Climate-Induced Transboundary Water Insecurity in Central Asia: Institutional Challenges, Adaptation Responses, and Future Research Directions

Abstract

This study conducts a comprehensive and systematic literature review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, to investigate the impacts of climate change on closed lake systems in Central Asia, with a specific focus on Lakes Balkhash, Issyk-Kul, and Urmia. Based on a detailed analysis of 74 peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2025, this review identifies key thematic patterns and bibliometric trends in the literature. Findings reveal that most studies emphasize hydrological stress, glacier retreat, and an increasing drought frequency, while institutional adaptation and transboundary governance mechanisms remain underdeveloped and inconsistently implemented. National-level adaptation strategies vary considerably, with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan showing a relatively higher engagement, though rarely supported by enforceable cross-border agreements. This review also highlights the limited participation of local research institutions and insufficient empirical validation of policy measures. The bibliometric analysis indicates that most high-impact publications originate outside the region, particularly from China and Germany. This study provides a structured synthesis of existing knowledge and identifies critical avenues for future research and policy development. It calls for more inclusive, transdisciplinary, and regionally embedded approaches to water governance in the context of accelerating climate risks.

1. Introduction

Water is increasingly recognized as one of the most critical and vulnerable resources of the 21st century. Globally, over 2.2 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, while climate change continues to destabilize hydrological systems across continents [1]. By 2050, the global demand for freshwater is projected to rise by 30%, putting additional pressure on regions already facing water stress [2]. Central Asia stands out as both climatically vulnerable and institutionally fragmented, where environmental degradation intersects with asymmetrical transboundary water dependencies [3]. Despite considerable freshwater resources, primarily derived from glacial and snowmelt runoff in upstream countries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, their distribution is politically and geographically uneven [4]. With the regional population growth expected to surpass 90 million by the mid-century, and projected water deficits reaching up to 30% in specific areas [5], the urgency for coordinated, adaptive water management is mounting [6]. Climate change exacerbates these vulnerabilities, particularly in arid and semi-arid zones such as Central Asia, where intensifying heat, shifting precipitation patterns, and glacial retreat are causing declines in both surface and groundwater reserves [7,8]. In transboundary river basins like the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, essential for agriculture, energy, and livelihoods, these changes are not only environmental but also deeply political, aggravating existing tensions and institutional weaknesses among riparian states [9]. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the five Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan) have struggled to establish effective mechanisms for managing shared water resources, especially in light of growing climate-induced stress [10]. The past decade has witnessed increasing scholarly attention to how hydrological shifts, infrastructure adaptation, policy reform, and regional cooperation are shaping responses to water insecurity in the region [11]. To systematically explore and synthesize these developments, this review is guided by the following research questions:

R.Q.1. 

How does climate change affect the water systems of Central Asia, particularly in terms of hydrological stress and institutional vulnerability?

R.Q.2. 

What adaptation strategies have been developed or proposed in the region’s countries, and to what extent are infrastructural and governance measures being implemented?

R.Q.3. 

How do approaches to climate resilience and water management differ among Central Asian countries, and what lessons can be drawn from these differences?

R.Q.4. 

What political, institutional, and ecological barriers limit effective transboundary cooperation and sustainable water management under the influence of climate change?

Despite the growing body of research, the analysis of the available literature reveals significant gaps that constrain the understanding of the complex nature of water governance in Central Asia under climate change conditions. First, there is a lack of a comprehensive synthesis that simultaneously addresses the physical, institutional, and political dimensions of the issue, integrates diverse methodological approaches, and enables a comparative evaluation of national strategies and regional initiatives. Moreover, although concepts such as climate resilience, integrated river basin management, and transboundary coordination are increasingly mentioned in the academic literature, their operational implementation within the regional context remains underdeveloped and rarely assessed.

The aim of this paper is to provide a structured overview of the current research on climate impacts, adaptation strategies, and institutional frameworks for water governance in Central Asia, through a systematic and critically grounded review of the scientific and gray literature. The distinct contribution of this study lies in the combination of a thematic synthesis and bibliometric analysis, which not only maps dominant research directions but also identifies knowledge gaps, the imbalanced representation of countries and institutions, and the need for more inclusive and transdisciplinary knowledge production.

This systematic review encompasses over a decade of scientific output on climate-related water governance in Central Asia, employing clearly defined selection criteria and a transparent methodological approach. Rather than claiming exclusivity, this study seeks to offer a comprehensive synthesis that enhances the understanding of regional dynamics in hydrological governance. It aims to support the development of theoretical insights into climate resilience in post-socialist and institutionally fragmented contexts, while also serving as a useful reference for policymakers, international organizations, and researchers addressing similarly complex water systems. By emphasizing knowledge integration, institutional constraints, and the evaluation of adaptation strategies, this review lays the groundwork for more sustainable and coordinated responses to escalating climate risks. Ultimately, it aspires to inform both academic discourse and practical decision-making that can strengthen long-term regional stability and development.

2. Conceptual and Empirical Foundations

2.1. General Context of Water Resources in Central Asia

The issue of water resource management in Central Asia is increasingly emerging as a critical development and security concern, as the region faces a complex overlap of climatic, demographic, and infrastructural challenges [12]. Although the severity of these challenges is well documented, a large portion of the literature remains descriptive, often reiterating known statistical indicators, such as the fact that approximately 14%, or nearly 10 million people, still lack access to safe drinking water or that more than half of all households in some countries remain outside centralized water supply systems [13,14,15], without providing sufficient critical insight into why such conditions persist despite decades of policy attention. The projection that the regional population will reach 90 million by 2050, and that water shortages may rise to 30% [16], is frequently cited, yet often without a corresponding assessment of the effectiveness or implementation feasibility of current or proposed adaptation mechanisms.

