Local Governance of Groundwater Resources through the Lens of Stakeholders in the Context of State-Led Management in the Lower Mekong Region

: Local groundwater governance in the Lower Mekong Region (LMR) is often inadequate and ineffective because of policy incoherence and lack of public participation; thus, groundwater exploitation and pollution have been accelerated in many LMR countries. Through a case study in Khon Kaen, Thailand, this study aims to assess the state of local groundwater governance (GWG) through the stakeholders’ perception by using Water Governance Framework developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Although it is useful for the assessment at the national scale, it is still inadequate and has some limitations on the local scale. Hence, the principles were reconsidered and translated to ﬁt the local context. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to explain the state of GWG, while conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the relations between GWG indicators and GWG dimensions. The ﬁndings show that clear roles and responsibilities are have the highest performance. However, integrity and transparency are the challenges of GWG. We found that the indicators explained the effectiveness, efﬁciency, and trust and engagement in the GWG model. Consequently, this study contributes stakeholder involvement in GWG assessment. The ﬁndings show to policymakers and policy practitioners the current state of GWG and propose key indicators in groundwater governance assessment at the local context.


Introduction
Groundwater represents a vital resource for local communities, particularly in the arid and semi-arid regions [1,2]. The Lower Mekong Region (LMR) is one of the areas in which people depend on groundwater resources [3][4][5]. Many countries in the LMR have been facing water insecurity driven by climate change, geopolitical uncertainties, and socioeconomic situations [6]. Thus, groundwater was withdrawn to supply fresh water to many communities in the LMR [7]. However, groundwater policies in this region have not been strengthened [8]. Further, many impacts of groundwater exploitation have been accelerated (i.e., groundwater depletion, low quality, seawater intrusion into the aquifer, etc.) [8].
Groundwater governance is still behind the good water governance framework, and it is partly implemented at the local scale [9,10]. Several studies agreed that GWG should be extended to the local community [1,2]. Additionally, national and local governance needs to be integrated with tasks to cope with the multi-level groundwater issues [11,12]. Local GWG is of increasing interest due to the failures of the central government's regulations [13]. Local GWG is the goal to address the challenges of sustainable groundwater management in local communities [14]. Further, it is also key for local communities to manage groundwater resources closely and co-manage with the local governments as well as other stakeholders [15,16]. Khon Kaen has faced similar challenges of groundwater use and management as Vietnam (Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City) [3] and Cambodia (Cambodia industrial zones). In the study area, groundwater extractions have been increasing, while GW levels have tended to drop in the last two decades [41]. Further, Khon Kaen was announced to be an emergent drought area by the Royal Thai government. [46][47][48]. The issues have affected several stakeholders, especially agricultural users who have a higher demand for groundwater to mitigate drought risks [49]. Further, business owners have influenced other groups due to business expansion, and they extract large amounts of groundwater to support their economic activities [41].
Through groundwater management in a case study, the Department of Groundwater resources (DGR) reported that 2881 public wells and 2728 private wells were active in 2019. The highest extraction is concentrated in Mueang Khon Kaen [41]. However, shallow aquifer recharge is initiated by DGR and implemented at the subdistrict level [50]. Low institutional capacity and a lack of effective groundwater policies to control groundwater extraction as part of the top-down institutional arrangements are the GWG challenges in the study area [41]. Although a decentralization policy was implemented for GW management at the local scale, the policy is still weak due to a lack of knowledge of groundwater management regarding local governments [41]. Therefore, GWG needs to be strengthened to respond to GW management in the study area.
Data and methods for the adopted methodology are shown in Figure 2. Khon Kaen has faced similar challenges of groundwater use and management as Vietnam (Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City) [3] and Cambodia (Cambodia industrial zones). In the study area, groundwater extractions have been increasing, while GW levels have tended to drop in the last two decades [41]. Further, Khon Kaen was announced to be an emergent drought area by the Royal Thai government [46][47][48]. The issues have affected several stakeholders, especially agricultural users who have a higher demand for groundwater to mitigate drought risks [49]. Further, business owners have influenced other groups due to business expansion, and they extract large amounts of groundwater to support their economic activities [41].
Through groundwater management in a case study, the Department of Groundwater resources (DGR) reported that 2881 public wells and 2728 private wells were active in 2019. The highest extraction is concentrated in Mueang Khon Kaen [41]. However, shallow aquifer recharge is initiated by DGR and implemented at the subdistrict level [50]. Low institutional capacity and a lack of effective groundwater policies to control groundwater extraction as part of the top-down institutional arrangements are the GWG challenges in the study area [41]. Although a decentralization policy was implemented for GW management at the local scale, the policy is still weak due to a lack of knowledge of groundwater management regarding local governments [41]. Therefore, GWG needs to be strengthened to respond to GW management in the study area.
Data and methods for the adopted methodology are shown in Figure 2.

