water allocation. Even the preliminary assessment of costs of inaction for upstream and downstream republics was conducted to promote limited transboundary cooperation (Adelphi and CAREC, 2017).
Quantitative analysis, including cross-tabulation reports and MNL regressions, demonstrated the diversity of views in assessing national water security priorities among experts of different ages, employment, and residence. In the case of Afghanistan, experts from the Central Asia region are more likely to give a higher rating of hydropower development in the country than international experts. MNL results of drinking water use improvement in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan displayed interesting insights. Indicatively, international experts are more likely to emphasize the importance of improving drinking water use than experts from the region.
Moreover, young experts relative to senior experts are more likely to rank higher improvement of water usage in rural and urban areas. Regressions on enhancing irrigation management in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan suggested that experts with Ph.D. degree are more likely to stress improving irrigation infrastructure than experts with bachelor's and master’s degrees. Experts working at university/ research institutes relative to experts employed in other sectors tended to give a high assessment of improving irrigation systems. The difference can be explained by a different school of thought and paradigms of water resources management: the Soviet school –
‘hydraulic mission’ and engineering solutions to ensure water security vs. post-Soviet era school - IWRM paradigm and water governance to improve water security; or water security priorities set by regional experts vs. international experts. Additionally, experts mentioned transboundary river complexity, weak legislative and institutional aspects, complex interstate and domestic politics,
inadequate data monitoring and forecasting tools, and inadequate water education are contemporary water security challenges in the region.
The application of the Delphi method has increased substantially in the last decade because the Delphi method is efficient in terms of anonymous participation and unaffected consensus from group pressure, authority, status, position (Aichholzer, 2009; Avella, 2016; Belton et al., 2019;
Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). Another advantage of the Delphi approach is cross-validation of the literature review findings and reaching a consensus among aggregated groups rather than individual viewpoints. Yet, the Delphi method, as any research method, has some limitations:
biased selection of experts, the low response rate with additional rounds of the survey, and experts’
biases (Birko et al., 2015; C. C. Hsu, 2007; Larreche & Montgomery, 1977; Urias et al., 2020).
To diminish selection bias, specific criteria for expert selection were identified: job position, publication, past performance, and membership of specific organizations and institutions linked with water resources in Central Asia and Afghanistan (Assubayeva, 2021). Since the concept of water security is multidimensional, experts from different areas of competence were invited. Still, this study is missing questions about the disciplinary background of participants that might influence the setting priorities in water security dimensions and country priorities. It might be the case that participants in this study would have economic, social science, or international development backgrounds, which will influence to prioritizing socioeconomic aspect of water security. There is no agreement in the literature about the optimum size of experts and the number of rounds. Usually, the number of experts declines with each additional survey round. However, in this study, the number of participants slightly increased from 112 to 118 from the first to the second round, probably because of motivating experts to get acquainted with results from the first round.
The water security concept is complex by nature, and there are indeed different perceptions and understandings of water security that might also impact the results since the working definition of water security was not provided to experts to avoid any pressure towards the specific interpretation of water security. Language barriers might also influence the findings. The surveys were conducted in English and Russian; however, each Central Asia country and Afghanistan have a national language, and specific concepts might have context-specific subjective explanations.
Some studies criticize the tendency towards conformity and consensus increase of the Delphi method (Aichholzer, 2009; Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). However, this study revealed the conscious participation of experts because they did not reach an agreement on specific aspects of water security, such as water security priorities for some countries and water security trends.