Irrigation, responsible for the majority of water use in the region, continues to suffer from inefficiencies, with losses reaching up to 50%, and modern irrigation techniques are still used on less than one-fifth of arable land [17]. While these figures are alarming, many studies merely report them without interrogating the institutional or behavioral reasons for the failure to scale sustainable technologies. Similarly, the impacts of climate change, glacial retreat, prolonged droughts, and irregular river flows are widely acknowledged [18], yet empirical studies often fail to link these environmental dynamics with governance deficiencies or regional cooperation gaps.

The decline in the Caspian Sea’s water level has received significant scholarly attention [19], but the analytical depth is frequently lacking regarding the cross-border policy responses, or the absence thereof, that aggravate the situation. Moreover, unilateral projects like the Qosh Tepa Canal in Afghanistan, which aims to divert substantial water volumes from the Amu Darya [20], are recognized as destabilizing factors, but research often stops short of critically evaluating the mechanisms (or failures) of regional diplomatic engagement and legal instruments to prevent escalation.

Taken together, these indicators provide a robust empirical backdrop but also reveal that much of the existing literature falls short in offering transformative or actionable solutions. While the data confirms the urgency of the water crisis, the observed patterns of ecological degradation, infrastructural inefficiency, and institutional inertia are frequently treated in isolation rather than within an integrated systems or policy analysis framework. Theoretical models addressing climate and governance must be rooted in measurable realities, yet they too often abstract from socio-political complexity. Therefore, this systematic review seeks not only to synthesize what is known, but to expose where the knowledge is fragmented, where assumptions are under examined, and where policy discourse fails to translate into regional resilience.

2.2. Climate Change and Hydrological Vulnerability in Central Asia

Understanding the impact of climate change on hydrological processes in Central Asia forms the foundation for the further analysis of water resource management and regional adaptation. This area of research has attracted increasing attention within the scientific community, especially since 2015, when accelerated disruptions in river flows, glacier degradation, and more frequent hydrological extremes were observed [21,22]. However, this literature review reveals that approaches to this issue remain diverse, with marked differences in methodological depth and spatiotemporal coverage [23,24].

The early study by Chen et al. [25] was among the first to highlight significant changes in major transboundary river systems in Central Asia, including shifts in seasonal flow patterns and reductions in the water balance. Their analysis was quantitatively grounded but relied primarily on physical–hydrotechnical parameters, without a deeper integration of climate projections or socio-ecological scenarios. A year later, Abuduwaili et al. [26] provided a broader picture of climate change impacts on regional water resources. However, the study was geographically limited and lacked data from inaccessible areas, such as the high mountain zones of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. While offering valuable insights, it remained methodologically constrained to aggregated hydrological data without an uncertainty analysis.

In line with this, Xenarios et al. [27] indirectly emphasize the importance of climate resilience, which in this review is conceptualized as the capacity of infrastructure, institutions, and social systems to anticipate, absorb, and recover from climate-related shocks. This interpretation aligns with broader frameworks of adaptive governance and socio-ecological resilience, where flexibility, learning, and multi-level institutional cooperation are viewed as essential components of effective responses to climate variability. Furthermore, this review is guided by the theoretical foundations of socio-ecological systems and adaptive governance, which offer a robust analytical lens for examining how environmental dynamics interact with institutional responses. By anchoring the analysis within these frameworks, this review provides a more systematic interpretation of regional disparities, adaptive capacity, and governance effectiveness in the context of climate-induced water stress. The growing emphasis on incorporating human dimensions into climate modeling is evident in Yu et al. [28], who analyze spatiotemporal changes in land use and ecosystem services. Their findings underscore the compounding role of anthropogenic pressures on water governance systems. However, while the study adopts a systems-thinking perspective, it stops short of linking land use dynamics to specific policy failures or institutional weaknesses, limiting its prescriptive utility.

De Boer et al. [29] provide a basin-specific analysis of water vulnerability under future climate and development scenarios in the Ili–Balkhash region. Although methodologically rigorous and illustrative of scenario-based planning, the study’s single-basin focus restricts its generalizability across the diverse hydrological and geopolitical settings of Central Asia. Broader applicability would require comparative studies across multiple basins, which remain rare in the current literature.

Fallah et al. [30] make a valuable contribution by modeling projected climate extremes, particularly in the Amu Darya and Syr Darya valleys. However, despite using robust models, their projections are not supported by empirical validation or ground-truthing with local observational data, a limitation that undermines the practical reliability of the results, an issue that persists in much of the regional climate modeling work.

Saidaliyeva et al. [31] offer one of the few systematic reviews focused explicitly on climate adaptation in the mountainous regions of Central Asia. Their contribution lies in identifying thematic and territorial gaps and in proposing a framework for evaluating community resilience. Nonetheless, while the study successfully maps the breadth of the adaptation discourse, it would benefit from a deeper interrogation of institutional readiness and policy integration challenges that inhibit the implementation of adaptive strategies in high-altitude contexts.

The study by Zhu et al. [32] further highlights the propagation of droughts and identifies the drivers of hydrological deficits in the region. Focused on quantitative mapping and temporal analysis, the study creates space for linking climate and hydrological changes with governance challenges. The most recent contribution comes from Nurbatsina et al. [33], through flood modeling in the Zhabay River basin. Although geographically limited, this work demonstrates the growing need for fine-grained approaches to hydrological risk and its relationship with climate change projections. Moreover, it shows how local-scale modeling can enhance regional risk assessments when combined with high-resolution spatial and temporal data.

The literature reveals increasing complexity in research approaches and methodological advancements. However, the integration of local socioeconomic parameters, empirical validation, and predictive scenario development based on transdisciplinary frameworks remains lacking. Additionally, geographic imbalances in coverage and a concentration on a few dominant basins highlight the need for a more even distribution of research efforts.

