Table 3.

Identified weaknesses of IWRM model from ecological public health perspectives.

Pillar Dimensions	Weakness	Potential for Improvement	Possible Models for Improvement
Social	Less focus on, intra social relations, livelihood and human capital especially the local collective action in sustainability and risk reduction	Increased linkage between socioeconomic concerns and community-based multi risk assessment	Sustainable livelihood framework [49] Multihazard risk assessment (Carpignano et al., 2009)
	participatory assessment biased at policy and implementation agencies levels	focus on water-livelihood activities as part of Environment-human health matrix	ELS ((Biggs et al., 2015) Comprehensive models in Disaster risk Management (Asghar et al., 2006)
	Macro focus at expense of local access to water and livelihoods practices	Socio-ecological systems approaches and political ecology	Public health ecological perspectives (Lang and Raynor, 2012) Nexus Political ecology [23] ELS [82]
Economic	Focuses on allocative efficiency at the expense externalities	Livelihood and risk reduction	Comprehensive Disaster planning models (Asghar et al., 2006)
Environmental	Cognitive failure on management of externalities	Community-based planning and assessments	ELS (Biggs et al., 2015) Comprehensive Disaster planning models (Asghar et al., 2006)
Institutional	Centralised structural focus e.g., [13] Cognitive biases and failures		Comprehensive Disaster planning models (Asghar et al., 2006) Communication for development (e.g., UNICEF, 2008)