Data Collection
The self-assessment toolkit was adapted from the OECD (2018) [51], and we applied the indicators to assess the performance of groundwater governance at the local scale. The tools were distributed to groundwater stakeholders (i.e., national policymakers, policy practitioners, members of the private sector, local communities, GWG users, etc.) via email to reveal the current state of GWG performance according to the water governance principles. We sent the self-assessment to 150 stakeholders related to groundwater governance in Khon Kaen and received 81 self-assessments back.

Data Analysis
(1) Descriptive statistical analysis The average score was calculated to present the level of groundwater governance in each dimension to reveal the key challenges of groundwater governance in Khon Kaen. We presented the 12 key indicators to illustrate the overall state of groundwater governance. We show the results of the assessment in detail of 36 sub-indicators under the dimensions of (i) effectiveness, (ii) efficiency, and (iii) trust and engagement. These findings are discussed through the lens of different stakeholders to understand the state of groundwater governance from extensive perspectives.
(2) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a type of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) used to test the relationships between observed variables which can be directly measured and latent variables which are variables that are a theoretical concept and cannot be directly observed [52]. In the CFA, we examined relations between the GWG indicators and GWG dimensions to understand the power of indicators in GWG.
A total of 36 indicators were added to the CFA model (Appendix A). The results of factors that have a key effect on groundwater governance performance are presented (Appendix B). The standardized factor loadings (β) and standard error (S.E.) are presented (Table 1). Table 1 shows the selected indicators based on the following criteria: if standardized factor loading (β) is higher than 0.7 (rule of thumb), it is low S.E. [53] in the local governance context (model fit index: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

Data Collection
The self-assessment toolkit was adapted from the OECD (2018) [51], and we applied the indicators to assess the performance of groundwater governance at the local scale. The tools were distributed to groundwater stakeholders (i.e., national policymakers, policy practitioners, members of the private sector, local communities, GWG users, etc.) via email to reveal the current state of GWG performance according to the water governance principles. We sent the self-assessment to 150 stakeholders related to groundwater governance in Khon Kaen and received 81 self-assessments back.

Data Analysis
(1) Descriptive statistical analysis The average score was calculated to present the level of groundwater governance in each dimension to reveal the key challenges of groundwater governance in Khon Kaen. We presented the 12 key indicators to illustrate the overall state of groundwater governance. We show the results of the assessment in detail of 36 sub-indicators under the dimensions of (i) effectiveness, (ii) efficiency, and (iii) trust and engagement. These findings are discussed through the lens of different stakeholders to understand the state of groundwater governance from extensive perspectives.
(2) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a type of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) used to test the relationships between observed variables which can be directly measured and latent variables which are variables that are a theoretical concept and cannot be directly observed [52]. In the CFA, we examined relations between the GWG indicators and GWG dimensions to understand the power of indicators in GWG.
A total of 36 indicators were added to the CFA model (Appendix A). The results of factors that have a key effect on groundwater governance performance are presented (Appendix B). The standardized factor loadings (β) and standard error (S.E.) are presented (Table 1). Table 1 shows the selected indicators based on the following criteria: if standardized factor loading (β) is higher than 0.7 (rule of thumb), it is low S.E. [53] in the local governance context (model fit index: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > 0.9, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > 0.9, and Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) < 0.05) [53].