2.3. Water Resource Management—Institutional Framework and Challenges in Central Asia

Water resource management in Central Asia is shaped by complex historical legacies, technical challenges, and geopolitical tensions, with institutional capacities and cooperation mechanisms remaining fragmented and often reactive [34]. While technical aspects of water infrastructure have been extensively studied, the institutional perspective and governance issues have gained stronger momentum only in recent years, as they have become part of broader discussions on sustainability, security, and regional cooperation [35].

As early as the mid-2010s, scholars such as Karthe, Chalov, and Borchardt [36] pointed to the misalignment of institutional models in the post-Soviet states of Central Asia, thus opening a fundamental question about governance effectiveness in a transitional context. Simultaneously, Brack et al. [37], although focused on pollution and integrations into broader land and water management systems, laid the groundwork for understanding how new environmental threats require a more adaptive institutional approach. This is particularly relevant in Central Asia, where responses to emergent issues are often formulated belatedly. In their critical review of the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) concept, Giordano and Shah [38] reveal the theoretical and practical gap between the normative framework and its implementation in complex realities, something highly applicable to the Central Asian context. These authors remind us that while IWRM is widely endorsed, it often remains rhetorical, lacking concrete operational structures and institutional integration.

On the other hand, Bertule et al. [39], in tracking the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicator 6.5.1, provide a global framework for monitoring water resource governance. However, their analysis also shows that regions like Central Asia demonstrate stagnation in integrating sectoral policies, budget planning, and the participation of local stakeholders. These findings imply that quantitative indicators, while useful, do not always reflect the actual condition of institutional capacities on the ground. Research from outside the region, such as that by Luo et al. [40] on Egypt, Ishaque et al. [41] on Pakistan, and Hasan et al. [42] in a global context, serves as a reference for how issues similar to those in Central Asia, including sectoral fragmentation, hydrological uncertainty, and institutional inertia, can be addressed through better-integrated approaches. However, these studies also underscore the lack of mechanisms in Central Asia to apply such insights transversally. Mohapatra [43], in analyzing “water securitization” in Central Asia, highlights how water is increasingly shifting from a resource domain into the realm of political security, with far-reaching implications for institutional relationships, international protocols, and regional power dynamics.

The recent literature has seen a stronger thematic shift. Prniyazova et al. [44] examine the sustainable management of transboundary waters and note that despite the formal existence of mechanisms (such as IFAS or joint resource-use agreements), regional cooperation remains largely non-functional due to conflicting interests and weak institutional trust. These observations are echoed by Abdullaev et al. [45], who further critique the disconnect between scientific institutions, the education system, and public policy-making, stressing that isolated scientific efforts fail to generate impact without strategic linkages to decision-makers.

Zatilla et al. [46] introduce a broader concept of water security in the context of sustainable development, emphasizing the interconnection of water with health, food, and climate stability. Their analysis reveals that resource protection policies in Central Asia remain predominantly reactive and sector-specific, lacking a systemic response to interdependencies. Finally, Anghelescu and Onel [47] critically assess the European Union’s role as a promoter of “green normative power” in the region, particularly in the context of Aral Sea management and strategies in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Their study clearly shows that while external actors can act as catalysts for change, their impact remains limited without internal institutional will and regional consensus. This aligns with broader patterns observed in transboundary water systems facing climate and institutional pressures, such as in the Middle East and North Africa [48] and the South Asian region [49]. Bani Mfarrej [48] offers a nuanced perspective on how the interaction between climate change, worsening water scarcity, and fragile governance structures contributes to heightened insecurity across the MENA region. Her analysis reveals that institutional weaknesses significantly intensify the vulnerability of water systems under climate stress. In parallel, Al-Muqdadi et al. [49] adopt a systems-thinking lens to explore the cascading effects of climate, water, food, and socioeconomic instability, emphasizing how interdependent risks can destabilize already sensitive regions. Together, these works reinforce the view that the challenges facing Central Asia are not unique but part of a wider global pattern, calling for adaptive, integrated, and context-sensitive governance responses.

The common thread across all these studies is that, despite numerous valuable findings and analyses, there is still no unified synthesis that systematically connects the physical, institutional, and political dimensions of water governance in Central Asia. This lack of a coordinated and thematically coherent evaluation highlights the justified need for this systematic review, which, through the integration of a bibliometric and thematic analysis, seeks to overcome fragmentation and contribute to a better understanding of the region’s institutional vulnerability in the face of climate challenges.

2.4. Transboundary Cooperation and Geopolitical Challenges in Water Governance

Managing transboundary water resources in Central Asia remains one of the most complex issues in regional policy, sustainable development, and climate adaptation [50]. Although a range of institutional and diplomatic mechanisms have been developed over the past decade, many authors argue that existing cooperation models are inadequate for addressing modern challenges, such as increasing hydrological uncertainty, political fragmentation, and limited implementation capacities [51,52]. Recent studies provide further insights into the underlying dynamics that obstruct effective cooperation. Prniyazova et al. [44] offer a comprehensive assessment of the transboundary water governance landscape in Central Asia, identifying unresolved territorial disputes, historical mistrust, and fragmented legal frameworks as persistent obstacles to regional coordination. Their work underscores the importance of institutional reform and confidence-building mechanisms to move beyond symbolic cooperation.

Zonn, Zhiltsov, and Semenov [53] analyze the evolution of water resource governance in the region and note that the inherited infrastructural system still dominates, while contemporary institutional responses rely on mechanisms whose effectiveness is constrained by a lack of political will and mutual trust. Their analysis shows that most cooperation initiatives still depend on Soviet-era governance patterns, while integrated approaches that incorporate ecological and socioeconomic dimensions remain marginalized. Such structural inertia significantly reduces the potential for meaningful transformation, especially in the face of increasing climate and hydrological uncertainty.

