Introduction
Traditional, top-down, command-and-control approaches to governance are insufficient to address the intricate interdependencies and feedback loops in social-ecological systems [1–3]. There is a growing recognition that social-ecological systems are complex, dynamic and often unpredictable, and therefore require a governance framework that can adapt to changing conditions and uncertainty [4–6]. The growing global focus on sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals has given further impetus to the development of adaptive governance. The concept of adaptive governance has guided the design of policies and institutions that are more flexible, participatory and better able to respond to complex environmental and social challenges [7, 8]. It has also facilitated the practice of adaptive management, including monitoring results, learning from them and adjusting management strategies [9, 10]. In addition, adaptive governance promotes an interdisciplinary approach, integrating knowledge from different scientific disciplines, and it fosters the development of resilience thinking to provide more inclusive and effective solutions for sustainable development [5, 11]. Adaptive governance has contributed to meeting the challenges of environmental management and sustainable development, but there are many skeptics. Critics argue that adaptive governance can be difficult to implement due to resistance to change, power imbalances, and a lack of clear guidelines, the conceptual underpinnings of adaptive governance remain largely theorized [6, 12]. While adaptive governance embraces uncertainty, critics point out that it can sometimes lead to paralysis in decision-making or inaction due to lack more information communication [3, 13]. Assessing the success of adaptive governance is challenging due to the lack of clear metrics and the long-term nature of results [14]. Academic evaluations of adaptive governance have been mixed and have attracted sustained attention and in-depth research. However, existing research has not fully answered the critics' questions, and few studies have provided an overview of adaptive governance.
More than two decades have passed since the formal introduction of the term "adaptive governance" by Dietz et al. in the journal Science in 2003 [15]. Adaptive governance has been described as an ‘outgrowth’ of managing uncertainty and complexity in social-ecological systems [15–19] and is defined as ‘an emergent, self-organized process’ and a practice [12, 20]. Based on the systems of social and ecological interdependence, adaptive governance is widely used in environmental governance research [21, 22]. Meanwhile, it has also garnered attention in various other disciplines. Adaptive governance is also described as the purposeful collective actions to resist, adapt, or transform when faced with shocks [23]. The theoretical and empirical research of adaptive governance is ongoing in areas such as water governance [24], biosecurity governance [25], food security [26], disaster research [27], law [28], political science [29], entrepreneurial learning [30], policy science [31], community resilience [32], and public administration [33], and international trade [34].
The term "adaptive governance" has varying interpretations among different scholars from different disciplines [18, 25]. researchers have summarized adaptive governance mainly focusing on aspects of environmental governance, social-ecological system management, water governance, marine resources, and resilience [16, 35, 36]. However, the literature to date has been conducted in isolated studies where related topics are discussed separately. These studies have not delved into the evolution of adaptive governance research over the past 20 years, which limits our ability to integrate it effectively into different disciplines. To bridge this gap, we used literature data visualization software to outline the research trend of adaptive governance research, summarize the current state, and clarify possible future developments from multiple disciplines' perspectives by gathering a large number of publications.
Bibliometric methods can be used as a quantitative analytical tool to understand the current status and gaps a specific research area [37, 38]. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric and visual analysis of adaptive governance research over the past two decades. The primary objective of this paper is to address four key research questions pertaining to adaptive governance. These questions include: (1) What is the overall trend in the number of publications on the subject of adaptive governance research worldwide? (2) Which countries or regions have made significant contributions to the field of adaptive governance? (3) Which institutions, disciplines, journals, authors and literatures have exerted the most significant impact on adaptive governance research? (4) What are the primary intellectual foundations and research hotspots in adaptive governance research? The contributions of this paper are as follows. Firstly, it provides a comprehensive review of the progress of adaptive governance from a multidisciplinary perspective. Secondly, the trends and hot topics identified in this study can assist scholars in further developing research on adaptive governance.
Data sources and methods
Review articles can provide valuable summaries of a growing body of original research [39]. The most common methods for conducting a literature review are systematic literature reviews, meta-analysis and bibliometric analysis. Systematic literature reviews encapsulate the acquisition, arrangement, and assessment of the extant literature using systematic procedures, which are typically carried out manually (e.g., thematic and content analyses) by scholars [40]. Systematic literature reviews is qualitative research methods, which typically include a smaller number of papers (e.g., between tens or hundreds), and their research scope is narrower [41]. Therefore, systematic literature reviews are more suitable for confined studies (e.g., social learning in adaptive governance) or niche research areas (e.g., the impact of digital technologies on adaptive governance). Meta-analysis estimates "the across-study variance in the distribution of effect-size estimates and the factors that explain this variance" [42]. Specifically, meta-analysis is a quantitative research method, which often analyses the direction and strength of relationships between variables by summarising quantitative empirical evidence. Therefore, meta-analysis is often used as a theory extension tool that reveals mixed empirical findings and boundary conditions (moderating effects analysis) [43]. Bibliometrics is also a quantitative research method, which initially introduced by Pritchard, uses quantitative and statistical methods to reveal the characteristics of research attributes within a specific field [44]. Qualitative research methods may be subject to the interpretative bias of scholars from different academic backgrounds [45], which can be avoided or mitigated by bibliometric analyses that rely on quantitative techniques. Bibliometric analyses can analyze the social and structural relationships between different research components (e.g. authors and institutions) and summarise the structure of knowledge in a field [46]. This paper considers a dataset of over three thousand papers that do not involve variable effect size analyses. Therefore, bibliometric methods were used in this paper without the use of alternative meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews.
By using bibliometric methods and visualization software for knowledge mapping, the knowledge distribution and emerging trends of adaptive governance research can be analyzed from different multidimensional perspectives. Citation visualization analysis methods is one of the most important components of bibliometrics, which combines bibliometrics and data visualization methods to reveal the intrinsic connections between disciplines and research patterns [47]. The bibliometric method has been utilized in numerous research fields, including safety culture research [48], green supply chain management [49], knowledge management [50] and human resource analytics [51]. Consequently, bibliometrics has emerged as an important research tool across disciplines.
Since the concept of adaptive governance was formally introduced in 2003, there have been more than 20 years of interdisciplinary research on adaptive governance, during which a great deal of knowledge has been accumulated. To facilitate the advancement of innovative research on adaptive governance, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive review of the progress and research hotspots of adaptive governance research over the past 20 years. By utilizing a bibliometric approach and the extensive adaptive governance literature, this study identifies emerging research focal points and trends in adaptive governance literature, as well as provides practitioners and researchers with a general overview of adaptive governance and guidelines for finding new research directions.
Data collection
Literature databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar are often used by international scholars. However, some scholars have demonstrated that the knowledge map generated by the literature within the Web of Science database is better, as evidenced by the use of CiteSpace software for visual analysis [52, 53]. In light of these findings, the "Web of Science" database was chosen to search and collect the literature data required for this study's analysis. To ensure the acquisition of authentic and representative data, the literature database of the Web of Science Core Collection including the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index was searched, boasting the world's largest collection of literature covering numerous disciplines. This extensive coverage enables WOSCC to provide more comprehensive text information for bibliometric analysis.
Before commencing the search, a pre-search strategy was developed, primarily based on keywords. Following a meticulous review of relevant articles, and drawing on topic search methods from existing research, a topic-specific search was conducted using the query: TS = "adaptive governance" [4, 54]. The search encompassed the period from January 2003 to December 2022, focusing specifically on articles. This process yielded a total of 3302 records. By utilizing the refinement functions of WOS categories and document types, we excluded non-English articles and removed duplicates, resulting in a final count of 3274 records. The 3274 records include the following information: Article Title, Author Information, Journal Information, Keywords, Citation Information, and so on.
We collected data on the characteristics of all accessed publications, including publication years, document types, languages, authors, journals, countries/regions, and institutes. Additionally, we obtained information on the H-index, the top 15 research areas with the most publications, the top 10 countries with the most publications, the top 10 institutes with the most publications, and the top 10 authors with the most publications. Furthermore, we gathered data on the publication count of the top 10 most cited journals, the 2022 journal Impact Factor (IF) and 5-year Impact Factor (IF), total citations, and average citations per paper. Lastly, we documented the starting year, betweenness centrality, and citation frequency of the top 10 most-cited references.
Data analysis
The collected data were analyzed using various software tools, including Microsoft Excel 2021 (Redmond WA, USA) [55], CiteSpace 6.4 (Chaomei Chen, China) [56], VOSviewer 1.6.16 (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) [57], Gephi 0.10.1 (Gephi Consortium, Paris, France) [58] and Scimago Graphica 1.0.36 (Scimago Research, Spain) [59]. CiteSpace, VOSviewer and Gephi software were used for bibliometric analysis, while Scimago Graphica was used to visualize the collaborative relationships in countries/regions.
