Responses to Reviewer 1

Response to General comment 1: 

As kindly suggested by reviewer 1, re-structuring the document and better clarification of the scientific ambition and contribution of this research at the beginning of the manuscript, will help separating the confirmation of best practices from literature and from our study case, as well as to highlight new insights arising from this process. We have also included a new figure showing how these 5 steps are distributed in the process. In this way we also better highlight the contribution we want to make by reflecting on our own case. 

To address the scientific gap, we will better explain how usually, hydrological modeling is focused on situations in which there is time and disposition for a long engagement between academia and participants, and how in this article we reflect and critically confront good practices in a conflictive situation, in order to contribute to the participatory modeling conversation. Precisely our contribution is aiming at pointing out dilemmas and limitations that result from engaging into a hydrological modeling consultancy in an algid moment for the community. To address this comment, we have mentioned this in the Introduction, page 3: “Best practices for participatory hydrological modeling include: Having a clear problem that all recognize and embrace; selecting an appropriate, simple, and flexible modeling tool for the question complexity, funding, and time; engaging different types of local knowledges from a diverse group of participants as early, as frequent, and as long (all stages of the process) as possible; in a neutral, transparent (in its uncertainties) and scientifically sound process that recognizes local historical disagreements; and incorporates facilitation and negotiation (Voinov and Gaddis, 2008; Voinov and Bousquet, 2010; Basco-Carrera et al., 2017). These participatory hydrological modeling recommendations are usually focused on situations in which there is time and disposition for a long engagement between academia and participants. However, as we experienced in our case, the context in which these tools are applied can deeply vary, impacting the success of these best practices and frustrating these complex science-society efforts.”  

As reviewer 1 commented, the five step-guideline may sound similar to other best practice literature for modeling in general. Although we recognize that existing literature on participatory modeling is fundamental to make several of our points, in this revised version we will better show in what points existing good practice literature does not reflect on the impact that context have in these initiatives. Although we have built from those good practice’s recommendations, we also incorporated recommendations from environmental conflict literature as our context was not one for a peaceful process. In this article we reflect and critically discuss those good practices in a conflictive situation in order to contribute to the participatory modeling conversation. Precisely our contribution was aiming at pointing out dilemmas and limitations that resulted from engaging into a hydrological modeling consultancy in an algid moment for the community. What should be the role of modelers and what considerations they should have when in that situation is what this manuscript is about. In a revised version we will strengthen the context description and the key learnings from this specific process in the light of the participatory modeling literature. Also, to respond to the need to incorporate details about limitations, details of what we consider successful and unsuccessful about this experience will be reflected in both the results and the discussion. 

Response Specific comment 1: We have reduced this section to the minimum referring to the published paper. However, we have remained some explanations so the process it is not completely unknown for the readers.

Response Specific comment 2: Indeed, it is difficult to structure an article that both wants to discuss the process and outcomes as part of the research results. We wanted to show the original way it was conducted in the methods, but the reflection on the dilemmas and limitations, in the results sections. In this version we have moved aspects of section 3.2. that are more related with the experience/result, to the Results (section 4), and general explanations to the Methods section 3. Section 3 now follows the 5-steps guidelines, including detailed descriptions of limitations within each step.

Response Specific comment 3: In a revised version, we will also include in the Results an explanation of what happened with its application after the model was finished (2019). As we explain in the results, “The process and model results were key to support conversations and strategies evaluation during the first year of the Collaborative meetings (2018-2019). However, other political changes and economic interests affected the internal dynamics of this collaborative group during the time there was funding (2 years). Furthermore, and as the model results did not necessarily validate all opinions and expectations, its value was impacted by the lobby of economic interests pushing for particular strategies. Currently, the Aculeo WEAP model is part of a new Governmental funded project set to estimate the ecosystem services of native forest and to analyze the exacerbated impact of climate change in the water balance due to both: changes in native forest dynamics and the basin hydrological response. In this project, stakeholders will play a smaller role identifying ecosystem services.”

Response Specific comment 4: As we now better explain, “a list of eight water management strategies (e.g. water use by the agricultural sector), as well as four institutional support ideas management strategies were collected from the AVGC debates and extreme positions presented by the different stakeholders during those open discussions in which we were participants”. That condensed list was then used for an individual interview with stakeholders from 9 groups, in order to better understand their opinions and level of acceptability of each one in an individual and confidential conversation than the open debates. This is explained in the following sentence: “A refined list of those 12 strategies mentioned and others that are being applied in other basins were presented to 25 individuals from nine stakeholders groups participating in the AVGC process (Table 1) to elicit their interest or concerns about the strategies.”

Response Specific comment 5: In a revised version, the role that model played in the stakeholder discussion has been included in section 4.5, step 5, communicating and discussing results. Along with that information, in this section we will further discuss one of the most complex aspects of the participatory modeling: communication scientific information to the public. 

Response Specific comment 6: Indeed, both situations are correct. The sentence now reads “From this experience, we have insights for science society initiatives involving hydrological modeling under limited information, and when underlying conflicts may demand a more cautious, but still, participatory process, to help uncover crucial elements for the modeling process success”. The paragraphs that followed have been reduced and rewritten to the key messages we want to convey to the reader.

Response Specific comment 7: The whole section has been rewritten to the key messages we want to convey to the reader: 1) Conflictive situations require facilitated participation, 2) Accepting manageable uncertainties, 3) Approaching positions have a limit, and 4) No neutral role for the hydrological model. For this purpose, we have deleted information that was not essential and kept key insights related with limitations in this type of processes.

