Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governance of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: the Conceptual and Methodological Foundations for the San Antonio Region Case Study

  • Nexus of Food, Water, Energy (R Mohtar, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The goal of the case study is to provide an outline of the “governance” group’s approach to conducting research on nexus issues in this case study.

Recent Findings

A significant part of the Texas A&M Water-Energy-Food Nexus initiative focuses on issues of governance and public policy. The governance and public policy element of this initiative represents one potentially unique contribution to the applied scholarship on nexus issues writ large.

Summary

Both as a significant research project in its own right, and as a proof-of-concept effort, the initiative has decided to engage in a significant collaborative research project centered on a San Antonio Region Case Study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2008;18(4):543–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berardo R, Olivier T, Lavers A. Focusing events and changes in ecologies of policy games: evidence from the Paraná River Delta. Review of Policy Research. 2015;32(4):443–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berardo R, Lubell M. Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system. Public Adm Rev. 2016;76(5):738–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Feiock RC. The institutional collective action framework. Policy Studies Journal. 2013;41(3):397–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Feiock RC, Steinacker A, Park HJ. Institutional collective action and economic development joint ventures. Public Adm Rev. 2009;69(2):256–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jasny L, Lubell M. Two-mode brokerage in policy networks. Soc Networks. 2015;41:36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Klibanoff P, Morduch J. Decentralization, externalities, and efficiency. Rev Econ Stud. 1995;62(2):223–47.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. •• Kurian M. The water-energy-food nexus: trade-offs, thresholds and transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development. Environ Sci Policy. 2017;68:97–106. This very important paper examines the role of science and scientific information in governance of the water-energy-food nexus. Using wastewater reuse as a specific example, the results indicate that the development of the “nexus observatory” approach to measuring aspects of the water-energy-food nexus can serve as the foundation for improved coordination in the governance of the nexus.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kurian M, Portney KE, Rappold G, Hannibal B, Gebrechorkos SH. Governance of water-energy-food nexus: a social network approach. Position paper for the Water, Soil, and Waste Dresden Nexus Conference. Dresden, GR: United Nations University-Flores. 2017. Available at: https://express2.converia.de/frontend/converia/media/DNC_2017/Position_Papers/DNC2017_PP_Kurian_et_al_Governance_of_WEF_Nexus.pdf, last accessed June 21, 2017.

  10. Leach WD, Pelkey NW, Sabatier PA. Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2002;21(4):645–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lubell M. Governing forum complexity: the ecology of games framework. Policy Studies Journal. 2013;41(3):537–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lubell M, Henry AD, McCoy M. Collaborative forums in an ecology of games. Am J Polit Sci. 2010;54(2):287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lubell M, Mewhirter J, Berardo R, Scholz JT. Transaction costs and the perceived effectiveness of complex institutional systems. Public Administration Review, online first. 2017; doi:10.1111/puar.12622.

  14. Lubell M, Robbins G, Wang P. Policy coordination in an ecology of water management games. Paper 22. 2011. Available at http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pnconfs_2011/22.

  15. •• Lubell M, Robins G, Wang P. Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecol Soc. 2014;19(4):23–36. This very important paper provides the framework for analyzing policymaking institutions and organizations with social network analysis and uses information from a survey of 387 people involved in water management in the San Francisco Bay Area.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Madani K, Lund JR. California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta conflict: from cooperation to chicken. J Water Resour Plan Manag. 2011;138(2):90–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mewhirter J, Berardo R, Lubell M. Policy influence across multiple forums in complex policy networks. Paper delivered at the 2017 Meetings of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA, January 13 2017.

  18. O'Toole LJ, Meier KJ. Modeling the impact of public management: implications of structural context. J Public Adm Res Theory. 1999;9(4):505–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Toole LJ. Treating networks seriously: practical and research-based agendas for public administration. Public Adm Rev. 1997;57(1):45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sabatier PA. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci. 1988;21(2):129–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. • Scholz JT, Berardo R, Kile B. Do networks solve collective action problems? Credibility, search, and collaboration. J Polit. 2008;70(2):393–406. This paper empirically examines the link between different kinds of governance networks and propensity to cooperate to solve collective action problems in the National Estuary Program.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Scholz JT, Wang C-L. Cooptation or transformation? Local policy networks and federal regulatory enforcement. Am J Polit Sci. 2006;50(1):81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Smaldino PE, Lubell M. Forums and cooperation in an ecology of games. Artificial Life. 2014;20(2):207–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Texas A&M WEF Nexus initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy, Bush School of Government and Public Service, College Station, TX, USA

    Kent E. Portney & Arnie Vedlitz

  2. Institute for Sustainable Communities, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Garett Sansom

  3. Land Use and Environmental Planning, College of Architecture, and Institute for Sustainable Communities, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Philip Berke

  4. Water Management and Hydrological Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Bassel T. Daher

Authors
  1. Kent E. Portney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnie Vedlitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Garett Sansom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philip Berke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bassel T. Daher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent E. Portney.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Nexus of Food, Water, Energy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Portney, K.E., Vedlitz, A., Sansom, G. et al. Governance of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: the Conceptual and Methodological Foundations for the San Antonio Region Case Study. Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep 4, 160–167 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-017-0077-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-017-0077-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation