This is a paper that investigates the use of a serious game to discuss issues of water management at watershed level in Kenya. I enjoyed reading the paper; a lot of work has gone into the design, implementation and analyze of the research. I think this type of paper reflecting on the use and scope of such participatory approaches for improving water governance is important. 

That being said, I feel the paper shares what I see as a bias in the existing literature on games for sustainable natural resources management, that is, a rather positive outlook on the changes/transformations these games may trigger and a focus on their promises and potentials – that is only partly supported by what is actually described in the papers (that is what happens during “game sessions” as opposed to “in the real world”). In that specific case, I think the authors could (1) better clarify how the process they steared was fundamentally different (or not) from other more classic participatory approaches notably in relation to co-production of the tool (as opposed to a contrasting active game with passive attendance to workshop). They could also (2) engage a bit more with the risks/limitations of games that have been discussed in the literature and provide a bit more information on the (3) methodology (including the link between the game and the computer model) and (4) the mechanics of the game in the core of the paper (fez readers are likely to read the supplementary material) and (5) finally not only discuss the fact that the game seem to have enhanced communication among participants and their promises in general, but also issues related to the politics of the game themselves, that is, the extent to which the representation of the system was accepted/validated/discussed by participants and the scope for the game to change the broader rules of the game and conditions of operation of the WRUAs. 

I come back to these points one by one below.

Major Comment 1. Line 66 and following: The authors attribute some of the shortcomings of IWRM to the fact that IWRM projects and policies make use of “classic” participatory approaches that would not really allow different actors to engage with the “wicked problem” at hand. In other words, participation in IWRM is not real participation. This is a well-known critique of IWRM, which I share in part, but I think there is a danger of building a strawman for the wrong reasons here, just to make the point that games do not share these shortcomings. I agree when the authors answer the previous community reviewer that games allow a different, more active, mode of engagement than classic workshop based that use power point presentation. But there are many ways to conduct workshop that can provide meaningful engagement of participants: participatory mapping, experimentation with art-based visual, etc. are some of these options. 

I think the issue is less about the modalities of facilitation of workshops (and the tools used) than how multiplicity of knowledge is handled and how/who decides on the terms of the debate. Notably, who ends up deciding what the ‘wicked problem’ is. Games can actually reify the ‘wicked problem’ on the basis of an outsider/expert view; if so I would argue that the nature of engagement of participants remains as limited as in other approach or at least is constrained in major ways. 

What bothers me is that the phrasing of this paragraph (and many others) seems to indicate that the authors hold the view that there is ONE “wicked problem” (likely a lack of coordination between downstream and upstream users). It makes it seem as if this problem existed almost independently of the people who participate, being identified à priori by a subset of actors (though there is scope for refining the problem at hand through the use of the game itself). If that is the case, then, the game developed is likely to have very similar shortcomings than “classic” IWRM based approach. 

I think the critique of IWRM approaches would be more powerful and convincing if it were to be done at the level of how are the terms of the debate/participation set and by whom (as opposed to looking at the specifics of interactions and their presumed passivity), and then to show, how this particular study did something different, hence created the room for another type of engagement by the people who participated in the game session. The point here is to pay a bit more attention to the politics that framed the entire research process and operated silently in the background as opposed to take the dynamism of the game sessions as a sign of pro-active engagement and changes to come in the watershed. The authors may want to look at https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2023-164/ currently under review in the same journal. This paper reflects on some of those issues around the practices of hydrological modeling not games, but I think there are many similariries.

I do not doubt the authors have done something quite different from “classic passive workshops”; my qualm is with the way authors describe the differences. Instead of making clear what the differences were, the way it is written points to fundamental similarities in the assumptions underlying the approach (which may not have been there). I feel clarifying this point through some reformulation is important and would strengthen the argument of the paper.  