Response Specific comment 8: Reviewer is correct that the way it was written was incorrectly pointing at these authors alleging for hiding uncertainties; but the purpose was to point out they discussed this subject in similar contexts. However, the whole section has been rewritten to the key messages we want to convey to the reader. For this purpose, we have deleted information that was not essential and kept key insights related with limitations in this type of processes.

Response Specific comment 9: We thank the reference suggestion of the reviewer.  This is a key point we want to transmit. Weible et al., (2010) and other references will be used to better clarify the message about “Approaching positions have a limit”.

Response Specific comment 10: As the reviewer suggested, the way the results will be presented helps to better discern our findings from literature review. Precisely what we want to transmit in the article is a critical review of good practices in a conflictive situation where not everything worked. We hope with this to contribute to the participatory modeling conversation.  

Response Specific comment 11: Although we believe linking process of modeling to achieving the co-creation of boundary objects is an important discussion, we do not have enough information for the results. Therefore, we have removed all sections mentioning this concept.

Technical correction 1: In a revised version, the sentence now reads: “distributing surface and aquifer water to over 400 riverine families.”

Technical correction 2: In a revised version, table 2 and its accompanying description it is only mentioned in section Results. All previous mentions have been removed.

Technical correction 3: The reference has been included in the bibliography: Vogel, C., Moser, S., Kasperson, R. Dabelgo, G. 2007. Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships. Global Environmental Change 17: 349-363.

Technical correction 4: The reference has been included in the bibliography: Goleman, D. J.: What is negative about positive illusions? When benefits for the individual harm the collective. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol., 8(2), 190-197, doi: 10.1521/jscp.1989.8.2.190, 1989.

Responses to RC2

Response to general comment Reviewer 2: As suggested by the reviewer, in a revised manuscript we will better clarify the scientific ambition and contribution of this article by framing the results using the 5-steps recommendations previously on the discussion section. A suggested by RC2, we have also included in the introduction a succinct description of best-practices recommendations for participatory modeling. As we better clarify in the introduction: and mentioning the point about the main characteristic of this research that contributes to the participatory modeling and transdisciplinary science conversation. With these changes, page 3: “Best practices for participatory hydrological modeling include: Having a clear problem that all recognize and embrace; selecting an appropriate, simple, and flexible modeling tool for the question complexity, funding, and time; engaging different types of local knowledge from a diverse group of participants as early, as frequent, and as long (all stages of the process) as possible; in a neutral, transparent (in its uncertainties) and scientifically sound process that recognizes local historical disagreements; and incorporates facilitation and negotiation (Voinov and Gaddis, 2008; Voinov and Bousquet, 2010; Basco-Carrera et al., 2017). These participatory hydrological modeling recommendations are usually focused on situations in which there is time and disposition for a long engagement between academia and participants. However, as we experienced in our case, the context in which these tools are applied can deeply vary, impacting the success of these best practices and frustrating these complex science-society efforts”. Following, in a next paragraph we mention: “In this article we will explore these participatory modeling best practices recommendations in a case study that was 1) not originally intended as participatory, 2) in a community experiencing conflict over an environmental catastrophe and 3) during other governmentally-lead attempts at finding collaborative solutions”  

Response to specific comment 1. Indeed. As we will better explain, although these two processes were designed to be implemented in separately, giving the level of conflict and large number of uncertainties, we saw an opportunity actively participate in the AVGC process and move towards a more transdisciplinary hydrological modeling. In a new version we use the word “coincided in time”, and later in section 3.2 we further explain: “As it was explained earlier, a Voluntary Agreement for Watershed Management process initiated at the same time as the hydrological modeling exploring the potential causes and possible solutions to restore the Aculeo Lake . Authors of this paper were in charge of the hydrological study, but at the same time, guest participants of the AVGC discussion acting as potential academia partners for the resulting agreement. As this study was conducted independently, but simultaneously with the AVGC process, there was a synergy that resulted in increased participation in the hydrological modeling, and consideration of the model in the discussions about the lake rehabilitation measures.” 

Response to specific comment 2: Reviewer is right that the sentence was not clear. The new paragraph reads: “This is important in Chile, as the combination of surface and underground hydrological WEAP modeling described in this article is being implemented in National watershed management to develop the first set of 101 Strategic Planning at the Watershed Level throughout Chile. Therefore, this study also contributes to show how a WEAP modelling process can also be used for collaboration and mutual learning in water resources management.”  

Response to Technical correction 1: The reviewer is right that the clarity and the location of the sentence was not correct. In a new version we have changed the paragraph location and rewritten the sentence that now reads: “Both the decision context and decision result are connected, as a legitimate scientific product, should an outcome of a credible and salient science collaboration process (Cash and Clark, 2001). In the case of hydrological modelling, there are best practices recommendations on the level of involvement of participants in the design and testing of hydrological models (Voinov and Gaddis, 2008), that prove how process has a key role in the sense of co-authorship over the product and results of this collaboration (Basco-Carrera et al., 2017)…”

Response to Technical correction 2: The sentence has been rephrased to “Therefore, this study also contributes to show how a WEAP modelling process can also be used for collaboration and mutual learning in water resources management.”  

Response to Technical correction 3: The sentence has been rephrased to “we saw an opportunity to actively participate in the AVGC process and advance towards a more transdisciplinary hydrological modeling.”

Response to Technical correction 4: The sentence that is now in a different location, has been changed to: “These instances were used to identify additionally questions that were pressing and causing suspicion and conflict among participants, such as belief that water diversions upstream was not only illegal, but also causing the lake desiccation.”