The lack of institutional inclusivity further exacerbates these challenges. Nori [54] emphasizes that Afghanistan, despite being part of the same hydrological system, is often excluded from regional negotiations and agreements. This exclusion has serious implications for the long-term sustainability of transboundary mechanisms, particularly in the Amu Darya and Panj river basins, where hydrological interconnectedness requires a comprehensive approach. The author calls for the development of a more inclusive regional cooperation model that recognizes the strategic importance of previously neglected actors, arguing that ignoring geographical realities undermines the effectiveness of the entire governance system. The complexity of the situation is further reflected in the shifting role of water within political discourse. Wang et al. [55] show that new national development agendas increasingly reduce the space for cooperation, as water is more frequently used as a tool of economic and political leverage. This instrumentalization of resources fundamentally undermines principles of shared use and solidarity. Although formal structures often express declarative support for regional cooperation, in practice most countries pursue unilateral solutions, thereby further destabilizing already fragile trust and coordination mechanisms. In line with this, Yalçın and Imagambetova [56] identify a number of structural weaknesses in existing bilateral and multilateral agreements, especially regarding executive and technical mechanisms. The authors stress that protocols related to flow allocation, timing coordination, and joint management are often vague, insufficiently operationalized, or entirely neglected in practice. Within such an institutional vacuum, national political interests tend to prevail over ecological balance and sustainable development, creating additional tensions.

Orumbayev [50], in his analysis of Kazakhstan’s water diplomacy, highlights the limited scope of official documents and political declarations, which, despite their abundance, have failed to generate real change in transboundary water governance. The absence of institutionalized platforms for monitoring implementation, evaluating outcomes, and building mutual trust clearly reveals the weaknesses of current negotiation structures. These weaknesses underscore the need to redefine the institutional architecture to adequately respond to the region’s complex dynamics. A similar line of thought is developed by Aamer [57], who examines water security challenges from a global perspective and emphasizes the need for governance models that transcend national boundaries and enable effective cooperation between science, policy, and management structures. However, although his analysis offers universal solutions, it proves insufficiently tailored to the specific challenges of Central Asia, where deeply rooted historical, political, and resource-related factors require a different, locally grounded approach [58].

Along those lines, Mez [59] argues that the effectiveness of regional environmental cooperation, including water management, depends on the broader geopolitical climate, particularly amid growing multipolarity. The author notes that the future of regional cooperation will hinge on whether actors choose to strengthen integrative models or whether the dominance of national interests will lead to further fragmentation. In this context, the Aral Sea is seen as both a symbolic and political center of conflict and potential cooperation, as well as a reflection of the limited transformative capacity of past initiatives.

Taken together, these studies indicate that existing cooperation models in the region are functionally limited, often formalistic, rarely operational, and poorly adapted to the contemporary conditions increasingly complicated by climate change. Although the literature increasingly acknowledges the need for joint approaches, a consensus has not yet been reached regarding implementation mechanisms, data sharing, the financing of regional structures, and the harmonization of sectoral policies. This dispersion of theoretical and empirical insights further reinforces the need for a systematic review that connects ecological, political, and institutional dimensions and contributes to the development of sustainable models of water governance in the transboundary context of Central Asia.

Based on the theoretical and empirical findings presented, it is evident that there are serious research and implementation gaps in approaches to climate resilience and water resource governance in Central Asia [60]. The absence of integrated analyses that simultaneously consider physical, institutional, and political dimensions, as well as the lack of evaluations of implemented strategies, clearly points to the need for a more comprehensive, methodologically grounded review. Accordingly, the next section presents the methodology of this systematic review through which relevant studies were identified, selected, and analyzed to gain a structured understanding of the existing knowledge and define directions for future research and practical interventions.

3. Research Design, Selection Criteria, and Analytical Tools

To better contextualize the results of this systematic review and develop a deeper thematic synthesis, a descriptive analysis of the key characteristics of the included studies was conducted. This analysis allowed for a structured presentation of the basic profile of the sources, encompassing data on the authors, geographic focus, methodologies used, thematic directions, and key findings. Such an approach enabled an overview of the breadth and diversity of the scientific output in the field of climate change and water governance in Central Asia, which was necessary for the subsequent clustering and comparison among countries. The tabular overview also served as a means to enhance the transparency regarding the selection criteria and source quality, especially considering that the included studies belong to different disciplines and methodological approaches. Additionally, the process facilitated the preliminary identification of thematic gaps, thereby enriching the foundation for determining research priorities and contributing to the theoretical and practical orientation of the conclusions. The data collection process was conducted according to a clearly defined search strategy across four scientific databases: Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The search included articles published from January 2010 to April 2025, written in English or Russian, that explicitly referred to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, or Turkmenistan. Relevant keywords such as climate change, water resources, transboundary water management, and adaptation strategies were used, along with logical operators and variations depending on the database structure. The Boolean operators AND, OR, and NOT were used in various combinations to refine search results, for example “climate change” AND (“water governance” OR “transboundary water”) AND (“Central Asia” OR Kazakhstan OR Uzbekistan OR Kyrgyzstan OR Tajikistan OR Turkmenistan). Truncations and quotation marks were applied as appropriate to capture lexical variants and ensure conceptual accuracy across databases (

Table 1. Overview of key characteristics of included studies.