GWG Performance through the Lens of Different Stakeholders
The stakeholder profiles show 71.6% of stakeholders are in the age group of 18-30 years old. Most of them are female and the highest level of education is undergraduate. Stakeholders are policymakers, policy practitioners, and communities and civil societies.
The result shows the average score of self-assessment to see the whole picture of GWG performance among stakeholders. Overall, clear roles and responsibilities (mean = 3.85) are acknowledged as having the highest performance. However, integrity and transparency (mean = 3.45) have the lowest performance of GWG principles.
The insight of each stakeholder is presented in Figure 3. It is found that policymakers assessed the data and information as the key challenge of groundwater governance in Thailand (mean = 3.28). Policy practitioners acknowledged that trade-offs across users, rural and urban areas, and generations (mean = 3.37) are the low-prioritized principles. Further, communities and civil societies perceived that integrity and transparency (mean = 3.55) have low performance.
We summarized the level of GWG in Figure 4. The weakness of GWG performance is the key point to discuss in groundwater governance principles. Figure 4 shows the lowest average score of GWG principles highlighted by the pink color. The findings are useful and of primary consideration for related groundwater stakeholders, especially policymakers, to understand the weakness of GWG in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Local policies can be considered and developed based on these findings.  We summarized the level of GWG in Figure 4. The weakness of GWG performance is the key point to discuss in groundwater governance principles. Figure 4 shows the lowest average score of GWG principles highlighted by the pink color. The findings are useful and of primary consideration for related groundwater stakeholders, especially policymakers, to understand the weakness of GWG in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Local policies can be considered and developed based on these findings. Regarding the 12 principles, there are 36 sub-indicators of groundwater governance. These sub-indicators are discussed across three dimensions: (1) effectiveness, (2) efficiency, and (3) trust and engagement.

Effectiveness
Effectiveness refers to sustainable water policy goals and targets at different levels of governance. This dimension indicates whether policy goals implement and meet expected objectives [39]. Figure 5 presents the effectiveness of GWG in Khon Kaen, Thailand.
The scores of the 12 indicators are shown separately regarding stakeholder groups. Policymakers acknowledged that surface and groundwater policies are still at a low-average score (mean = 3.17), while policy practitioners indicated that GW basin  We summarized the level of GWG in Figure 4. The weakness of GWG performance is the key point to discuss in groundwater governance principles. Figure 4 shows the lowest average score of GWG principles highlighted by the pink color. The findings are useful and of primary consideration for related groundwater stakeholders, especially policymakers, to understand the weakness of GWG in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Local policies can be considered and developed based on these findings.

Effectiveness
Effectiveness refers to sustainable water policy goals and targets at different levels of governance. This dimension indicates whether policy goals implement and meet expected objectives [39]. Figure 5 presents the effectiveness of GWG in Khon Kaen, Thailand.
The scores of the 12 indicators are shown separately regarding stakeholder groups. Policymakers acknowledged that surface and groundwater policies are still at a low-average score (mean = 3.17), while policy practitioners indicated that GW basin  Regarding the 12 principles, there are 36 sub-indicators of groundwater governance. These sub-indicators are discussed across three dimensions: (1) effectiveness, (2) efficiency, and (3) trust and engagement.

Effectiveness
Effectiveness refers to sustainable water policy goals and targets at different levels of governance. This dimension indicates whether policy goals implement and meet expected objectives [39]. Figure 5 presents the effectiveness of GWG in Khon Kaen, Thailand.
The scores of the 12 indicators are shown separately regarding stakeholder groups. Policymakers acknowledged that surface and groundwater policies are still at a low-average score (mean = 3.17), while policy practitioners indicated that GW basin management/aquifer management (mean = 3.30) and cooperation for GW management (mean = 3.30) are the challenges of the GWG effectiveness. Further, transparent policies (mean = 3.67) and policy coherence (mean = 3.67) are the key challenges for communities and civil societies in groundwater management at the local scale. management/aquifer management (mean = 3.30) and cooperation for GW management (mean = 3.30) are the challenges of the GWG effectiveness. Further, transparent policies (mean = 3.67) and policy coherence (mean = 3.67) are the key challenges for communities and civil societies in groundwater management at the local scale.

