Developing a transdisciplinary tool for water risk management and decision-support in Ontario, Canada

Extant literature reveals limited examination of risk management strategies and tools to support decision-making for sustainable water management in the private sector in Ontario, Canada. Moreover, a gap persists in understanding how water risks are prioritized and managed in the private sector. Addressing these gaps, this transdisciplinary study applied a novel normative-analytical risk governance theoretical framework to water security risks, which combines analytical risk estimation with normative priorities and insights of practitioners, to examine contextually-attuned water risk management strategies and develop a decision-support tool. Using mixed methods, the study first employed a survey to elicit practitioner priorities for seven water risk indicators and investigated water risk management approaches. Then, interviews were conducted to obtain in-depth understanding about the priorities, strategies, opportunities, and role of trust in water risk management. The study found that a combination of regulatory, voluntary, and multi-stakeholder participatory approaches is needed, contingent on the severity of water risks, sector, location, and context. Moreover, the criteria of flexibility, efficiency, strategic incentives, and economic and regulatory signals, are essential. Finally, using secondary data analysis, the study integrated interdisciplinary risk data with practitioner priorities to develop a first-of-a-kind decision-support tool for water risk management in Ontario, ‘WATR-DST’. WATR-DST is an automated tool that applies the study’s findings and assists multi-sector water-related decisions, practices, and investments by providing contextually-attuned risk information in a user-friendly format. Based on the user inputs (location, sector, and source type), it displays the severity of seven water risks, qualitative themes under public and media attention, and recommends water risk management strategies. Thus, the study contributes to knowledge in sustainability management, risk analysis, and environmental management by demonstrating the novel application of the normative-analytical framework for water risk management in the private sector. WATR-DST is a key contribution envisioned to improve multi-sector water-related decisions in Ontario.


Introduction
Anthropogenic activities are at the core of global water challenges, adversely impacting the quality, flows, access, and ecological health of water resources (Rangecroft et al 2021, Savelli et al 2022, Sandhu et al 2023a).Social, economic, political, and hydrological systems are inherently interdependent, interconnected, and complex, hence making water a critical Earth system for sustainability and a fundamental objective for sustainable development (United Nations 2018, Zipper et al 2020, Di Baldassarre et al 2021).While sustainably managing risks to water resources is crucial for addressing the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, the progress of the decision-makers, or experts) in the private sector in Ontario, Canada using transdisciplinary approaches.Then, the study develops a decision-support tool that provides ratings for seven water risk indicators and qualitative public and media scrutiny themes, based on the user's location, source type, and sector.
The study's research questions are: 1. What are the insights, preferences, and strategies for water risk management in the private sector in Ontario, Canada?
2. What are the gaps and opportunities for water risk management in the private sector's decision-making in Ontario, Canada?
3. How can a transdisciplinary decision support tool be developed for water risk management in the private sector in Ontario, Canada?
Overall, the study operationalizes a first-of-a-kind normative-analytical risk governance framework for water security risks at the regional scale, engages practitioners to investigate water risk management strategies, and develops an application-based decision-support tool for the case of Ontario.This comprehensive decisionsupport tool is the key application of the research that can improve water-related decisions, policies, and operational practices for sustainable water management across multiple sectors.

Literature review
The ensuing sections discuss the theoretical foundations, extant approaches and decision-support tools, and the role of the private sector in water risk management and governance.Finally, the section concludes by presenting the study's theoretical framework informed by the literature.

Contemporary risk analysis, management, and governance framework for water
The study's theoretical foundation is risk analysis, management, and governance applied to the 'wicked' sustainability and environmental management challenge of water.Risk assessment and management are integrated processes consisting of 'what is the risk,' i.e., risk identification, estimation, and evaluation, where risks are prioritized based on their acceptability (Klinke and Renn 2021).A risk management strategy entails 'what to do about the assessed risk', where options, procedures, rules, or policies to address risk are described and weighed by analysts and decision-makers (Renn andKlinke 2015, Vasvári 2015).Nonetheless, with growing prevalence of wicked risk problems, like water, risk management has evolved into risk governance, which is distributed across multiple decision-making levels (individual, organizational, industrial, regional or provincial, or macro-level economy) with state and non-state actors (Aven andRenn 2020, Klinke andRenn 2021).
Risk Governance Theory argues that Risk cannot be understood and managed solely on objective information and needs an understanding of how stakeholders, practitioners, and decision-makers perceive and evaluate risk.Moreover, incorporating perception-based priorities and judgment is crucial for risk management tools, policies, and strategies especially for wicked risk problems (Klinke and Renn 2012, 2021, Koehler 2023, Renn 2021, Sandhu et al 2023b).This risk governance approach is a contemporary shift away from the statecentric top-down command and control approach towards multi-level systems-based approaches, where risk assessment and management are distributed among diverse actors and stakeholders ( de Loë and Patterson 2017, Klinke and Renn 2021, Bilalova et al 2023).This study adopts a contemporary risk governance theoretical foundation for water risk management.Thus, analytical risk quantification is integrated with normative deliberative approaches eliciting preferences of the private sector for water risk management (Renn andSchweizer 2009, Klinke andRenn 2021).
The normative-analytical model of risk governance put forth by Klinke and Renn (2012) conceptually combines quantitative risk estimation with subjective judgment (perception-based) in a comprehensive framework, apt for sustainability and risk problems (Renn and Schweizer 2009, Klinke and Renn 2012, 2021).The model includes risk framing, risk estimation along with objective and subjective concern assessment, risk evaluation (stakeholder preferences), risk management, and monitoring (Renn and Schweizer 2009, Klinke and Renn 2012, Renn et al 2022).Moreover, risk communication and deliberation are embedded within this cycle, necessitating stakeholder inputs in all stages (Klinke and Renn 2012).Through deliberation, various management options are identified and evaluated in the decision-making context (Renn and Schweizer 2009, Wyrwoll et al 2018, Aven and Renn 2020).
For managing water risks, the key objective of this study, the literature identifies three possible strategies based on the operational aspects of Risk Governance Theory (Klinke and Renn 2012, Renn and Klinke 2015, Vasvári 2015).First, linear management approaches include government regulations and risk-informed strategies, including expert deliberation and techno-centric approaches focusing on scientific research and technology for risk mitigation (Vasvári 2015, Aven and Renn 2020, Klinke and Renn 2012, 2021).Then, precaution-based approaches include proactive self-regulatory approaches for resilience building in water-using sectors (Christ and Burritt 2018, 2019, Busch et al 2023).Finally, a discourse-based multi-stakeholder strategy entails participatory decision-making (Renn andKlinke 2015, Aven andRenn 2020).

