Submit your Case Study

Submit a Case Study

A case study is an analytical and critical examination of real events and practical experience which illustrates the implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Case studies are an essential part of the GWP ToolBox – IWRM Action Hub, an interactive bank of global experiences, managed by the GWP to share the knowledge about implementing IWRM in practice.

We invite you to review the guidelines below which outline a step-by-step process for authors and organisations to prepare and submit their case studies for publishing on the IWRM Action Hub.

GWP Guidelines for the Submission of Case Studies

1. What is a GWP Case Study?

The IWRM Action Hub brings together global knowledge and experiences of IWRM, making this experience available to water professionals and policy makers. The IWRM Action Hub offers an array of tools in four categories that could be applied either individually or cumulatively to achieve the IWRM goals.

Case studies offer a critical examination of how practitioners from all over the world are implementing projects towards reaching IWRM. They are based on real events, initiatives and actions, reflecting how different policy tools are applied and combined for IWRM action. Case studies aim to help people to learn from others experiences in the implementation of more sustainable water strategies and policies. Thus, they form a central element of the Action Hub and provide a valuable dissemination mechanism for improving and understanding IWRM implementation.

GWP particularly seeks case studies which involve cross-sectoral initiatives and illustrate how IWRM concepts could be used to improve water resource management. Learn more about IWRM and what it implies via this link.

2. Who Can Submit a Case Study?

Any water practitioner could submit a case study, as long as they are interested in sharing their experience working with IWRM concepts and developing the global IWRM Action Hub together. We warmly welcome our GWP Network and Partners to contribute their case studies too.

To keep up the quality assurance process, the case study submissions will be screened and proofread by the GWP Toolbox team and relevant Regional Secretariat depending on the case study location.

In order to ensure that the case is genuinely represented, it is important to clearly reference the institutions involved in the events/initiatives described in the case study. GWP strongly believes that case studies should go through a rigorous editing process prior to submission to ensure that the cases are objective and verifiable. Where there are two or more strongly defined opinions about the case study in question, then this should be made clear by the authors.

3. Case Study Selection Criteria

Case studies are a way to critically examine real events and practical experiences of IWRM implementation. They are not just to highlight success stories – they could also describe and discuss situations where things went wrong or where outcomes were very different from those expected.

Generally, cases that are included in the IWRM Action Hub should:

  • Illustrate the application of at least one of the 87 tools in the IWRM Action Hub
  • Reflecting IWRM principles and expanding on lessons about how IWRM supported water management across sectors
  • Describe both successes and failures
  • Address key issues of concern to the water community
  • Have broad relevance and therefore potential for wide dissemination

Case studies should always be both objective and verifiable. They must of course be informative, add value, increase understanding, and be practical.

4. Steps to Submit a Case Study

Step 1: Prepare a draft case study

Do you have a case study which fits the criteria above? We welcome case study submissions from all those involved in implementing IWRM or related aspects of water management.

Please ensure that your draft fits the case study format below and submit it via case study submission form.

Step 2: Peer review and quality assurance

Thank you for submitting a draft case study! We will review the draft and contact you via email when we have decided if your case study should be published on the IWRM Action Hub.

Meanwhile we will conduct an internal peer review and quality assurance process. This process starts with the GWP Knowledge Management team reviewing the draft. Then your draft might be shared with relevant GWP Regional Secretariat for peer review. Final step involves quality assurance by the GWP Communications. During this process we might contact you at any stage to provide additional information or references for the case study.

Step 3: Decision by GWP

Subject to a successful quality assurance process, we will publish your case study on the IWRM Action Hub. You will be contacted via provided contact details before publishing to confirm the final case study.

5. Case Study Submission Form - How to Use?

Structure of case study submission form

Case title: up to 200 characters; E.g., Costa Rica: Introducing Water Resource Charges

Summary (up to 700 characters)

Summarize the problem that was faced, the actions taken, the outcomes and results of the actions, and some of the lessons learned.

Background (up to 3000 characters)

This section should clearly state the problem that was faced and describe the context and background of all components of the problem. This is where the stage is set for the case study/solution. The problem could go beyond hydrological issues, e.g., related to the governance structure, since water challenges always carry a combination of socio-hydrological elements.

Actions Taken (up to 4000 characters)

This section should describe and explain the actions taken to address the problem. Issues which could be discussed here would include:  

  • Decisions taken to start the planned action. What were the objectives, who took the leadership role in the definition of objectives, who was involved in defining the objectives? What was the succession of decisions during project implementation?  
  • Actions taken, instruments used, stakeholders involved and consulted (public, private, and associations) and their role. 
  • Alternatives considered, how were the actions prioritized and selected, information and methods used.

Outcomes (up to 4000 characters)

This section should describe what happened as a result of the actions taken, as well as the underlying reasons for the outcomes. Some of the possible questions answered could be:  

  • What problems still exist? To what extent do they still exist? What outcomes are likely expected if these problems are overcome?  
  • What were the key implementation issues? Are these still ongoing issues? 
  • What were the results obtained? Were the project objectives achieved? Include both quantitative and qualitative results (such as: improvement of water ecosystems; water quality and people’s health; social improvements).  
  • What was the impact of the action? E.g on policies at national level, on capacity building, any regulations, agreements, or institutions created, etc.  
  • Who were the winners and losers as a consequence of the action/programme?  
  • Sustainability – will the changes described continue to be effective?  
  • Resources used in the action? E.g how were resources obtained, how will this play out in terms of sustainability?

Lessons Learned

This section describes the lessons learned in terms of sustainability, scalability, and replicability. Each lesson should take up to 400 characters. We invite you to share up to 5 Lessons Learned, where 2 Lessons are required and another 3 Lessons are optional. Questions to answer may include:  

  • What is the potential for scaling up or replicating the initiative/project? 
  • What are the most important lessons from this case that might be useful for other countries and for their policies in the implementation of the IWRM approach?

Year: add the year when the initiative started. In case it stretches over several years, please indicate the year when the initiatives has been finalized. For ongoing initiatives please indicate the current year. 

Corresponding Author: Name and Surname of the primary corresponding author, organisation and email address/contact details).

Contributing Authors: Name and Surname of contributing authors. Please list up to 3 contributing authors.  

Country: indicate a country according to the case study location. It is possible to indicate several countries.

Region: indicate one of the relevant GWP Regions, full list available as a drop-down on submission form. It is possible to indicate several regions.

Related IWRM Tools: List from 1 to 5 tools that were used, by choosing from the 87 Tools in the GWP Toolbox.

Tags: Assign one or multiple tags which would help readers to find your case . You could opt to choose several tags from available list or assign your own keywords. Please note that it is not mandatory to add the tags but could help GWP team to filter submissions.

Thematic tagging: please select one or multiple terms which correspond to GWP M&E methodology.

Other tags: we invite you to add keywords which would help other users to find your case study via search. F.e., Drin River, rural, SADC, climate resilience, NDC etc.

Featured image: Add a title image for your case study to illustrate the location or activity which took place within this experience.

Media: this section allows you to add multimedia content to support your case study. Allowed media types: Audio file, Document, Image, Link, Embedded Video, Video file. The media materials will be displayed on the right-side pane for each case study page once published.