The parameters and knowledge maps that result from the subsequent scientometric analyses are uniformly explained here. In the knowledge maps, the size of the nodes represents the frequency of occurrence of authors, countries, institutions, and journals, while the connections between the nodes indicate that the authors (or countries, institutions, and journals) represented by these nodes appear in the same article [60]. Generally, when two or more authors (countries, institutions, etc.) appear in the same paper, it suggests a scientific research cooperation relationship between those authors (countries, institutions, etc.) [61]. Betweenness centrality refers to the extent to which the node is in the middle of a path that connects other nodes in the network [62]. CiteSpace employs the betweenness centrality indicator to measure the importance of nodes in a network to discover and measure the importance of documents (or authors, countries, institutions, journals, etc.) [63]. Betweenness centrality ranges from [0, 1], the higher the value the more important node in a network. The H-index is a metric proposed by physicist George Hirsch of the University of California, USA, which indicates that h of the N papers published in a journal have been cited at least h times. The starting year represents the year when the article was first published. Total citations represents the total citations of papers published by a country or institution in a given field, while average citations represent the average of citations of papers published by a country or institution in a given field [64].
CiteSpace proposes two indicators to judge the effect of spectrogram drawing: the modularity value and the silhouette value [63]. The silhouette value evaluates the clustering effect by measuring the homogeneity of the network, while the modularity measures the structural characteristics of the overall clustering network. Both the silhouette and modularity values range from 0 to 1, and the silhouette of each cluster should be above 0.7 [65]. The closer the silhouette value is to 1, the more perfect the clustering is. A silhouette value closer to 1 indicates higher network homogeneity and greater reliability of the clustering results, especially above 0.7.
Results
Distribution characteristics of adaptive governance research
Publications trends
Changes in the number of scientific research results can provide insights into scholars' attention toward a specific subject area. This serves as an important indicator for revealing the development trends in scientific research [66]. Figure 1 depicts the quantity and trend of published papers in the field of adaptive governance research. Annual publications can explain the dynamics of adaptive governance research in the past and assist scholars in assessing its future developmental trajectory. It is observed that overall publications exhibit an increasing trend with fluctuations: the quantity of publications in 2022 surpasses that of 2003 by approximately 50-fold. In particular, the cumulative publications over the latest five-year period (2018–2022) amount to 1676 (constituting 51.19% of the calculated years), providing evidence of the escalating scholarly attention garnered by adaptive governance research and the amplifying production of academic literature.
Fig. 1 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Number of publications on adaptive governance research from 2003 to 2022 and the fitted trend line
Furthermore, it can be found that the number of annual publications exhibits fluctuations (the trend is not consistently increasing), which is a common occurrence in academic research due to the existence of study periods for research domains. Despite a marginal decline observed in 2022, characterized by the publication of only 257 papers, it is enough to show that this research field has continuously stimulated the interest of many scholars. In conclusion, the increasing trend shows that research on adaptive governance is still widespread. According to the fitted trend line y = 21.307x − 60.021 (R2 = 0.9123 > 0.75, y is the annual publications, x is the year) shows substantial predictive power [67], which means the rapid growth trend of adaptive governance studies in the past 20 years.
Distribution of countries/regions
The analysis of papers' country/region information can assist researchers in comprehending the global geographical distribution of adaptive governance research and the cooperation among countries/regions. Over the past 20 years, 135 countries from 6 continents have been involved in research on adaptive governance. We used Scimago Graphica software to map the geographical distribution and collaboration of adaptive governance research, as demonstrated in Fig. 2. The figure displays that research on adaptive governance is carried out across several continents, including Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas and Oceania. Among these regions, Europe dominates with 76.42% of the published articles, followed by North America at 41.45% and Asia at 19.43%. These figures highlight Europe's significant research contribution in advancing the field of adaptive governance. This may be related to policies such as The European Commission’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy published in 2013, the European Green Deal in 2019, and the new European Commission’s Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change in 2021. Adaptation to climate change is an important part of these policies, fuelling research on adaptive governance by European scholars.
Fig. 2 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Geographical distribution and cooperation
By analyzing the network of cooperation between countries and regions, it is possible to identify priority countries and regions that have published a large number of papers in a given field and have had a significant influence [68]. The co-authorship network can reflect the cooperation relationship among objects such as authors, organizations, and countries/regions [69]. The CiteSpace software was used to create the national or regional cooperation relationship network map, as depicted in Fig. 3. The size of each circle represents the number of publications, while the lines between them denote cooperative relationships [70].