Efficiency
Efficiency indicates the benefits of sustainable water management to society in order to contribute to groundwater governance [39].

Efficiency
Efficiency indicates the benefits of sustainable water management to society in order to contribute to groundwater governance [39]. Figure 6 presents the efficiency of GWG. The average scores are presented based on 12 indicators. Investment needs (mean = 3) is the key challenge indicator of policymakers. Meanwhile, policy practitioners indicated that the bottom-up approach (mean = 3.45), innovative policy framework (mean = 3.45), and regulatory instruments (mean = 3.45) are the challenges of the efficiency dimension of GWG in Khon Kaen. Lastly, the science and policy interface (mean = 3.65) is the lowest priority of GWG through the lens of communities and civil societies.
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17 management/aquifer management (mean = 3.30) and cooperation for GW management (mean = 3.30) are the challenges of the GWG effectiveness. Further, transparent policies (mean = 3.67) and policy coherence (mean = 3.67) are the key challenges for communities and civil societies in groundwater management at the local scale.

Efficiency
Efficiency indicates the benefits of sustainable water management to society in order to contribute to groundwater governance [39].

Trust and Engagement
Trust and engagement signify the building of public confidence and ensuring inclusiveness of stakeholders through democratic legitimacy and fairness for society [39]. Figure 7 Water 2022, 14, 3043 8 of 17 presents the level of the trust and engagement dimension of groundwater governance. It is revealed that the trade-off across groundwater users (mean = 3.10) has the lowest capacity, as assessed by the policy practitioners. Meanwhile, policymakers acknowledged that the transparency of decision makers still has the lowest performance among other indicators of the trust and engagement dimension (mean = 3.17).
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

Trust and Engagement
Trust and engagement signify the building of public confidence and ensuring inclusiveness of stakeholders through democratic legitimacy and fairness for society [39]. Figure 7 presents the level of the trust and engagement dimension of groundwater governance. It is revealed that the trade-off across groundwater users (mean = 3.10) has the lowest capacity, as assessed by the policy practitioners. Meanwhile, policymakers acknowledged that the transparency of decision makers still has the lowest performance among other indicators of the trust and engagement dimension (mean = 3.17).
However, communities and civil societies assessed that there is a lack of independent courts and supreme audit institutions related to GW (mean = 3.45).  Figure 8 presents the local GWG framework model tested by the CFA method. It was found that 21 indicators can strongly explain the 3 dimensions of GWG (Table 1). In this case, we highlighted the indicators which have the highest factor loadings in the model: However, communities and civil societies assessed that there is a lack of independent courts and supreme audit institutions related to GW (mean = 3.45). Figure 8 presents the local GWG framework model tested by the CFA method. It was found that 21 indicators can strongly explain the 3 dimensions of GWG (Table 1). In this case, we highlighted the indicators which have the highest factor loadings in the model: All of the strong indicators can be prioritized in the GWG assessment in the study area to enhance the performance of the institutional capacity in this case. All of the strong indicators can be prioritized in the GWG assessment in the study area to enhance the performance of the institutional capacity in this case.

Discussion
Groundwater governance presents the significance of multi-scales, multi-actors, and multi-tools to uncover the issues of groundwater resources. However, the local scale is still behind the national groundwater management [15,16,19], even though groundwater is presented as a local resource [54][55][56]. These findings are the key tools to overcome the challenges of GWG at the local scale. We analyzed and identified the appropriate subindicators through the lens of multi-stakeholders for facilitating policymakers in developing the framework of local groundwater governance in the specific context. Further, these findings can be developed and applied in other urbanizing cities in the LMR.
Water governance principles developed by the OECD [57] are not the panacea for water management worldwide [39]. Hence, appropriate indicators are necessary to modify them based on the specific context for addressing the effective management of groundwater resources [39]. Our findings are significant in addressing the challenges of groundwater at the local scale to propose and extend beyond transboundary aquifer management. Extensive literature has acknowledged that the capacity of the OECD Water Governance Framework is quite effective on a national scale [37,38]. However, groundwater is presented as a local resource, which means it is necessary for close monitoring and appropriate management at the local level [19] due to the invisible characteristics of the resources [1].
Our findings highlight that the clear role and responsibilities of the GW organizations is the strength of GWG. Conversely, integrity and transparency need to be addressed. Integrity and transparency play a key role in good groundwater governance and need to be ensured [58][59][60]. Thus, they should be prioritized in this case. This finding can be discussed with the GWG indicators corruption monitoring and transparency of decision makers under the integrity and transparency principle, which can strongly explain the