Transdisciplinary approaches and decision-support tools for water risk management
Transdisciplinary approaches are strongly recommended in the literature to address wicked sustainability and systemic risk challenges like water (Christ and Burritt 2018, 2019, Krueger et al 2016, Renn 2021).At the outset, it is important to make a conceptual distinction between the terms interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, used throughout the study.Interdisciplinary approaches, knowledge, and research, entail an intersection and integration (or synthesis) of concepts, theories, or methods from different disciplines to address the research problem as a complex whole (Schaltegger et al 2013).Transdisciplinary approaches, go beyond academic confines, engage stakeholders, non-academic experts, and practitioners in research using participatory mixed methods to co-develop knowledge, and then that knowledge is applied to design practical tools to support decision-making (Christ and Burritt 2018, Krueger et al 2016, Renn 2021, Schaltegger et al 2013).
Nonetheless, majority of the research in water management has been siloed and limited to assessing water risks, without addressing how to manage the assessed risk and support practical decision-making (Forin et al 2018, Renn et al 2022, García Sánchez et al 2023, Sandhu et al 2023b).Moreover, instead of an integrated approach, previous research has either quantified only biophysical risks in natural systems using hydrological and engineering methods or quantified only social water risks of urban water infrastructure (Bansal and Song 2017, Forin et al 2018, Christ and Burritt 2019, García Sánchez et al 2023).Extant empirical studies in the field of socio-hydrology also continue to lack the integration of social science perspectives, methods, and theories (Krueger et al 2016, Evers et al 2017, Xu et al 2018, Di Baldassarre et al 2021, Quandt 2022, Rangecroft et al 2021, 2022).The field continues to be dominated by hydrology-centric positivist approaches, with a higher focus on quantitative modelling, sensitivity analysis, and statistical estimation of stakeholder priorities, rather than understanding and integrating the nuances underlying those priorities (Quandt 2022, Rangecroft et al 2021, 2022).
From a transdisciplinary perspective, Decision Support Tools (DSTs) are pertinent research outputs for risk management and decision-making.DSTs are a broad category of automated tools that compute and display information, variables, and outcomes based on the user's needs to assist their tasks and decisions (Morales-Torres et al 2016, Loucks 2023).They are designed to apply conceptual theoretical frameworks in practical decision-making contexts, e.g., comparing different management options in a standardized format, and integrating stakeholder priorities, judgments, and preferences by provision of weights or multipliers (Giupponi and Sgobbi 2013, Yang 2017, Costa et al 2019).Thus, these application-based tools can help bridge the gaps between knowledge, implementation, and policy for sustainability challenges, including water (Morales-Torres et al 2016, Costa et al 2019).
Existing methods and tools for water-related decision-support, including WWF Water Risk Filter, WBCSD Global Water Tool, Water Footprint Analysis, Global Drought Observatory, etc, have limitations.The underlying data lacks granularity and overlooks the systemic interconnections between water scarcity and quality, sector-specific impacts, role of regulations, conflicts, and stakeholder scrutiny at the local sub-watershed scale (Christ and Burritt 2017, Josset and Concha Larrauri 2021, Dudley et al 2022, van Vliet 2023, Sandhu et al 2023a).Harris-Lovett et al (2019) used mixed methods including stakeholder cluster analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis for nutrient management in the San Francisco area.However, the study focused on one aspect, i.e., water quality management, instead of considering integrated dimensions of water security risks like water quantity, quality, regulatory, conflict potential, and public concern.Moreover, the study does not delve into 'how' and 'why' stakeholders prioritize and make decisions regarding water risks.Therefore, extant research focused either on the global and national spatial scales or on individual organizations and cities, omit the contextual nuances of the social, political, cultural, and institutional environments revealed at the subwatershed boundaries, apt for identification and management of water risks (Forin et al 2018, Zipper et al 2020, Di Baldassarre et al 2021, Sandhu et al 2021, Dudley et al 2022, Savelli et al 2022) 2.3.Role of the private sector in water risk management and governance The water management and governance landscape consists of multiple institutions, actors, and stakeholders (Klinke and Renn 2012, de Loë and Patterson 2017).The term 'actors' encompasses the various organizations, institutions, or individuals whose activities, actions, and decisions impact water security at the regional scales (de Loë and Patterson 2017).An influential but empirically underexplored non-state actor is the private sector, which can improve decisions, policies, and practices for sustainable water management (Johns 2017, Christ and Burritt 2019, Busch et al 2023, Sandhu et al 2023b).The private sector consists of businesses, which operationally depend on a large quantity and specific quality of local water resources, and financial institutions, who invest in, lend to, or insure these businesses (Hogeboom et al 2018, van Vliet 2023).
Water insecurity is a physical and material risk for the private sector, which can have significant operational, financial, regulatory, and reputational impacts, and requires an integrated socio-economic-ecological approach (Weber and Saunders-Hogberg 2020, Sandhu et al 2023a).The private sector not only adversely impacts local water security but also is impacted by the operational, regulatory, and reputational risks of water insecurity, hence becoming an important actor for water risk management and governance (Schulte et al 2012, Signori and Bodino 2013, Johns 2017, Christ and Burritt 2018, Sandhu et al 2023b).Previous research by Sandhu et al (2023a) quantified different physical and social water risks prevalent across Ontario's sub-watersheds.The research also studied the relationship between water risk perception and estimation in the private sector in Ontario.However, there is still limited insight into how private actors prioritize and manage different water risks and the rationale shaping water-related decisions in Ontario (Sandhu et al 2023b).Therefore, these studies recommended an investigation into the insights, priorities, and strategies of the private sector for water risk management, and proposed developing contextually-attuned tools to assist decision-making in Ontario.
In conclusion, a risk governance framework for water risk management using interdisciplinary theoretical foundations, transdisciplinary approaches, and normative-analytical models has not yet been operationalized (Rangecroft et al 2021, Koehler 2023, Sandhu et al 2023b).Current literature also reveals limited contextuallyattuned DSTs for multi-dimensional water security risks at the sub-watershed scale.Moreover, the role of the private sector, and how organizations perceive, prioritize and manage water risks for the case of Ontario, is an under-examined research area (Johns 2017, Alvarado-Revilla and de Loë 2022, Sandhu et al 2023b).

Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of this study is built upon Klinke andRenn's (2012, 2021) 'normative-analytical risk governance model'.Conceptually, based on the Risk Governance Theory, this model combines analytical risk estimation with normative priorities and insights of decision-makers that can help understand the nuances shaping perceived risks and decisions for risk management.We applied these normative and analytical aspects of Risk Governance Theory to water security risks, and developed the theoretical framework for water risk assessment, management, and decision-making, as depicted in figure 1.The first stage of water risk estimation (pre-estimation and sub-watershed assessment) combines objective and social concern assessment, quantifying ratings for seven water risk indicators.In water risk evaluation (second stage), the practitioners indicate their preferences and priorities for each water risk indicator based on their perception, contingent on characteristics of the individual water risks.The third water risk management and decision-support stage entails integrating the results of water risk estimation and perception-based priorities for the water risk indicators, and explores risk management strategies that inform decisions for sustainable water management.The water risk estimation and risk evaluation stages, including risk perception, highlighted by grey boxes in figure 1, have been operationalized in previous work (Sandhu et al 2023a(Sandhu et al , 2023b)).Sandhu et al (2023a) assessed interdisciplinary water risks, identifying sub-watersheds and sectors with differentiated ratings for seven interdisciplinary water risk indicators.The seven types of water risk are: Water Quantity Risk, Water Quality Risk, Source-specific Risk, Regulatory Risk, Water User Conflict Risk, Sector-specific Risk, and Public and Media (Reputational) Risk (refer to Sandhu et al (2023a) for additional details on the development of these indicators).Sandhu et al (2023b) examined the nuanced relationship of risk perception and the evaluation of water risks.Their research found that the assigned priorities reflect the practitioner's risk perception determined by the characteristics of the water risk and the individual characteristics like knowledge, attitudes, values, trust, experience, gender, location, and sector.
The water risk management and decision-support stage (black boxes in figure 1) is the framework's integrative and conclusive stage, operationalized in this study to integrate and advance knowledge in risk management and practical decision-support for water.The practitioner insights and preferences for water risk management strategies and priorities for different risks were obtained using a mixed methods design consisting of an online survey and follow-up interviews.Then, water risk data from the risk estimation stage, priorities from the risk evaluation stage, practitioner insights, and strategies from the water risk management stage were integrated to develop a tangible tool to support decisions for sustainable management of water in the private sector.The methodological details on how the priorities and insights of private sector practitioners were elicited and integrated, along with the design of the tool, are provided in the ensuing Methods section.

Methods
The literature highlights the importance and novelty of using participatory methodological designs to operationalize analytical and normative risk governance frameworks (Christ and Burritt 2018, Di Baldassarre et al 2021, Klinke and Renn 2021).Consequently, mixed methods (surveys followed by interviews) are recommended for eliciting insights of practitioners (normative component) along with using secondary data analysis for water risk assessment (analytical component) (Di Baldassarre et al 2021, Sandhu et al 2023b).Using a mixed methods design (figure 2) enables the combination of the rigor of quantitative methods and data with the contextual depth of qualitative insights provided by the practitioners (Creswell and Creswell 2018).

Methodological overview and study's participants
The study addressed research questions one and two using a survey and semi-structured interviews, which provided practitioner insights for water risk management strategies.Since this study is a part of a broader water risk perception, evaluation, and management project (Sandhu et al 2023b), we included the questions for water risk management in the overall project survey and had the same participant sample.
An 'expert purposive sampling strategy' was used for a strategic and representative sample that aligned the participants with the research objective (Sandhu et al 2023b).The participants were practitioners with sustainability or environmental risk assessment and management experience in Ontario.The term 'practitioner' encompasses professionals, analysts, managers, and decision-makers in the private sector, i.e., corporations in water-using sectors and financial institutions.We used LinkedIn, websites of industry associations, and organizations for recruitment using strategic filters for roles, sectors, and locations that ensured a representative sample.Table 1 lists the demographic information of the participants, who were recruited according to the

Practitioner survey and interviews
The questionnaire for the survey included Likert scale questions for eliciting priorities for the water risk indicators, preferences for water risk management strategies, and text entry-based demographic information.The risk management strategies are based on the reviewed literature (Section 1.1).Table 2 summarizes the survey's questions, items, and scales.
We analyzed the survey data using IBM SPSS (Version 28).We used descriptive statistics to determine average ratings (priorities) and preferences.To examine sector-specific differences in risk management strategies, we used a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Mishra et al 2019).Moreover, interviews were conducted to gain in-depth insights into the survey's results and the gaps and opportunities in corporate and financial water-related decision-making in Ontario.The interview guide is provided as appendix A.
All interviews were conducted using a standard protocol for consistency, were audio-recorded, anonymized, and then transcribed for qualitative analysis (Creswell andCreswell 2018, Sandhu et al 2023b).We used QSR NVivo 12 for coding and data analysis following Braun and Clarke (2006), reviewing the transcripts to assign the first pass of coding based on the underlying theme, pattern, or concept (Braun and Clarke 2006).For Pass 2, the open codes were condensed into higher-level themes and then organized into categories corresponding to each research question (Sandhu et al 2023b).One member of the research team coded the interview data and themes while others cross-checked for consistency and reliability Creswell and Creswell 2018).Appendix B provides an example of the process of coding and thematic analysis.

Developing the 'WATR-DST': a transdisciplinary water risk decision support tool for Ontario
Aligned with research question three, the key output of this study was the water risk decision support tool, i.e., 'WATR-DST' as depicted in figure 3. We chose MS Excel to integrate the water risk data with practitioner priorities and code the tool.This choice was based on the ease of use, a friendly graphical interface, and accessibility, with no special training needed for installation (Miles et al 2023).The detail description of the design of the WATR-DST is provided in the ensuing sections.b Additional participant who contributed exclusively to the interviews.