Major Comment 2. Line 93 and following. The way to depicts serious games and what they can help achieve is overwhelmingly positive. I think this reflects rather well the existing literature on serious games, most of which is actually written by people involved in their design and implementation – which may make them a bit less likely to adopt a critical stance towards these tools. Yet, I think the authors could engage with some of the limits of games that have been discussed in the literature, notably by members of the ComMod collective they are likely to know. There is some work in relation to conflicts and existing relations of domination (Barnaud & Van Paassen, 2013; Bécu et al., 2008; Mathevet et al., 2014), on the roles and postures of facilitators and modelers (Barreteau et al., 2003; Jonsson et al., 2007), or the risk of manipulation (Barnaud et al., 2008; Halbe et al., 2018). A recent overview recognizes ‘‘potential biases” (Barreteau et al., 2021). See also (Jonsson et al., 2007) on whether games are “truly participatory”. Also, the fact that games simplify complex problems (line 102) is presented as a positive thing (I suspect in relation to legibility of the said problem).  This may be the case, but it also raises a lot of questions: who decides what is represented and what is not, what are the implications of those choices… In other words, what are the politics of the game itself?  These questions ought to be at least mentioned I think. 

Major Comment 3. I feel there is a need to clarify the methodology. Notably, in the first paragraph it is not clear to me what the “solution space” of the game (what are ‘responses’ to rules?). It is also not clear what the authors mean by “overall performance of the game results” (how is performance assessed, is it in relation to water availability/sharing? In relation to how active participation was…)? In relation to that, section 2.4.3 discusses a modeling of the ‘game solution space’ and mentions a 1000 runs but what are those runs? I assume the authors used both a physical game and a computer version of it and that they used the later a 1000 times generating random actions; this to situate the results of the specific game sessions in the “realm of possible”. But I can only assume this: the relations between game and model need to be made explicit and the authors need to explain, why the use of the model was useful, what did it allow to do? 

Major Comment 4. A lot of key information on the mechanics of the game (including how the connections between actors and water flows are conceptualized) are included in the supplementary material. I think only few readers are likely to read the supplementary material and it might be a good idea if the authors extended the presentation of the game in the core of the paper slightly. I’m also not sure the game should be presented in a “box”. Normal section numbering would do. In terms of presenting the game, I think it would be interesting to have a sub-section describing the board and the players, another one describing briefly the different action/decision each actor can make and how this impact water flows (at a conceptual level; not entering in the details of the calibration), and another one on the “typical” process followed during each session – this is already in large part in the box. I think the graph on the system dynamic modeling could support this presentation of the game, as opposed to be presented in relation to the “solution space” of the game. The supplementary file can then focus on the calibration aspect. Presenting the game as such would also allow having part of the discussion engaging with the key stage of game validation that is not really described at the moment (what hypothesis the authors made were validated, which one were not…? for instance deciding that water dries up from downstream when people abstract water from upstream is a strong choice. I would be curious to know if that triggered some discussion also because, materially, it involves taking a marble from one area of the board to put it in the other one, which is not really how water abstraction works in the real world.)

Major comment 5. The discussion focuses on what has happened during the game session and it is important. The game sessions are likely to have improved communication and cross learning among participants but to which extent did it actually provide ways to solve the structural issues faced by WRUA that are identified in line 188 (weak enforcement of policies/laws, water abstraction regulations, water metering requirements, protection of riparian corridors/forested areas, etc.)? Such structural issues are likely to relate to the institutional strength of the WUAs, how legitimate it is vis-à-vis other actors, the (human) and financial means it has… Even if it is not the objective of this paper to assess the scope of the game to change things in the real world, I think it is important for the authors to engage in a discussion around the promises and potential of games in relation to these structural hurdles. 

Most of the literature on games tend to focus on the design process and on what is happening during game sessions, and that’s why most of the literature is positive: there is a lot of interesting things happening, some of which do have transformative potential.  But in doing so, the game and the overall research process is also “removed” from the overall political-economic context in which it is implemented while this context is pivotal for the promises of the game to actually materialize or not. While describing the overall political-economy that influences water management in the case study area is beyond the scope of this paper, I think it is important the authors reflect a bit on it and how this might influence the future of the game outcomes – to avoid falling in the trap of highlighting promises that may never materialize.  

I also have some specific comments:

Line 21 (Abstract): What do the authors mean by “shared understanding”, and understanding of what exactly? Could it be clarified?