Discussion
Groundwater governance presents the significance of multi-scales, multi-actors, and multi-tools to uncover the issues of groundwater resources. However, the local scale is still behind the national groundwater management [15,16,19], even though groundwater is presented as a local resource [54][55][56]. These findings are the key tools to overcome the challenges of GWG at the local scale. We analyzed and identified the appropriate subindicators through the lens of multi-stakeholders for facilitating policymakers in developing the framework of local groundwater governance in the specific context. Further, these findings can be developed and applied in other urbanizing cities in the LMR.
Water governance principles developed by the OECD [57] are not the panacea for water management worldwide [39]. Hence, appropriate indicators are necessary to modify them based on the specific context for addressing the effective management of groundwater resources [39]. Our findings are significant in addressing the challenges of groundwater at the local scale to propose and extend beyond transboundary aquifer management. Extensive literature has acknowledged that the capacity of the OECD Water Governance Framework is quite effective on a national scale [37,38]. However, groundwater is presented as a local resource, which means it is necessary for close monitoring and appropriate management at the local level [19] due to the invisible characteristics of the resources [1].
Our findings highlight that the clear role and responsibilities of the GW organizations is the strength of GWG. Conversely, integrity and transparency need to be addressed. Integrity and transparency play a key role in good groundwater governance and need to be ensured [58][59][60]. Thus, they should be prioritized in this case. This finding can be discussed with the GWG indicators corruption monitoring and transparency of decision makers under the integrity and transparency principle, which can strongly explain the trust and engagement dimension. It may imply how important it is to consider these indicators in the study area. However, data and information are the weaknesses of GWG through the lens of policymakers. The finding is in line with Ponok et al. [61]. They found that there is some limitation on water policy information disseminated in communities due to the complexity of water issues, and it is difficult for general people to understand this information. Thus, data and information need to be digested and disseminated by the public and all stakeholders in groundwater governance to enhance the capacity of data and information in the GWG framework.
Keller and Hartmann [39] argued that the weakness of the OECD Water Governance Framework was revealed by the local governments (i.e., municipalities) in The Netherlands. They indicated that the indicators are quite abstract for implementation at the local scale. Municipalities did not understand the indicators, while water managers were willing to understand the indicators since they manage water closely. The weakness of the OECD Water Governance Framework principles has led to the investigation of the appropriate indicators for groundwater governance assessment at the local scale. In this case, we found strong indicators which explained the effectiveness, efficiency, and trust and engagement of groundwater governance in Khon Kaen, Thailand. The CFA model presents the key indicators which are strong to explain the GWG dimensions and fit in the context of groundwater governance in Khon Kaen. However, these indicators are based on stakeholders' assessment at the local scale, which is the significant purpose of our study to address the gaps of the OECD weaknesses. This approach may not be able to explain the governance at the macro-scale.
In this study, we aimed to address the policy challenges in groundwater management in Thailand. Ponok et al. [61] recommended that local water management should be studied to involve the community in water policy decision making at a higher level. Consequently, this study addressed this challenge through stakeholder involvement in GWG assessment. Additionally, the findings are the key target to ensure good groundwater governance at the local scale. Thus, the findings will be useful for the policymakers and practitioners to understand the key indicators that can explain the dimensions of effectiveness, efficiency, and trust and engagement in groundwater governance. Groundwater authorities can use these indicators to assess the current state of groundwater governance in Khon Kaen immediately, and these indicators can be applied to the LMR urbanizing cities [62] which have similar contexts as Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Conclusions
Massive national GW policies and regulations have been enforced in the last two decades; consequently, GW as a local resource in Khon Kaen tended to be highly extracted over time [41]. Therefore, local GWG should be urgently addressed to balance groundwater use in local communities. In our case, the findings highlight that integrity and transparency have the lowest performance of the GWG principles in the study area. Further, policymakers assessed the data and information as the key challenge of groundwater governance in Thailand, while policy practitioners acknowledged that trade-offs across users, rural and urban areas, and generations are indicators which have lacked priority. In another view, communities and civil societies reflected that integrity and transparency need to be strengthened in groundwater management.
Stakeholders agree that a clear role and responsibility are quite well performed in the study area, as communities and civil societies have quite positive perception due to several provisions of GW development projects. However, integrity and transparency regarding groundwater management should be addressed immediately to enhance the trust and engagement dimension in groundwater governance.
The indicators that explained the three dimensions are summarized as follows: (i) Existing analytical reports about GW management, policy coherence, and institutional capacity can strongly explain the effectiveness of GWG. (ii) The bottom-up approach and GW information systems can explain the efficiency of GWG in this case. (iii) Legal frameworks related to stakeholder participation, corruption monitoring, and legal frameworks related to GW user equality have strong explanations for the trust and engagement dimension.
These indicators will be useful for policymakers, policy practitioners, GW organizations, GW decentralized organizations (municipalities, Tambon administrative organizations (T.A.O.)), Non governmental organizations (NGOs), and communities and civil societies who are interested in groundwater management in Khon Kaen. The indicators fit in the context of the study area; thus, they can use them and develop them further for GWG assessment in Khon Kaen. The findings could be linked from the GW challenges at the local scale to the national groundwater policy decision-making to cope with the dynamics of the invisible resources in Thailand and develop frameworks for transboundary aquifer management in the LMR cities [63,64].