Interdisciplinary water risk estimation: risk scores for water risk indicators
The data for three and five-point spatial and sector-based ratings and qualitatively analyzed public and media themes, i.e., the seven water risk indicators are extracted from Sandhu et al (2023a), coded, and integrated in MS Excel.Based on user-defined inputs chosen from pre-coded drop-down lists for the main and sub-watershed (location), water use sector and sub-sector, and the type of water source, WATR-DST calculates the results for the seven water risk indicators.The user reviews the results and selects scores, if applicable, based on their judgment informed by the evidence provided by the tool.For example, for the water quantity risk indicator, the user selects if their location is listed in the quaternary watersheds at high or moderate risk.Then, based on the  ii.Water quality risk: The tool calculates the risk rating for water quality (measured on a 5-point scale as Very High to Very Low) based on the user's sub-watershed.The tool then displays the risk score and the information on the quality status of the individual Great Lake.The user can review the data and select an additional score from the drop-down list.Otherwise, the tool uses a base score of 1.
iii.Source-specific risk: Since groundwater is a higher-risk water source for contamination and overextraction, and is hydrologically connected to surface water, it is assigned a higher risk score (Sandhu et al 2021(Sandhu et al , 2023a)).
The user can select a score for each source type, and the tool calculates the corresponding score based on the user's input for source type.
iv. Regulatory risk: The tool uses the results from the water-related regulatory assessment of Ontario by Sandhu et al (2023a), with different risk drivers at high and moderate occurrence.Moreover, municipalities and sub-watersheds with a high regulatory focus are also populated (regional regulatory risk).The user selects which risk scores should be engaged and if their location is at high regulatory focus and then the tool engages regulatory risk scores.
v. Water user conflict risk: Based on the user's sub-watershed, the tool calculates the water-user conflict risk rating (Very High to Very Low) and the score.
vi. Sector-specific risk: Based on the user's main and sub-sector of water use, the tool calculates the sectorspecific risk rating (Very High to Very Low) and the score.
vii.Public and media (reputational) risk: For the public and media scrutiny (reputational risk), results from Sandhu et al (2023a)'s analysis and public opinion and attitudes surveys are integrated.Then, the user reviews the information and selects a score.
The pre-defined scores for the indicators are numeric values assigned to the 3 or 5-point ratings.These predefined values (table 3) are selected for illustrative purposes only, i.e., to demonstrate a proportional increase of 0.5 in the score as the risk rating (severity) increases proportionally (Sandhu et al 2020).These values can be updated based on future multi-stakeholder roundtables and consultation.

Risk evaluation: priority risk multipliers for cumulative water risk score
For water risk evaluation, the practitioner priorities are coded as multipliers in the tool.These multipliers are aggregated with scores from the individual water risk indicators to calculate a cumulative risk score (R Cumulative Water Risk Score ) and rating.This cumulative risk rating can then be used to choose an appropriate water risk management strategy.
First, the authors developed the criteria for calculating the individual contribution of the seven water risk indicators to the cumulative risk score and is contingent on the user inputs.As described in section 3.3.1,for the water quantity and quality risk indicators, more than one score was calculated to capture different subindicators and spatial scales.In this case, the maximum score was utilized to avoid double counting.For the regulatory risk indicator with high and moderately prevalent risk drivers and a regional score, the geometric aggregation method is utilized, i.e., product of three scores.For indicators that only have a single score, i.e., source-specific risk, water-user conflict risk, sector-specific risk, and reputational risk, the score was engaged as it is.The individual indicators and their scores are explained in detail in section 3.3.1.
The criteria to calculate the contribution of individual water risk indicators: R Quantity = Maximum of the two water quantity risk scores calculated by the tool.The average values are used if both surface and groundwater were selected by the user as the source type.
R Quality = Maximum of the sub-watershed water quality risk score AND the risk score of the main watershed.
R Source = Source-specific risk score engaged as it is.
R Regulatory = Risk score for high regulatory drivers × Risk score for moderate drivers × (Maximum of subwatershed risk score AND municipality risk score).
R Water User Conflict = Conflict risk score engaged as it is.R Sector Risk = Sector risk score engaged as it is.R Reputational Risk = Reputational risk score engaged as it is.
Second, the practitioner priorities for the seven water risk indicators were engaged in the calculation.These priorities were obtained using the survey questionnaire as described in section 3.2, where the practitioners were asked to choose the priority using a rating scale from 1 to 7 (table 2), based on the relative importance of the water risk indicator to decision-making.Based on the survey's results, the average ratings for each indicator were ranked and then assigned a multiplier (M Priority ).The detailed procedure for assigning the multipliers based on the ranking is outlined in section 4.1.Once individual risk scores are calculated, the tool engages corresponding practitioner priority multipliers as weights for the seven water risk indicators.
Third, for the calculation of the cumulative water risk score, an additive or multiplicative aggregation method can be used to combine the weighted scores (Kodell and Gaylor 1989).However, due to the 'multiplier effect' of systemic risks like water, where the impacts are multiplied and the water risk indicators are interdependent that augment total Risk (Li et al 2021, Rayer et al 2021).Therefore, the multiplicative model is better suited for calculating the cumulative score (Kodell andGaylor 1989, Diaz-Gallo et al 2021).Combining the criteria for the individual risk scores and practitioner priorities, the following multiplicative model was used and coded in the WATR-DST to calculate the cumulative risk score based on the user inputs.
Finally, based on the cumulative score, the tool also calculates the overall rating differentiated on a 5-point scale from Very high to Very low.The 5-point scale is developed based on a 20% interval and the range of the maximum and minimum cumulative scores.The tool calculates the maximum possible score and uses that value to calculate an interval value for the 5-point scale, i.e., Maximum possible score ÷ 5 or 20% of the maximum score.This value is then used as the scale interval for calculating the cumulative risk ratings with minimum score and maximum score as the scale range.A hypothetical example for demonstration is provided in appendix D for clarity.

Practitioners' survey results and the WATR-DST
For Water risk management strategies, the average agreement score was highest for Proactive approaches for water resilience in all water-using sectors (Mean = 6.12,SD = 0.83), followed by Multi-stakeholder participatory approaches (Mean = 5.80, SD = 1.22),Additional scientific research (Mean = 5.72, SD = 1.10) and the least for Additional and more stringent Government regulations (Mean = 4.76, SD = 1.69).The descriptive statistics for the seven water risk indicators are provided in table 4. Water quality risk was, on average, rated highest (Mean = 5.29, SD = 1.63), and source-specific risk was the lowest (Mean = 4.38, SD = 1.55).
The WATR-DST was designed as outlined in section 3.3.The sub-watershed data on the seven water risk indicators, 70 sub-sectors of water use, risk scores (table 3), and criteria for cumulative risk score were coded in MS Excel.The water risk priority multipliers, i.e., M Priority were calculated based on the survey's average ratings and corresponding rank based on the average rating (table 4).For equal means e.g., Water user conflict risk and Regulatory risk, an equal rank was assigned.Base priority multiplier of 1 was assigned to the lowest rank, i.e., 6 and each subsequent rank was assigned a multiplier with an increment of 0.5.
The WATR-DST displays the ratings and scores for Water Quantity Risk, Water Quality Risk, Water User Conflict Risk, Regulatory Risk, Source-specific Risk, and Sector-specific Risk.The tool also provides information on public and media scrutiny themes, allowing users to assess Reputational Risk, contingent on the context, location, sector, and legacy issues.The tool then displays the cumulative water risk score, a unique score for the user and a rating.To illustrate the features of the WATR-DST, a step-by-step demonstration and user guide using a hypothetical example is provided in appendix D.