Author(s) and Year	Country/Region	Methodology	Focus	Key Findings
[25]	Central Asia (general)	Hydrological analysis	Hydrological change	Significant hydrological shifts in transboundary rivers
[26]	Kazakhstan	Empirical synthesis	Climate impact on water	Climate change threatens long-term water stability
[27]	Mountain regions, CA	Review + qualitative analysis	Mountain adaptation gaps	Knowledge gaps and data limitations hinder adaptation
[28]	Central Asia	Spatial–temporal modeling	Climate and land use interaction	Combined effect of human activity and climate on water
[29]	Kazakhstan (Ili-Balkhash)	Scenario modeling	Water vulnerability	Water vulnerability is amplified by development plans
[30]	Central Asia	Climate model analysis	Trends and projections	Projected extreme conditions by end of century
[31]	Mountain areas, CA	Systematic literature review	Adaptation in mountain regions	Insufficient adaptation planning in mountain regions
[32]	Central Asia	Drought modeling	Drought propagation	Drought risk rising due to climate stressors
[33]	Kazakhstan	Hydrological modeling	Flood modeling	Climate-driven flood scenarios require proactive measures
[36]	Central Asia	Descriptive review	Institutional water management	Institutional fragmentation in water governance
[43]	Central Asia	Political analysis	Water politics/securitization	Water used as geopolitical tool in region
[44]	Central Asia	Regional governance analysis	Transboundary institutional cooperation	Weak cross-border mechanisms demand reform

Note: Among the included studies, Karthe et al. [36], Mohapatra [43]), and Prniyazova et al. [44] explicitly address institutional and governance-related dimensions of water management in Central Asia. These include the fragmentation of governance systems, the securitization of water, and the lack of coordinated transboundary mechanisms—key elements of institutional challenges highlighted in the introduction.

).

Simultaneously, additional sources were also considered, including reports from international organizations such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS), and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

The inclusion criteria encompassed scientific and professional studies that address the impact of climate change on water resources, contain an empirical or policy-oriented analysis, and cover at least one country in the region. Studies with a purely engineering focus that lacked a direct connection to climate adaptation, as well as those whose geographic scope did not include Central Asia, were excluded.

The selection process was multi-phased: after removing duplicates, an evaluation of titles and abstracts was performed, followed by full-text reviews. The selective search process is illustrated through a PRISMA diagram, which documents all filtering stages, from the initial identification to the final number of included studies (n = 177). A total of 1455 scientific records were identified through searches across four relevant databases (Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar), encompassing a wide spectrum of the interdisciplinary and regionally focused literature. After the duplicate removal, the initial screening based on titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 825 studies that did not meet the basic criteria of focusing on Central Asia (410 records), having a climate-related dimension (285), or dealt exclusively with technical/engineering aspects without an institutional or adaptive context (130). The remaining 365 studies entered the full-text evaluation phase. During this eligibility assessment, 188 studies were excluded for the following reasons: the lack of an adaptation framework (85), remaining at a general theoretical level without an applied dimension (65), or the absence of empirical or policy-relevant findings (38). Ultimately, 177 studies met all criteria and were included in the final systematic analysis. Among these, 64 were peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, while 23 were policy papers, institutional reports, or governmental documents obtained from credible organizations such as the UNDP, the IFAS, the World Bank, and regional ministries. The remaining 90 sources consisted of interdisciplinary analyses, regional project summaries, and empirical case studies published in scientific proceedings or as gray-area working documents from research consortia (Figure 1).

The analytical section of this study is based on a thematic synthesis, through which dominant topics, strategies, and institutional models were identified, classified, and interpreted within the broader context of climate vulnerability and the political dynamics of the region. Data extraction was conducted using a predefined framework that included dimensions such as the type of adaptation (infrastructural or institutional), level of intervention (local, national, and regional), institutional actors, and the scope of the implemented measures’ impact. Wherever possible, results were triangulated by comparing them with reports from international bodies, in order to identify the gap between theoretical recommendations and practical implementation. A particular emphasis was placed on the comparative analysis among Central Asian countries, which allowed for the detection of patterns, exceptions, and contrasts in institutional approaches to water governance. Alongside the thematic analysis, a bibliometric analysis was also conducted using the VOSviewer software package (version 1.6.19), based on the Scopus CSV dataset. Co-authorship networks, country collaboration, and keyword co-occurrences were included. A threshold of at least one document per author and five keyword occurrences was applied to avoid excessive fragmentation and to enable a clear cluster structure. The visualization of results served as additional support for the thematic interpretation of findings, highlighting the intensity of the research output, dominant thematic axes, and existing gaps in regional and international cooperation. This multi-layered methodological approach enabled the connection of theoretical insights, empirical findings, and institutional practice, providing a foundation for conclusions on the priorities of future research and practical reforms in water resource management in Central Asia under the influence of climate change.

To ensure the reliability and relevance of the included sources, a multi-stage quality assessment procedure was applied, which involved structured coding, cross-verification, and a qualitative content assessment. Each study that entered the full analysis phase was evaluated based on a predefined descriptive matrix that included the following dimensions: the thematic focus, geographical precision, clarity of research design, presence of empirical or policy findings, and explicit linkage to climate adaptation and water governance issues. The evaluation was independently conducted by two researchers using a semi-structured qualitative assessment form, with disagreements resolved through consensus. This approach reduced the potential for subjective interpretation and increased the consistency in the evaluation process. The validity of the assessment was further verified through inter-rater reliability testing, with Cohen’s κ coefficient reaching 0.81, indicating a high level of agreement between researchers and confirming the reliability of the selection process. Although formal tools such as AMSTAR, CASP, or ROBIS were not applied due to the methodological diversity of the included studies (empirical, policy, and analytical), a customized qualitative framework was used that enabled an integrated assessment of both the theoretical and applied value of each work. Special attention was paid to the evaluation of gray literature, with only documents from international organizations meeting the criteria of transparency, institutional authority, and public availability being included. The entire selection, evaluation, and validation process is presented through the PRISMA flow diagram, which clearly documents the number of identified, filtered, and included studies. Measures to control bias included double screening, the application of explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a focus exclusively on peer-reviewed and/or institutionally validated sources. This approach ensures a high methodological consistency and the validity of findings within the framework of the systematic review.

