Understanding barriers to collaborative governance for the food-energy-water nexus: The case of Phoenix, Arizona

Constructing futures, enhancing solutions: Stakeholder-driven scenario development and system modeling for climate-change challenges

“…Solutions envisioned by stakeholders are more likely to be regionally and contextually appropriate because stakeholders are aware of values and attitudes that would make solutions easier or more difficult to adopt, accepted by their communities (Buchecker et al, 2013) and more likely to be implemented (Luz, 2000) because stakeholders can advocate for implementation. Involvement of stakeholders reduces community perception that scientists are dictating solutions to communities without their input (Huxham et al, 2000;Ansell and Gash, 2008;Ansell, 2012;Emerson et al, 2012;Jones and White, 2022;Kliskey et al, In review).…”

Research on the comprehensive evaluation of collaborative governance effect of environmental pollution in the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration based on low-carbon constraints

“…In recent years, with the upsurge of research on collaborative governance of environmental pollution in China, there are also some sporadic research results abroad. According to Taylor et al (2020) 's research, due to the impact of western economic austerity policies, some countries that implement the environmental pollution collaborative governance have gradually formed a shrinking profile in the process of the environmental pollution governance; Sabrina et al (2021) analyzed the current situation of moose management in Sweden, put forward the idea of the environmental pollution collaborative governance in moose habitat, and analyzed the social and ecological effects of the collaborative governance; Jones and White (2022) analyzed the problem of environmental pollution governance in Phoenix city, Arizona, USA, and believed that there were obstacles to cooperative governance in the governance of the food-energy-water relationship, and advocated that the cooperative governance of this environmental pollution governance chain should be strengthened to promote the gradual improvement of the governance effect；Hnohuaan et al ( 2022) analyzed the antibody map characteristics of vibrio species recovered from surface water in southwestern Uganda, and believed that collaborative governance would improve the governance effect; Yandisia et al ( 2022) analyzed Thailand's food marketing policy, and believed that the impact of policy governance should be strengthened, and the implementation of cooperative marketing would improve synergy. Nicola et al (2023) analyzed collaborative governance in environmental pollution control cases in Australia and believed that collaborative governance of environmental pollution played an important role in improving the effectiveness of environmental pollution control.…”

To Be, to Do, to Share: The Triple-Loop of Water Governance to Improve Urban Water Resilience—Testing the Benidorm’ Experience, Spain

“…Along the same lines, collaborative arrangements aim at identifying common problems, sharing information, and building consensus on outputs in the form of policies, management plans, and on-ground action [39]. However, learnings from empirical studies highlighted some barriers to collaborative governance implementation, such as lack of communication, differences in priority definitions and specific interests, limited understanding derived from stakeholders' views, presence of uncertainties, or power asymmetries [40]. Furthermore, collaborative governance regimes can enable dialogue across opposed water interests, increasing water resilience, but the diversity of stakeholders and their restricted ability to promote actions can make it challenging to attain common views and agreements [41].…”