Sector-specific preferences for water risk management strategies
The ANOVA test revealed statistically significant sector differences for two out of four risk management strategies (table 5), i.e., proactive private sector approaches, F(7, 17) = 4.81, p = .004and regulatory approaches, F(7, 17) = 3.53, p = .016.The eta squared values for effect size were > 0.14.We discussed these results in the interview stage for an in-depth understanding.

Explanatory insights from interviews
The themes and sub-themes from the qualitative analysis of the interviews (in italics) are discussed below.A map summarizing these themes is provided in appendix C. b Rank of 1 is assigned to the highest rated risk (mean), followed by increments of 1 for next rating.

Preferences for water risk management strategies
The survey finds, on average, that the most preferred water risk management strategies were private sector approaches, and the least preferred were the government regulatory approaches.Interestingly, the water risk perception study by Sandhu et al (2023b) with the same practitioner sample found that the extent of trust of the participants across institutions to measure and manage water security risks was the least in private sector and higher in the government and civil society organizations.Therefore, the study explored this trust and management strategy disconnect, where despite the least trust in the private sector, private sector approaches for water risk management were most preferred.Four main themes emerged from the discussion.First, participants provided insights on government regulatory approaches for water risk management, articulating their benefits and drawbacks.Participants noted that the benefit of government regulatory approaches is that they provide a necessary baseline for performance and foster best management practices across all sectors.They also noted that the government entities provide independent oversight for compliance, checks, and balances that are not motivated by profit-centric interests as in the private sector.Moreover, the government can provide incentives and support to scale and transfer best sustainability practices across all sectors.
On the other hand, participants also discussed the drawbacks of government regulatory approaches, including an overload of siloed regulations and cost-associated burdens, especially for water-reliant sectors like agriculture, manufacturing, food and beverage, power production, and mining.There may be unintended consequences when regulations are not attuned to the sector or location, creating opposite outcomes.Moreover, excessive regulations are prescriptive, resulting in a loss of innovation.Participants also noted the reactive nature of regulations based on public concern rather than biophysical evidence, which makes this approach less preferred.
Second, participants discussed proactive private sector approaches, revealing two sub-themes.Participants noted that the private sector's efficiency, flexibility, and know-how may be better than other institutions.The private sector prefers efficiency and strategic approaches with higher flexibility to address issues, which may also be self-serving.Moreover, the know-how, i.e., knowledge, innovation, as well as resources for technology and implementation for risk management, tends to be higher in the private sector.Lastly, the private sector may look at risks and opportunities more strategically than regulators.This preference also reflects the drive to do the right thing and build accountability, i.e., benefiting them, society, and the environment, and a strategy to createi more accountability and regain stakeholder trust.
Third, participants discussed their insights on multistakeholder participatory approaches.First, the benefits of collaboration to foster change, action, and improvement were articulated.Nonetheless, participatory approaches have drawbacks, including issues with self-serving interests alluding to a lack of trust.Moreover, the issues with coordination, implementation, long timelines, and interest alignment highlighted the practical complexities of participatory approaches.
Finally, participants discussed additional strategies for water risk management, noting that economic and materiality considerations (financial bottom line), i.e., costs, expenses, and financial implications, may drive the management strategy.Pricing of risks and water was discussed as an additional way to elevate the priority of water in decision-making.

Sector-specific differences
The study found sector-specific differences between proactive private sector approaches and regulatory approaches (table 5).Within regulatory approaches, the financial sector rates them higher than other sectors.The interviews revealed that the financial sector seeks certainty, standardization, and risk alleviation provided by regulations, but corporations seek flexibility, efficiency, and innovation provided by private sector approaches.Moreover, sectors and organizations under high media or public scrutiny may prefer both government regulatory and proactive private sector approaches to establish accountability and trust.The participants also discussed corporate sustainability trends, i.e., the triple bottom line.The triple bottom line is the consideration of the social, economic, and environmental value, impact, and performance of an organization, instead of only focusing on the financial performance, i.e., the single bottom line of profits (Bansal and Song 2017).Participants noted a status quo across sectors where the bottom line (financial impact /materiality) tends to dominate decision-making and action.Profitability tends to be critical, where sustainability initiatives compete with other profit-generating initiatives.Moreover, participants noted that social, reputational, or environmental issues are considered as financial risks in decision-making.Thus, the business case for sustainability (including water) is the dominant ethos driving corporate sustainability action.The participants also discussed potential drivers of sustainability initiatives, where internal and external stakeholders, including investors, employees, customers, and potential employees (via recruitment) can drive sustainability action.If compensation is tied to sustainability goals, the financial motivation of executives may also drive action.Moreover, the government plays an important role in proactively signaling sustainable practices through regulations and incentives.The barriers to corporate sustainability were attributed to varying degrees of awareness about systemic sustainability issues, inadequate measures, and reporting that overlook sustainability impacts and primarily measure financial impacts.

Gaps and opportunities for water risk management in Ontario
Discussion about the gaps and opportunities for management of water risks in Ontario revealed three themes.First, concerning the collaboration between academia and industry, participants noted the opportunities for transdisciplinary research projects, funding, and dissemination.They highlighted the need for collaboration between academia and industry via research projects, brain-storming sessions, funding, and research dissemination activities, where sustainability challenges and data gaps in the industry can be posed as research questions.Gaps and issues with data were noted, highlighting the need for real-time and accessible water data that can inform long-term planning and decision-making.Moreover, participants noted the lag in data for emerging contaminants, and the need for quality assurance of reported data.Finally, there is a need to improve data accessibility, sharing, and coverage such that valid data is reliably collected and made accessible.
Second, under adaptation versus mitigation approaches for water risk management, participants highlighted that water risk management is still mitigation driven.However, adaptation is slowing gaining attention, where, as the impacts of climate change materialize, adaptation may become more relevant in decision-making.Moreover, the nuances of adaptation were also discussed, where the focus on adaptation depends on the sector's nature and extent of water use.Another nuance was that mitigation and adaptation are interconnected for water risks with a need for an integrated focus on consumption and production.Nonetheless, the difficulty and longer timelines for adaptation approaches are a barrier.
Finally, under opportunities for water risk assessment and management, participants noted opportunities for knowledge co-generation and awareness about water risks across different sectors and industries.Moreover, accounting for public perception as a social risk as well as recognizing water as a systemic interconnected risk problem, were also highlighted.Operationally, the need for more integrated tools, plans, frameworks, and data for water risks is highlighted.Moreover, benchmarking water use in all industries across Ontario, quantification of business case of water sustainability, and pricing water risks were also identified.
Participants also highlighted opportunities for multi-stakeholder and multi-sector engagement at the watershed level.It was noted that stakeholders drive action in environmental topics, create demand, and trigger change.Collaborative management of water and locally-attuned regulations are avenues to explore further, along with the role of media and public attention that may drive regulations and industry action.Finally, participants noted opportunities for government regulations, cost-sharing programs, and incentives, alluding to expanding wellfunctioning government programs and cost-sharing programs to support water initiatives and technologies.

Discussion of results
The objective of this study was two-fold: first, we investigated practitioner insights and preferences for water risk management in the private sector in Ontario.Second, we developed a comprehensive decision-support tool that captures local hydrological and contextual conditions to assist multi-sector water risk management decisions.The study's results make a tangible contribution to the knowledge and tools for sustainability management, risk analysis, and environmental management.We discuss the study's findings in line with the research questions and current literature, and the contributions, limitations, and areas for future research in the ensuing sections.

Strategies for water risk management
Answering research question one, the study's investigation on water risk management (section 4.1) revealed that the most preferred approaches, on average, are proactive private sector approaches, and the least preferred are government regulatory approaches.Proactive private sector approaches are activities undertaken by a corporation for risk management, including self-regulation, voluntary monitoring and reporting of sustainability-related matters, internal pricing of externalities (carbon emissions, water pollution, etc,), etc, (Christ andBurritt 2018, Busch et al 2023).Regulatory approaches are the conventional command and control approaches, where public institutions are responsible for managing water risks and their impacts by laws, regulations, policies, and emission thresholds (Dobbie et al 2016, Klinke and Renn 2021, Busch et al 2023).Moreover, we found sector-based differences in two out of four strategies (table 5).
The preference for proactive private sector approaches might be expected and self-serving in a private practitioner sample.However, it is an interesting finding because Sandhu et al (2023b) found in the same sample that the trust to manage risks by self-regulation in the private sector was the least and in the government was higher.Interviews revealed (section 4.3.1)that private sector approaches for water risk management are preferred because of efficiency, flexibility, and know-how at the individual organizational level.Moreover, the role of the government in providing baseline standardization, certainty, and unbiased oversight remains crucial.While there is higher trust in the government, there is also awareness of limitations of regulations due to cost burdens, lack of context-specific and sector-specific considerations, and restrictions on innovation and flexibility.Nonetheless, the practitioners articulated the benefits and drawbacks of each management approach, but the preference for flexibility and efficiency dominated.
Furthermore, trust is found to be nuanced for water risk management and decision-making in Ontario, hence building upon empirical literature on the role of trust in decision-making (Siegrist 2021).For the private sector practitioners in Ontario, alluding to the complexity of trust reported by Sandhu et al (2023b), trust is higher in government agencies, individual's own organization, and direct stakeholders rather than the industry as a whole, hence disconnecting one's risk management strategy preference from the trust in institutions.This disconnection between trust and management strategy in Ontario diverges from the findings of Dobbie et al (2016) in the Australian context.Dobbie et al (2016) found that government agencies are considered to be primarily responsible for reducing and managing risk in the urban water sector using regulatory approaches.Their results were explained based on risk perception, where trust was directly connected to the choice of risk management strategy.Therefore, our finding highlights the contextual nuances and location-based differences pertaining to trust and water risk management preferences in the private sector.
Moreover, as compared to Australia, there is a perception of water abundance in Canada, and specifically Ontario, fueled further by tools like WWF Water Risk Filter, which use aggregated data and underestimate total water security risks at the sub-watershed scale for Ontario (Sandhu et al 2023a(Sandhu et al , 2023b)).Thus, this reactive handsoff laissez-faire preference of the private actors over government regulations can also be explained based on this perceived abundance of water in Ontario (Sandhu et al 2023b).Also highlighting the importance of using comprehensive data for multi-dimensional water security risks at the local sub-watershed scale and contextually-attuned decision-support tools like WATR-DST for water risk management.
In line with Busch et al (2023), the study's interviews (section 4.3.2) reveal a dominance of the business case for sustainability management in Ontario.There is a weak conceptualization of sustainability, where the financial bottom line and profit-centric self-serving interests, i.e., financial risks, economic signals, efficiency, stakeholder pressure, and incentives, continue to drive action rather than sustainability considerations (Weber andFeltmate 2016, Talbot andBarbat 2020).Nonetheless, building upon Busch et al's (2023) findings, the study finds a complementary nature of approaches for water, where government regulations can complement private sector and participatory approaches.The study confirms that government regulations and multi-stakeholder engagement are necessary for water risk management but can be designed more strategically to trigger a largescale organizational and behavioral change (Christ andBurritt 2019, Busch et al 2023).The practitioners discussed the need for dialogue and collaboration between state actors, private sector, and civil society to trigger this strategic change for sustainable water management.For instance, government regulations for water can be attuned for the sub-watershed, sector, and sub-sector to capture the biophysical nuances of local water resources and sector-specific nature of water use and impact.Moreover, state programs for cost-sharing, incentives for water-efficient technologies, nature-based solutions, checks and balances as well as stakeholder-driven accountability, oversight, and action were identified as key opportunities to incentivize improved corporate water performance and balancing public and private interests for water.
Aligned with Aven and Renn (2020) and Garrick et al (2020), we conclude that a hybrid combination of linear top-down, proactive private sector, and multi-stakeholder participatory approaches will be required for water risk management in the private sector in Ontario.The choice should be based on the severity of water risk for that specific sector, location, and context.Thus, building upon the literature and practitioners' insights, the study developed a water risk management spectrum (figure 4) based on increasing water risk severity.This spectrum can be employed to choose a risk management strategy corresponding to the cumulative risk rating calculated from the WATR-DST.The overlap between precaution-based and participatory strategy enables flexibility, where the user can choose based on the cumulative risk, sector's risk, context-specific reputational risk, or location-specific conflict potential.

Opportunities for water risk management in Ontario
Answering research question two, the discussion on the next steps for water risk assessment and management (section 4.3.3)revealed three interconnected perspectives that build upon the work of Sandhu et al (2023aSandhu et al ( , 2023b)).First, from a cognitive perspective, opportunities for collaborative knowledge co-creation with increased awareness, reliable sources of information, and dissemination pertaining to local water risks, are revealed.Therefore, aligned with previous literature, research, communication, and dissemination for water need to be attuned to the non-academic audience's needs (Krueger et al 2016, Christ and Burritt 2018, 2019, Miles et al 2023).From a governance and institutional perspective, opportunities for multi-stakeholder and multi-sector collaboration at the sub-watershed level and participatory trust-building initiatives are revealed (Mitchell 2015, Renn and Klinke 2015, Dobbie et al 2016).Contextually-attuned regulations, accountability, and cost-sharing programs can potentially balance the public, private, and environmental interests for sustainable water management.The institutional aspects of water risk governance using multi-stakeholder collaborative and deliberative approaches are promising future research avenues that can delve into specific strategic changes required for a large-scale shift towards building water security and resilience.
As discussed in section 5.1, the practitioner interviews also revealed the status quo in corporate sustainability management, where the impact on the financial bottom line (i.e., single materiality or the business case of sustainability and risk management) is the main driver for action.Double materiality is the systems-based combination of inside-out and outside-in approaches for sustainability management, i.e., assessing, disclosing, and managing overall social, economic, and environmental risks and impacts of an organization (Weber and Saunders-Hogberg 2020, Driver et al 2023).Thus, the triple bottom line or double materiality or the sustainability case are not yet fully considered in water-related decision-making (Bansal andSong 2017, Busch et al 2023).Nonetheless, this study's proposed hybrid water risk management approaches can help transition the single materiality considerations to double materiality.For instance, for locations and sectors with high risk severity, the private sector's materiality-based self-regulatory approaches for water risk management focused on innovation, know-how, and efficiency can be combined with collaborative multi-stakeholder participatory approaches that provide institutional diversity and regulatory approaches that provide incentives, certainty, oversight, and standardization (Klinke andRenn 2012, Busch et al 2023).Thus, as argued by Busch et al (2023), Koehler (2023), and Weber and Feltmate (2016), rather than choosing one panacea approach, a contextuallyattuned hybrid water risk management approach can be chosen and implemented based on the location, sector, and context (Dobbie et al 2016, Wyrwoll et al 2018, Quandt 2022).
From an operational perspective, opportunities for collecting real-time data of all water risk indicators, benchmarking water use across sectors and sub-watersheds, pricing tools, and quantifying the business case for sustainable water management are revealed.Aligned with the literature, the importance of accounting and decisionsupport tools (like WATR-DST) was also articulated by the practitioners (Christ andBurritt 2018, Busch et al 2023).

Salient features of WATR-DST for sustainable water management
Answering research question three, the study developed a contextually-attuned decision-support tool, WATR-DST, integrating water risk data and practitioner priorities (table 4).The WATR-DST has multiple salient features to support multi-sector water-related decision-making in Ontario that overcome the weaknesses of previous research and tools (Xu et al 2018, García Sánchez et al 2023, Sandhu et al 2023a).Overall, the tool provides ratings for seven water risk indicators in an integrated format, attuned to the user's location, sector, source type, and preferences (step-by-step demonstration of features is provided in appendix D).For instance, if an organization in a water-intensive sector has an existing or new facility, the user, who can be an analyst, decision-maker, or manager, can input their facility's information in the WATR-DST.The tool calculates and displays the ratings and scores for seven water risk indicators, a cumulative rating, and corresponding water risk management strategy.Based on the outputs, the user can strategically compare locations, design sustainable water management policies, invest in water efficiency, conservation, treatment technology, or nature-based solutions, and undertake stakeholder engagement based on the key public and media scrutiny themes.
A major gap in tools like WWF Risk Filter, Water Footprint, etc, or Multi-criteria tools, is the lack of integrated biophysical and contextual risk data to assist decision-making at the regional scales for provinces like Ontario (Forin et al 2018, Dudley et al 2022).WATR-DST addresses these gaps and provides ratings for seven dimensions of water security risks at the sub-watershed scale.It not only quantifies context-specific regulatory and reputational risks but also provides qualitative themes on crucial reputational issues.The qualitative details inform the user's judgment, which is systematically integrated into this tool for decision-making.Therefore, the combination of quantitative scores and qualitative themes at the sub-watershed scale, is a salient and unique feature of the tool, which were obscured in extant assessments for Ontario (Dudley et al 2022, Sandhu et al 2023a).Moreover, using the water risk management spectrum, a strategy can be chosen based on the cumulative risk score/rating rather than siloed risk scores of extant tools.The water risk management strategies are also a unique feature of the tool that are informed by literature and practical insights of private sector practitioners.These features not only make the tool attuned to needs of the practitioners and the context of Ontario but also fosters uptake of WATR-DST in the private sector and improve sustainable water management (Schaltegger et al 2013, Krueger et al 2016, Christ and Burritt 2019).

Novel contributions of research to knowledge and application
As discussed in the Introduction section, this study contributes to the knowledge and application-based tools in sustainability management, risk analysis, and environmental management, specifically water resource management.It expands and validates the normative and analytical aspects of Risk Governance Theory for water risk management in the private sector, which had not been done in extant literature.The study's findings build on the Risk Governance Theory, by providing in-depth understanding of how different water risks are prioritized and managed in Ontario by an influential yet underexplored stakeholder group like the private sector.Moreover, it demonstrates the novel application of transdisciplinary approaches by integrating knowledge and theoretical frameworks with practitioner perspectives.This approach enabled a thorough understanding of the rationale shaping priorities, decisions, role of trust, for managing multi-dimensional water security risks at the sub-watershed scale in Ontario (Johns 2017, Sandhu et al 2023a, 2023b).Moreover, this understanding was then applied to develop a contextually-attuned decision-support tool.
By integrating analytical water risk data with normative perspectives of an influential stakeholder like the private sector, the study reveals unique insights and inclusive approaches for water risk management, environmental accounting, and risk communication that challenge the status quo of corporate management practices (Klinke and Renn 2021, Busch et al 2023, Koehler 2023).Finally, the study emphasizes that regional scales are critical for water risk management to comprehensively capture the highly variable and context-specific biophysical, social, political, institutional, trust-based, and sector-based aspects shaping decisions.Thus, the research extends the literature on water risk management and governance in the private sector by highlighting the role of regional scales and contextual nuances shaping priorities and decisions of practitioners for waterrelated decision-making, which are overlooked by extant monodisciplinary research, methods, and tools (Renn and Klinke 2015, Krueger et al 2016, Quandt 2022, Loucks 2023, Sandhu et al 2023b).
As an application-based contribution, the WATR-DST is a comprehensive environmental management tool for businesses, investors, and regulators in Ontario that can improve water-related decisions and practices, by identifying individual water risks, public and media issues, and cumulative risk based on the user's location, sector, and context (Christ and Burritt 2019, Di Baldassarre et al 2019, Garrick et al 2020).The tool's outputs enable strategic comparison of locations and identification of collaborative multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable water management, hence improving multi-sector sustainability performance and accountability for SDG 6 (Christ andBurritt 2019, Weber andSaunders-Hogberg 2020).Moreover, the management of climaterelated impacts on water security is one of the pillars of the International Financial Reporting Standards' (IFRS) Sustainability Disclosure Standards that amalgamate the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure's and the industry-based Sustainability Accounting Standards Board's standards (IFRS 2023b(IFRS , 2023a)).Since Ontario's climate change adaptation strategies rest on long-term planning, dialogue, and collaboration between stakeholders to manage water-related risks, our study's findings have key implications for the government, public, and private organizations (Climate Risk Institute, Dillion Consulting, ESSA Technologies, Kennedy Consulting, and VIRIDI Global 2023).