Fig. 3 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Visualization map of countries/regions cooperation relationship network
The thickness of the lines indicates the strength of links between the countries or regions. The betweenness centrality of countries or regions helps discover and measure their importance. Pink circles are used to highlight countries or regions with high betweenness centrality. Figure 3 shows that the United States, England, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany publish a greater number of papers and have greater betweenness centrality, while Australia has a greater number of publications but lower betweenness centrality. Figure 3 illustrates that countries or regions exhibit close cooperation, with a network density of 0.1522.
According to betweenness centrality in Table 1 and Fig. 3, the United States has the thickest outer circle, with a betweenness centrality value of 0.19, which indicates its critical role in the knowledge dissemination process of adaptive governance research. Other countries with a betweenness centrality greater than 0.1 include England, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany. Regarding the commencement of adaptive governance research, the USA and England were pioneers, starting in 2003. Following suit, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, China, and Spain joined the endeavor in 2004. Lastly, South Africa began studying adaptive governance in 2005. There is a positive correlation between a country's starting year and its total citations. This is because earlier publications are more likely to be cited. As a whole, numerous countries and regions tend to collaborate and communicate with each other, highlighting the strong global network characteristics of adaptive governance research.
Table 1. Top 10 countries/regions in adaptive governance research
Rank | Countries/regions | Publications | Percentage (%) | Betweenness centrality | TC | AC | Starting year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | USA | 905 | 27.64 | 0.19 | 37,078 | 40.97 | 2003 |
2 | Australia | 518 | 15.82 | 0.05 | 21,908 | 42.29 | 2004 |
3 | England | 477 | 14.57 | 0.14 | 24,059 | 50.44 | 2003 |
4 | Canada | 379 | 11.58 | 0.12 | 17,219 | 45.43 | 2004 |
5 | The Netherlands | 365 | 11.15 | 0.15 | 14,918 | 40.87 | 2004 |
6 | Sweden | 301 | 9.19 | 0.14 | 20,988 | 69.73 | 2004 |
7 | Germany | 286 | 8.74 | 0.11 | 12,779 | 44.68 | 2004 |
8 | China | 167 | 5.10 | 0.03 | 2649 | 15.86 | 2004 |
9 | South Africa | 140 | 4.28 | 0.06 | 5221 | 37.29 | 2005 |
10 | Spain | 132 | 4.03 | 0.08 | 3203 | 24.27 | 2004 |
TC total citations, AC average citations
Distribution of productive institutions
In bibliometrics, a 'productive institution' is usually an academic or research institution that has a high level of productivity in terms of publications in peer-reviewed journals. An analysis of organizational cooperation allows for the identification of the most productive and influential institutions [71].
A clear overview of institutional cooperation was presented using Gephi software, which generated a cooperation network map for institutions with more than eight articles, as depicted in Fig. 4. In the map, the larger the node, the higher the centrality of the nodes; the thicker the lines between the nodes, the closer the cooperation between the two nodes [72]. Stockholm University is the largest node in the network, indicating that it has published the largest number of papers on adaptive governance in collaboration with other research institutions and has made the most significant contributions to adaptive governance research. In addition, the cooperation between productive institutions is rather loose and needs to be further strengthened.
Fig. 4 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Visualization map of cooperation network between productive institutions
Table 2 lists the top 10 productive institutions in adaptive governance research. With 130 publications, Stockholm University is the most productive institution in this field and has the highest betweenness centrality 0.14, indicating that the institution is engaged in extensive collaboration. This may be related to the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, where one of the strategic focuses is on complex adaptive systems. Since its launch in 2007, the Stockholm Resilience Centre has developed into a global reference point for sustainability science and resilience thinking. The University of Queensland came second with 77 articles published, closely followed by James Cook University and Arizona State University in third and fourth place, respectively. It is worth mentioning that Stockholm University, Arizona State University, and James Cook University have impressively high average citation frequencies of 113.77, 104.68, and 67.03, respectively. This indicates the quality and wide availability of their papers as references for scholars in the field. It is worth noting that research on adaptive Governance began a decade ago (2004–2011) in all of these top 10 productive institutions, highlighting the sustained attention that this important area of research has received.