4. Results

To identify scientific collaboration and the structure of the research community in the field of climate change and water resource management in Central Asia, a bibliometric co-authorship analysis was conducted using the VOSviewer software tool. Data were extracted from the Scopus database, where a total of 247 relevant scientific articles were selected and exported in the CSV format according to the technical requirements of the software. The analysis was performed using the “Co-authorship—Authors” option, with the threshold set so that each author must be present in at least one document (minimum number of documents per author = 1), while the number of authors per article was limited to a maximum of 25 to ensure network clarity and avoid artificially centralized nodes in publications with a high number of authors. These criteria enabled the inclusion of 994 authors in the final co-authorship network visualization.

The resulting network visually presents individual authors as nodes, where the size of each node proportionally reflects the number of publications in which the author appears. The lines connecting the nodes represent co-authorship links, i.e., joint publications between two or more authors. The thickness of the lines indicates the intensity of the collaboration, i.e., the number of shared publications. The colors within the network define collaboration clusters, which are automatically detected and grouped by VOSviewer based on the density of interconnections, clearly distinguishing research groups that collaborate more frequently with one another.

The analysis shows that the author Chen, Yaning is the most central in the co-authorship network, with a high number of publications and significant collaborations with other authors. A dominant red cluster forms around him, including authors such as Duan, Weili and Hao, Xingming, indicating the existence of a stable and productive research group. Other key network nodes include authors like Chen, Xi, De Maeyer, Philippe, Bao, Anming, and Abuduwaili, Jilili, around whom separate clusters are formed, often associated with specific topics (e.g., hydrological models, transboundary rivers, and land degradation) and geographical areas (e.g., China, Central Asia, and Europe). The network also reveals a certain degree of structural fragmentation, as in addition to central clusters, there are peripheral authors whose collaborations are limited to smaller research groups with few connections to the broader scientific community. This may indicate thematic specialization, institutional insularity, or limited international engagement. This bibliometric visualization provides valuable insights into the structure of the scientific community, identifies key authors and collaboration patterns, and enables a better understanding of the dynamics of the research in the field of climate adaptation and water governance in Central Asia (Figure 2). The different colors indicate distinct clusters of authors who are closely connected based on their co-authorship or co-citation relationships. This underrepresentation of local scholars constitutes a notable pattern that warrants deeper examination. Several interlinked factors may contribute to this gap, including language barriers that limit participation in English-language publishing, constrained access to international funding for locally based research, and structural challenges in reaching high-impact academic journals. These systemic obstacles not only affect research visibility but may also skew the regional knowledge base toward external perspectives, thereby reducing the contextual relevance of policy recommendations. Recognizing and addressing these disparities is essential for fostering more inclusive and representative climate governance scholarship in Central Asia.

The co-occurrence analysis of keywords was conducted based on a total of 2630 identified terms from 247 scientific articles, out of which 226 met the threshold of at least five occurrences. This quantity enabled the construction of a clear and informative thematic network using the VOSviewer software, through which interrelationships and frequency patterns of key concepts within the literature were detected. The resulting network was visualized using the network visualization option, in which keywords are represented as nodes, with the size of each node reflecting the frequency of occurrences, while the lines between them indicate the intensity of the co-occurrence in the same publications. A color-coding system is used to identify thematic clusters, allowing for a deeper understanding of the structural distribution of research foci. Based on the colors and link density in the network, three dominant clusters were clearly identified:

Cluster 1 (red): Includes terms related to climate adaptation, ecosystem resilience, spatial responses to climate change, and prediction models. This cluster emphasizes the integration of climate scenarios with adaptation strategies in the water sector.

Cluster 2 (blue): Group terms associated with hydrology, river flow, irrigation, water intake, and glacial processes. It represents a focus on the physical–hydrotechnical aspects of water resource management.

Cluster 3 (green): Includes terms such as transboundary cooperation, water governance, institutions, policy, and international agreements, pointing to the institutional and governance dimension of regional cooperation in Central Asia.

The combined interpretation of these clusters shows that the scientific output in the field of climate change and water resources in Central Asia is strongly oriented toward the integration of physical and institutional aspects of adaptation, confirming the interdependence of natural systems and governance mechanisms. For additional insight into thematic priorities, a WordCloud visualization was also conducted, in which the most frequent keywords were further highlighted according to their relative prevalence. Additionally, a tabular display lists the top 20 most common terms, providing quantitative support for the qualitative interpretation of the network (Figure 3). The colors represent distinct thematic clusters derived from the co-occurrence of keywords. Each cluster groups together closely related topics that frequently appear together in the literature.

Furthermore, the bibliometric review reveals a noticeable methodological bias, with a pronounced dominance of quantitative modeling approaches, particularly in hydrological and climate projection studies. While these methods provide valuable large-scale insights, they may overlook localized socio-political dynamics and grassroots adaptation practices. The relative scarcity of qualitative or community-based research reduces the diversity of perspectives and may limit the policy relevance of scientific outputs. Recognizing this imbalance is crucial for fostering more inclusive evidence bases that can support socially grounded and context-sensitive policy interventions.

As part of the bibliometric approach, an analysis of international collaboration based on the authors’ countries of origin was conducted using the Co-authorship—Countries option in the VOSviewer software. The analysis was based on the same set of 247 scientific publications related to water resource management and climate change in the Central Asian region. A minimum threshold of one document per country was set as the inclusion criterion, allowing for the maximum number of participating countries to be represented in the network. The resulting network visualization displays countries as nodes, with the size of each node proportionally reflecting the total number of publications affiliated with that country. The lines between nodes represent co-authorship collaborations, while their thickness indicates the intensity of the cooperation (i.e., number of shared publications). Colored clusters signify regional or thematic groups of countries that collaborate more frequently with one another than with the rest of the network.