Research limitations and future recommendations
The risk scores and multipliers used to convert ratings into numerical values in the WATR-DST are illustrative and are not modeled or elicited.Nonetheless, future work can employ multi-stakeholder roundtables to deliberate risk scores for the tool (Sandhu et al 2020).Second, the study used past data for the baseline risk assessment, which needs to be updated every five years to keep the tool current.However, since the methods and data sources for the tool are well-documented, updating data is not expected to be time-consuming.Third, sensitivity analysis for the scores, quantifying the impact of illustrative scores on the ratings, was out of scope for this study, but future work can delve into data modelling and sensitivity analysis (Dudley et al 2022).Fourth, in-depth investigation into the institutional aspects of water risk governance and multi-stakeholder deliberation for trust-building, risk communication, specific strategic changes and actions needed for building water security and resilience are promising areas for future work.Finally, the study focused on Ontario and the private sector, to reveal the importance of contextuality and regional scales for water management (Zipper et al 2020, Bilalova et al 2023, García Sánchez et al 2023).Thus, the study's findings on water risk management strategies and the tool's outputs are contextually-attuned for the studied area of Ontario.Nonetheless, aligned with the concept of research transferability in mixed methods and case study research, the study's underlying methodological and analytical procedures, theoretical framework, and the tool's design can be adapted and applied by the wider scientific community and practitioners in future work for other provinces, countries, or stakeholder groups (Creswell and Creswell 2018).

Conclusion
The study achieved its two-fold objective by, first, investigating the insights, preferences, and priorities for water risk management in the private sector in Ontario.Then, the study applied this knowledge to develop a contextually-attuned tool that informs and improves sustainable water management decisions, policies, and practices.The literature revealed limited empirical examination of water risk management strategies and tools using normative-analytical risk governance models and approaches.Moreover, there was a gap in understanding how water risks were prioritized and managed in the private sector in Ontario, a province perceived to be water abundant yet rife with multi-dimensional water security challenges.The study successfully addressed these gaps by expanding and operationalizing the normative-analytical model for water risk management in the private sector in Ontario.Using mixed methods, the study engaged corporate and financial sector practitioners and revealed nuanced insights, priorities, and preferences for water risk management.The normative priorities elicited from the practitioners were then combined with analytical data for seven multi-dimensional water risks to develop a novel decision-support tool for Ontario, the 'WATR-DST'.
The study also revealed limitations of existing water regulations in Ontario and discusses opportunities for designing more strategic, contextual, and sector-attuned regulations, at the sub-watershed scale along with costsharing programs, incentives, accountability measures, and reporting to improve water security.Moreover, knowledge co-development, dissemination, and collaboration between industry, academia, civil society, and government agencies, are identified as key avenues to build trust and risk communication platforms to improve sustainable water management policies and practices.Since water and climate change are intrinsically related, the findings on the role of trust, contextually-attuned regulations, location, and status quo in corporate water management (currently driven by financial materiality considerations), have important implications for state actors and policy-makers in Ontario.These insights can foster inclusive water governance and trigger a shift towards more proactive and collaborative sustainable water management policies for climate adaptation and resilience.The transdisciplinary WATR-DST is a significant practical and methodological contribution that applied the study's findings to assist businesses, investors, and regulators.The tool's outputs are envisioned guide multi-sector waterrelated decisions, practices, investments, and policies in Ontario.
Finally, while the study focused on the province of Ontario, it also makes several contributions for the wider scientific and practitioner community.It demonstrates a novel application of the normative and analytical aspects of Risk Governance Theory for water risk management, hence making a theoretical contribution in the fields of sustainability management, risk analysis, and environmental management.The study concludes that regional spatial scales, contextual nuances, and perception-based priorities and perspectives of non-state actors are critical in understanding the location-based, trust-based, and sector-based aspects shaping water-related decisions.Moreover, as water security issues become more complex, uncertain, and ambiguous across the globe, a one-size-fits-all risk management strategy may be insufficient.Thus, the study recommends a contextuallyattuned hybrid combination of approaches, where self-regulatory private-sector approaches focused on innovation, know-how, and efficiency can be combined with collaborative multi-stakeholder participatory approaches and regulatory approaches that provide incentives, certainty, and oversight.Thus, by exploring the diverse interests, values, knowledge, and preferences, of an influential actor like the private sector, which shape management strategies, decisions, and practices, the study advanced knowledge in water risk governance.
Based on the practitioners' insights, the study identifies future research and application opportunities for water risk management and governance beyond Ontario.For instance, the study's theoretical framework, methods, and analytical procedures can be expanded and applied to other regions and stakeholder groups.The scientific community can engage practitioners, state actors, and civil society, to elicit their priorities, investigate contextually-attuned management strategies, and design decision-support tools based on local data and context.Thus, the study's findings can guide the broader scientific community and practitioners to develop a suite of global case studies and help advance SDG 6.

Figure 1 .
Figure1.Theoretical framework for water risk management and decision-making.
(Sandhu et al 2023b) for this study is the same as the overall project(Sandhu et al 2023b).

Table 2 .
Items and rating scales of practitioner survey questionnaire.'s inputs and the calculated ratings, the tool automatically assigns a numeric risk score for the indicator.The tool has been color-coded such that the user input areas and instructions are clearly indicated.The score assignment procedures of the tool are detailed below:i.Water quantity risk: Based on the user input of the sub-watershed, the tool populates the quaternary watersheds under four quantity risk sub-indicators, i.e., high surface water quantity risk, moderate surface water risk, high groundwater quantity risk, and moderate groundwater risk.If the user's location is within the identified quaternary watersheds, the user can choose 'yes' or 'no' from the drop-down options.Then, based on the rating, the tool engages the corresponding numerical risk score.If no watershed is identified, the base score of 1 is used. user

Table 3 .
Illustrative risk scores for water risk indicator ratings.

Table 4 .
Descriptive statistics of water risk ratings and priority risk multipliers.
a Number of valid responses to this question in the survey.

Table 5 .
Significant group means and standard deviations in 1-way ANOVA.