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The level of implementation of cooperation mechanisms for the management of water resources across groundwater users and levels of government from local to basin, regional, national and upper scales, i.e., shared data and information system, joint programs, joint projects or contracts, co-financing, or forms of multi-level dialogue.    The level of implementation of regulatory tools, i.e., evaluation and consultation mechanisms, to ensure that rules, institutions, and processes are fit-for-purpose, well-coordinated, cost-effective, transparent, non-discriminatory, participative and easy to understand and to enforce. The level of implementation of knowledge and experience-sharing mechanisms to bridge between science, policy, and practice, i.e., multi-stakeholder co-creation processes and tools supporting decision-making processes based on scientific evidence, communicated for example through interactive maps, simulation models, etc.

Integrity and transparency
9.1 The level of implementation of legal and institutional frameworks which hold decision makers and stakeholders accountable on integrity and transparency also apply to groundwater management at large, i.e., the right to information, public procurement, in accordance with best international practice, as well as the transposition of applicable international conventions. The level of implementation of mechanisms to diagnose and review stakeholder engagement challenges, processes, and outcomes, i.e., satisfaction surveys, standards, impact assessment, financial analysis, evaluation reports, or multi-stakeholder workshops/meetings.

Trade-offs across users, rural and urban areas, and generations
11.1 The level of implementation of formal provisions or legal frameworks fostering equity across water users, rural and urban areas, vulnerable and marginalized groups, and next generations (i.e., human right to drinking water and sanitation, sustainable development goals, new urban agenda, and other forms of incentives). TU 11.2 The functioning of institutions to protect groundwater users, including vulnerable groups, addressing users' complaints and managing trade-offs when need be. PFM 11.3 The level of implementation of mechanisms or platforms to manage trade-offs across users, or transparent and evidence-based decision-making on trade-offs needed across people (i.e., public debates, rural-urban cooperation, partnerships, projects, etc.) ICM Table A1. Cont.

Monitoring and evaluation
12.1 The level of implementation of policy frameworks promoting regular monitoring and evaluation of groundwater policy and governance in order to effectively guide decision making. PME 12.2 The functioning of institutions in charge of monitoring and evaluation of groundwater policies and practices to produce evidence-based assessment on the performance of groundwater management and governance to support decision making.