The results show that China is the most prominent actor in the international research network, both in terms of the total number of publications and the number of collaborative partnerships. China forms a central yellow cluster, linking with numerous countries including Kazakhstan, Australia, Canada, Finland, Singapore, and the United States. This position highlights China’s leading role in the research on climate change and water resources in Central Asia. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan emerge as key countries within the Central Asian region, showing strong connections with major research centers such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Russian Federation. Kazakhstan’s position is particularly significant, forming a green cluster with strong links to European and neighboring countries (e.g., Greece, Hungary, Israel, and Latvia), indicating its integration into both regional and international research streams. Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom appear as transnational hubs of collaboration, connecting multiple regional clusters and supporting interdisciplinary and cross-geographical research approaches. The presence of smaller nodes, such as Mongolia, Peru, Syria, and the Philippines, in peripheral positions points to limited participation or thematically specific research in unique local contexts. This analysis confirms that international collaboration in the field of climate change and water governance in Central Asia is highly globalized, but with clear centers of influence and regional anchors. The connections between researchers from Central Asia and international institutions suggest a strong potential for joint research, knowledge exchange, and the transnational application of policy solutions (Figure 4). The colors represent clusters of countries that are more closely connected through international co-authorship patterns. Each cluster indicates groups of countries with stronger mutual collaborations in the field.

The comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the scientific output in the field of climate change and water resource management in Central Asia, conducted using VOSviewer, provided valuable insights into the authorship structure, the thematic focus, and the geographical distribution of research collaboration. The co-authorship analysis among authors (994 authors from 247 papers) revealed several dominant research clusters, with Chen, Yaning identified as a central figure in the network, exhibiting the highest level of productivity and connectivity. Strong research communities were identified, with clearly defined thematic and geographic centers of collaboration, as well as the presence of peripheral authors with limited integration into global research flows. The keyword co-occurrence analysis (2630 keywords in total, of which 226 had ≥5 occurrences) uncovered three dominant thematic clusters: (i) climate adaptation and resilience, (ii) hydrology and physical processes, and (iii) water governance and institutional cooperation.

These results highlight the strong interdisciplinary orientation of the scientific community, with a growing tendency to integrate natural sciences, technology, and policy in order to sustainably address regional challenges related to climate and water. The international collaboration analysis by country revealed that China, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom dominate the global co-authorship network, while Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan represent the most active countries in Central Asia, with strong ties to leading European and Asian partners. This geographic distribution confirms a high level of global integration and the importance of transnational partnerships in knowledge exchange and research practice. The combined results suggest that research in the field of climate change and water governance in Central Asia is characterized by a high thematic complexity, institutional connectivity, and international dynamics, which together provide a foundation for the more effective regional adaptation and strategic planning of future interdisciplinary studies.

5. Discussion

The growing body of literature addressing climate and water dynamics in Central Asia reveals a number of well-structured thematic clusters. Most notably, studies converge around the increasing hydrological stress attributed to climate-induced glacier retreat, declining river flows, and the intensification of seasonal extremes (R.Q.1). These findings are particularly consistent in analyses of the Tien Shan and Pamir mountain systems, where accelerated ice loss has been linked to reduced water availability and disrupted downstream supply chains [25,30,32]. Furthermore, the concept of “hydrological vulnerability” emerges across multiple sources as a function not only of biophysical factors, but also of institutional readiness and development asymmetries within and across national boundaries [27,31]. However, the literature reveals a pronounced data gap in high-altitude and rural subregions, where long-term monitoring remains fragmented or absent.

Despite the growing recognition of climate threats, the academic discourse remains partially fragmented when it comes to documenting adaptation measures and assessing their real-world application (R.Q.2). Most studies still focus on infrastructure-based responses, such as reservoir expansion, irrigation canal rehabilitation, or flood protection systems, while softer governance instruments, including integrated water resource management (IWRM) and stakeholder-based planning, tend to be conceptually addressed but lack empirical follow-through [38,44]. The evidence on the effectiveness of adaptation measures is generally scarce, and few studies provide longitudinal or outcome-based evaluations. This suggests that adaptation strategies in the region are often designed in isolation from monitoring frameworks, which limits their long-term viability and policy relevance [39]. Notably, local community perspectives and endogenous knowledge systems are rarely incorporated into adaptation planning, creating a gap between the policy discourse and practical reality.

A closer comparison of national approaches reveals marked differences across Central Asia (R.Q.3). Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan exhibit a higher degree of institutional engagement, with formalized climate policies and attempts at implementing basin-level coordination [45]. However, implementation is typically constrained by limited intersectoral integration and a lack of vertical coherence between national plans and local action. Meanwhile, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, countries that dominate water generation due to their geographic position, are predominantly examined from a hydropower and upstream water contribution perspective, yet they are often excluded from detailed institutional governance assessments. This imbalance reflects a broader gap in the literature: while the hydrological roles of these countries are frequently addressed, their adaptive capacities and institutional constraints remain underexplored. As a result, regional governance mechanisms remain fragmented and asymmetrical, reinforcing path dependencies in water allocation and conflict potential [56]. In the context of this review, “effective adaptation” refers to strategies that are not only developed but also implemented, evaluated, and aligned with local needs. “Good governance” encompasses legal enforceability, cross-sectoral integration, inclusiveness, and transboundary coordination, enabling a stable institutional response to climate challenges. Additionally, differences in institutional engagement between countries raise important questions: why are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan relatively more involved in the formulation and implementation of climate policies? Why are Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, despite being key in water generation, institutionally marginalized? Turkmenistan stands out for its closed approach and limited international cooperation, which further complicates regional coordination mechanisms.

One of the most persistent themes in the literature is the failure of transboundary governance to translate into effective regional cooperation (R.Q.4). While regional bodies such as the IFAS are frequently referenced as frameworks for dialog and coordination, their operational impact appears limited. The absence of legally binding agreements, weak institutional mandates, and the lack of political commitment have been identified as core barriers to sustainable water management across borders [43,53]. Geopolitical mistrust, particularly in relation to upstream–downstream dynamics and unilateral infrastructure projects, such as the Qosh Tepa Canal in Afghanistan, exacerbates tensions and undermines cooperation efforts [50,59]. These dynamics point to the need for more robust mechanisms of diplomacy, science–policy interfaces, and joint institutional development.

