| 24 Nov 2025
Invited perspectives: Reframing Transboundary Flood Vulnerability Through Hydrosocial Systems Thinking: Towards Just and Adaptive Governance
Abstract. Transboundary flood risks are intensifying across South Asia due to climate change, land-use change, and rapid development in shared river basins. Yet, governance responses remain dominated by hydrological control and infrastructure-heavy strategies, overlooking the deeper social, institutional, and political drivers of vulnerability. We define transboundary flood vulnerability as the heightened and unequal exposure of downstream and marginalised communities to flood risk, shaped by systemic governance disconnections between hydrological flows, governance fragmentation, and systemic inequalities across borders. Adopting a hydrosocial systems perspective, we conceptualise the Ganges–Brahmaputra basin as an interdependent socio-environmental system where hazards and vulnerabilities are co-produced through feedback between environmental dynamics and governance structures. Through a critical review of the India–Nepal–Bangladesh floodplain, we examine how the absence of basin-wide agreements, limited data-sharing, and the exclusion of local knowledge reinforce vulnerability and undermine resilience. We argue for a fundamental shift toward governance approaches that embrace hydrosocial connectivity, the dynamic interlinkages between water flows, social relations, and governance processes. This framing enables recognition of how risk and resilience are shaped not just by physical flows but by power, politics, and participation. By centring justice, equity, and collaboration, a hydrosocial approach offers a pathway for rethinking transboundary flood governance beyond borders, beyond hydrology, and toward more coordinated approach with adaptive and inclusive outcomes.
By adopting a hydrosocial systems perspective to conceptualize the Ganges–Brahmaputra basin as an interdependent socio-environmental system, this invited perspectives manuscript defines transboundary flood vulnerability through the lens of systemic governance disconnections and social inequalities and performs a critical review of the India–Nepal–Bangladesh floodplain to argue for a paradigm shift from infrastructure-heavy hydrological control toward more inclusive, justice-oriented governance that recognizes the dynamic interlinkages between water flows, social relations, and political power.
The novelty of the ideas in this paper is not sufficiently stated in the introduction. The research gap presented is that current governance tools frequently overlook transboundary and relational dimensions of flood risk. Then it is argued that this gap is addressed in the presented framework by including spatial hotspot mapping and lived experiences of affected communities. But there are global studies of social vulnerability towards flood risks that includes the characteristics of local population, for example: Fox, S., Agyemang, F., Hawker, L. et al. Integrating social vulnerability into high-resolution global flood risk mapping. Nat Commun 15, 3155 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47394-2. There needs to be better elaboration on how exactly the framework presented here differs from previous studies such as those. Perhaps reframing the novelty of the framework in terms of new concepts presented such as hydrosocial systems and connectivity would be better to explain the novel contribution of this paper.
Figure 3C used data from academic literature to mark hotspots of floods caused by different factors (anthropogenic, governance, climatic, infrastructure). It is not known how many papers were reviewed to create this map and how/why they were chosen. This data source is highly biased to cover areas where research has been conducted, but it might miss spots where the literature is not available. Also, there could be many other regions with the same vulnerability factors that were not affected yet by chance. This bias should be acknowledged in the paper. It is not clear if this analysis belongs to the framework mentioned in the introduction.
The manuscript structure is hard to follow because each subsection introduces a new topic without previous mention in the introduction. It is not clear how all subsections are connected. Usually there should be a figure early in the paper, clearly indicating the scope of the framework, before presenting the application of the framework in a study site.
The concept of hydrosocial connectivity seems like a different term for considering a systemic or holistic view applied to flood risks. When comparing hydrosocial connectivity approach and Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in Figure 4, the authors do not fairly depict the IWRM approach. One of the core principles of IWRM is to promote democratic participation in governance, which is conveniently omitted under ‘actors’ and ‘knowledge context’, for example. The authors could argue that the core principles of IWRM are not implemented in practice. But if that is the case, how would creating a new theoretical concept such as hydrosocial connectivity help to solve this problem?
The manuscript presents interesting examples and experiences showcasing recent issues related to flood vulnerability. But given the mentioned issues on methods, novelty, and structure of the manuscript, I recommend substantial revisions to the article for improving the scientific significance and quality.