Line 27 (abstract): This sentence seems to point to the fact that the objective of the study was to assess the potential of the game to strengthen stakeholder engagement “next” (that is, after the game sessions were held). I do not think the paper demonstrates this. It demonstrates rather convincingly that there was active engagement during the game session but does not engage with whether or not this translated in strengthened engagement outside of the game session. I understand from the exchange with the community member who commented on the paper that this is not the point of this particular paper but then, maybe this sentence needs to be rephrased to indicate that what is being described in the dynamics of engagement during gaming session. Similarly, some clarity may be needed on line 125.

Line 47. The term “wicked problems” was first coined by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in a 1973 paper, which would be good to mention.

Line 54 to 56: It is not clear how the 5 interacting phases of public debate had a bearing on the research conducted.  Why do the authors refer to this work, and how useful is it to understand the process of designing and implementing game sessions? This is clarified around line 95. Consider slight restructuring on when this is mentioned so as to avoid repetitions?

Line 58 and following: I would not call IWRM an “approach”. In my view it consists rather in a policy and discursive model than an approach per se.

Line 63: can the authors briefly say what successes were actually achieved? In what terms was implementation successful and in which contexts?

Line 107: improved efficiency of what?

Line 101: what does “this” relate to?

Line 112 and following: I am not sure what those sentences are meant to bring to the paper. They look as quite general statements in relation to games (what others have said on games), but it is not clear how much of this is actually being used in this particular study.  Maybe they do not belong here but should come earlier in the paragraph? I have a similar remark on communication: are the two sentences on that specific topic meant to discuss game “in general” or has this topic of communication during game played been a specific entry point of analysis of what has happened in the game session organized in this study?

Line 132: what do the authors mean by “sentiment” and how did they assess it. What do they mean by “active” participation and how was it assessed.

Line 145 and following: why does the discussion focuses on “substractive dynamics” only and not on “constructive dynamics”?

Line 160 and following: how many WRUA are there in the sub basin/case study area? One for each sub-river?

Line 177and following: This points to my first major comment. How was this suite of problems identified and by whom? And more specifically, have the people who participated to the game sessions been involved in the definition of these problems. This needs to be clarified as it is largely from this that one can assess to which extent the process followed is fundamentally different from classic “participatory activities” implemented under IWRM processes.

References:

Barnaud, C., Trébuil, G., Promburom, P., & Bousquet, F. (2008). La modélisation d’accompagnement pour une gestion concertée des ressources renouvelables en

Thaïlande. Economie Rurale, 303–304–305, 39–59.

Barnaud, C., & Van Paassen, A. (2013). Equity, power games, and legitimacy: Dilemmas of participatory natural resource management. Ecology and Society,

18(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05459-180221.

Barreteau, O., Antona, M., d’Aquino, P., Aubert, S., Boissau, S., Bousquet, F., Daré, W., Etienne, M., Le Page, C., Mathevet, R., Trébuil, G., & Weber, J. (2003). Our

companion modelling approach. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(1).

Barreteau, O., Abrami, G., Bonte, B., Bousquet, F., & Mathevet, R. (2021). Serious Games. In R. Biggs, A. de Vos, R. Preiser, H. Clements, K. Maciejewski, & M.

Schlüter (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods for social- ecological systems (pp. 176–188). London & New York: Routledge.

Bécu, N., Neef, A., Schreinemachers, P., & Sangkapitux, C. (2008). Participatory computer simulation to support collective decision-making: Potential and

limits of stakeholder involvement. Land Use Policy, 25(4), 498–509. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.11.002.

Halbe, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Adamowski, J. (2018). A methodological framework to support the initiation, design and institutionalization of participatory modeling

processes in water resources management. Journal of Hydrology, 556, 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.024.

Jonsson, A., Andersson, L., Alkan-Olsson, J., & Arheimer, B. (2007). How participatory can participatory modeling be? Degrees of influence of stakeholder and expert

perspectives in six dimensions of participatory modeling. Water Science and Technology, 56(1), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.453

Mathevet, R., Antona, M., Barnaud, C., Fourage, C., Trébuil, G., & Aubert, S. (2014). Contexts and dependencies in the commod processes. In M. Etienne (Ed.),

Companion Modelling: A participatory approach to support sustainable development (pp. 103–125). Dordrecht: Springer.

Venot, JP.; Jensen CB.; Delay E. et Daré, W. (2022). Mosaic glimpses: Serious games, generous constraints, and sustainable futures in Kandal, Cambodia. World Development 151 (2022):105779.