The integration of the thematic synthesis and bibliometric analysis in this review also offers insights into the structure of knowledge production on the subject. While the global interest in the region is on the rise, the majority of high-impact publications originate from outside Central Asia, with scholars from China, Germany, and the United States playing a dominant role. Local researchers are often underrepresented, both in authorship and in shaping theoretical frameworks. This raises concerns about epistemic equity and the contextual relevance of externally driven narratives (Figure 4). Moreover, while quantitative methods and scenario-based modeling are increasingly employed [60], empirical studies grounded in local knowledge systems, participatory processes, and indigenous adaptation practices are still rare. These observations underscore a persistent disconnection between climate projections, institutional responses, and community-based realities. To bridge this gap, future research must prioritize integrative, transdisciplinary approaches that align scientific evidence with governance structures and local stakeholder engagement. This would allow not only for more robust adaptation strategies but also for the formulation of water governance frameworks that are both scientifically grounded and socially responsive. In such a complex geopolitical landscape, technical solutions alone are insufficient; instead, the future of water resilience in Central Asia will depend on the region’s ability to reconcile environmental needs with institutional capacities and political will.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Scientific and Practical Implications

This study provides the first comprehensive and critically structured synthesis of the literature related to climate change and water governance in Central Asia, combining a systematic review methodology with a bibliometric analysis. By mapping thematic clusters and examining institutional, hydrological, and geopolitical dimensions, this paper makes a novel contribution to the theory of climate resilience in post-Soviet regions, an area that has been relatively underrepresented in the global climate governance literature.

This review reveals that while the scientific community recognizes Central Asia as a water-insecure region, the responses have remained fragmented, both methodologically and geographically. This work highlights the disparity between normative models of cooperation and the actual institutional arrangements that exist, exposing gaps between policy rhetoric and implementation. By synthesizing empirical trends and governance challenges, this study offers insights valuable not only for academics but also for international organizations, regional institutions (e.g., the IFAS), and national policymakers who seek to build more adaptive, coordinated, and inclusive water strategies. To enhance practical relevance, future actions should include the development of region-wide data-sharing mechanisms, formalized institutional platforms for transboundary dialog, and the adoption of basin-specific climate risk assessments. Policymakers should prioritize investing in modern irrigation infrastructure and enabling community-based adaptation planning, particularly in mountain and rural regions. International actors can support these efforts by fostering multi-country pilot projects that integrate scientific research with local water management needs.

Importantly, this review is also relevant to researchers and students working in other semi-arid or transboundary contexts beyond Central Asia, offering conceptual and methodological tools that are transferable. Scholars working on the Middle East, North Africa, or the Caucasus can benefit from comparative insights, while development practitioners may use the findings to better integrate climate planning with institutional diagnostics. By engaging with both physical and institutional drivers of vulnerability, this work offers a transdisciplinary bridge between hydrology, environmental policy, and international relations.

6.2. Limitations

Despite the rigor of the applied methodology, several limitations of this review must be acknowledged to appropriately contextualize its findings. This analysis is based exclusively on peer-reviewed academic publications and the accessible gray literature indexed in four major international databases (Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar). This approach, while methodologically robust, may have unintentionally excluded locally produced, unpublished, or non-digitized reports, particularly those available only in Central Asian languages or hosted on national institutional repositories. As such, important local perspectives, policy documents, or region-specific data may not have been adequately captured. This review relies solely on secondary data, which limits the ability to assess the current, on-the-ground effectiveness of recent infrastructure projects or policy reforms. The rapidly changing hydrological and institutional landscape of Central Asia may render some findings outdated or only partially relevant without real-time validation. The observed bibliometric trends, such as author networks, institutional affiliations, and thematic clusters, may reflect accessibility and indexing biases, rather than a complete representation of the research activity within the region. This is particularly relevant for underrepresented countries or institutions with a limited international visibility. Also, there is notable temporal and sectoral heterogeneity across the reviewed studies. Some research emphasizes historical baselines, while others focus on future scenarios, making direct comparisons difficult. Similarly, while countries like Kazakhstan are well-covered in the literature, others such as Turkmenistan and Tajikistan remain underexplored, either due to the limited data availability or insufficient inclusion in global research networks. Finally, due to the diversity of methodological approaches (ranging from hydrological modeling to institutional analysis), this review does not include an explicit meta-analysis. However, the applied coding and thematic synthesis framework ensured a coherent comparative structure and allowed for the identification of consistent gaps and emerging priorities across the reviewed body of work.

6.3. Future Research Directions

In light of the findings presented, several strategic pathways for advancing the research in this field can be proposed. To move beyond descriptive overviews, future studies should adopt integrated methodologies that couple hydrological forecasting with an institutional performance analysis and participatory stakeholder engagement. An emphasis should be placed on capturing dynamic processes through longitudinal designs that span multiple governance levels and socio-ecological contexts. There remains a critical need to explore how distinct national governance architectures, through legislation, resource allocation, and bilateral or multilateral agreements, condition the resilience capacities of different countries. Such comparative analyses would benefit from mixed-method approaches that triangulate statistical data, policy analysis, and field-based inquiry, particularly in underrepresented regions and communities. Furthermore, enhancing the visibility and agency of Central Asian researchers must become a priority. This entails developing inclusive research networks, promoting multilingual publishing models, and investing in regional knowledge infrastructure to democratize access to academic dissemination and intellectual recognition. Equally important is the translation of regional experiences into global relevance. Future research should not only address local adaptation imperatives but also critically engage with how the Central Asian case can inform broader frameworks, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (notably SDGs 6 and 13), the Paris Agreement, and evolving international water governance regimes. This shift from a regional case study to a global reference point would reinforce the strategic value of Central Asia in the international climate adaptation discourse.