Prioritizing water values for decision-making in transboundary river allocation: A case study of the syr darya river basin
Research article by Meadow Poplawsky, Robert-Jan den Haan, Rick Hogeboom, Lara Wöhler and Markus Berger
Why Create a Serious Game on Water Sharing?
Water does not respect borders. Especially in regions like Central Asia, rivers flow across multiple countries—each with different needs, priorities, and political contexts. Traditional methods of policy dialogue often struggle to capture the complexity of these dynamics in a way that participants can truly experience.
Together We Flow was created out of this challenge. The team at the University of Twente, led by Meadow Poplawsky with the support of Dr. ir. Robert-Jan den Haan, Dr. ir. Markus Berger, Dr. ir. Rick Hogeboom, and Dr. Lara Woehler, wanted to create an interactive way for people to “step into the shoes” of decision-makers negotiating water across borders.
Their research, published in the Journal of Environmental Management (2025), asks a deceptively simple question: when water managers face tough trade-offs, which values of water do they actually prioritize? To find out, the team combined a survey with the Together We Flow simulation, bringing managers from Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan into a setting where they had to negotiate, allocate scarce resources, and confront the consequences of their decisions.
Theory vs Practice
On paper, participants leaned toward balance. They placed strong emphasis on environmental needs and human uses, with drinking water often ranked as the most important. But once the game began, the story shifted. Faced with scarcity and the need to strike deals, most participants put economics first. Agriculture, hydropower, and industry dominated their decisions, while environmental and socio-cultural values slipped quietly down the list.
In the debrief, many admitted they acted just as they would in real life — prioritizing economics above all else. Yet they also recognized the trade-offs. They saw how sidelining ecosystems and communities led to negative outcomes, and some even restarted the game midway through in an effort to “make better choices.” Despite the backdrop of real political tension between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan over the Syr Darya, players cooperated with surprising ease inside the simulation, sharing water, food, and electricity without conflict.
Insights and Potential
By creating a safe, fictional setting, Together We Flow allowed participants to experiment with strategies, test out negotiations, and see the ripple effects of their decisions. The research showed that serious games like this one can be powerful tools not only for education but also for fostering stakeholder dialogue, cooperation, and even policy exploration.
On one hand, the pull of economics remains strong, echoing decades of water allocation history in Central Asia. On the other, the game created a rare space for reflection, learning, and trust-building across borders. Several participants left the workshop not only with new insights but also with copies of the game in hand — eager to share it with students and colleagues as a way to think differently about water governance.
Looking Ahead
At its core, the research shows how Together We Flow reveals the gap between what people say they value and the choices they make when it really counts. And by making those trade-offs visible, it opens the door to more balanced, cooperative approaches to managing shared rivers.