Table 2. Adaptive governance research top 10 most productive institutions by publications
Rank | Institutions | Publications | Percentage (%) | Betweenness centrality | TC | AC | Starting year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Stockholm University | 130 | 3.97 | 0.14 | 14,790 | 113.77 | 2004 |
2 | University of Queensland | 77 | 2.35 | 0.05 | 4118 | 53.48 | 2004 |
3 | James Cook University | 68 | 2.08 | 0.08 | 4558 | 67.03 | 2006 |
4 | Arizona State University | 65 | 1.99 | 0.05 | 6804 | 104.68 | 2004 |
5 | Wageningen University | 64 | 1.95 | 0.05 | 3077 | 48.08 | 2010 |
6 | Australian National University | 62 | 1.89 | 0.07 | 2807 | 45.27 | 2006 |
7 | University of Melbourne | 55 | 1.68 | 0.01 | 2218 | 40.33 | 2011 |
8 | University of Waterloo | 54 | 1.65 | 0.02 | 2750 | 50.93 | 2011 |
9 | University of British Columbia | 50 | 1.53 | 0.05 | 2243 | 44.86 | 2010 |
10 | University of Oxford | 50 | 1.53 | 0.03 | 2018 | 40.36 | 2010 |
TC total citations, AC average citations
Distribution of category
The co-occurrence visualization map of the category network depicted in Fig. 5 was generated using CiteSpace. According to the analysis conducted by the CiteSpace software, we identified 134 topic categories within adaptive governance research, with 15 of them occurring more than 90 times (Table 3).
Fig. 5 [Images not available. See PDF.]
The co-occurrence visualization map of the category network
Table 3. Top 15 categories in adaptive governance research
Rank | Categories | Frequency | Percentage (%) | Betweenness centrality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Environmental studies | 1194 | 36.47 | 0.29 |
2 | Environmental sciences | 1044 | 31.89 | 0.21 |
3 | Ecology | 434 | 13.26 | 0.13 |
4 | Water resources | 304 | 9.29 | 0.04 |
5 | Green and sustainable science and Technology | 261 | 7.97 | 0.02 |
6 | Geography | 235 | 7.18 | 0.04 |
7 | Regional and urban planning | 199 | 6.08 | 0.05 |
8 | Development studies | 167 | 5.10 | 0.02 |
9 | International relations | 139 | 4.25 | 0.01 |
10 | Meteorology and atmospheric sciences | 131 | 4.00 | 0 |
11 | Management | 122 | 3.73 | 0.17 |
12 | Economics | 120 | 3.67 | 0.11 |
13 | Public administration | 116 | 3.54 | 0.03 |
14 | Urban studies | 112 | 3.42 | 0.02 |
15 | Political science | 93 | 2.84 | 0 |
First, the categories with the highest number of publications in adaptive governance research are, in order, "environmental studies", "environmental science" and "ecology", accounting for shares of 36.5%, 31.9%, and 13.3% respectively. According to the Web of Science research area classification, environmental science and environmental studies belong to different research areas [73]. Whereas environmental science is rooted in the natural sciences and technical solutions to environmental problems, environmental studies is more interdisciplinary, focusing on the socio-political and human aspects of environmental issues. This could indicate that adaptive governance research is a multidisciplinary field of study in the natural and social sciences.
Among the top 15 disciplines, "environmental studies" has the highest betweenness centrality (betweenness centrality = 0.29), playing a pivotal role in the field of adaptive governance research. Following closely is "environmental science" (betweenness centrality = 0.21), and then "ecology” (betweenness centrality = 0.13). It is evident that "environmental studies", "environmental science", and "ecology" are the primary disciplines studying adaptive governance and play a crucial role in leading its development. Second, the categories within the natural sciences, including "Water Resources" (Frequency = 304), "Green and Sustainable Science and Technology" (Frequency = 261), "Geography" (Frequency = 235), and "Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences" (Frequency = 131), have shown consistent growth and have contributed a significant number of research results to the field of adaptive governance. Third, the social sciences categories, including "Regional and Urban Planning" (Frequency = 199), "Development Studies" (Frequency = 167), "International Relations" (Frequency = 139), "Management" (Frequency = 122), "Economics" (Frequency = 120), "Public Administration" (Frequency = 116), "Urban Studies" (Frequency = 112), and "Political Science" (Frequency = 93), have all demonstrated continuous growth and have produced a diverse range of research outcomes. In summary, adaptive governance research is a multidisciplinary field that encompasses a wide range of disciplines, and the development of different disciplines has contributed significantly to the integration of adaptive governance research into multidisciplinary science.
Distribution of co-citation journals
Co-citation analysis shows the relationship between items that have been cited together a number of times, and its abilities lie in the prevention of academic isolation and the acceleration of knowledge integration for consistency across different disciplines [74]. Journal co-citation is when two articles published in different journals are simultaneously cited by a third article in another journal [53]. The VOSviewer was used to perform a Co-citation analysis of journals. By setting the minimum number of citations of a source to 80, a total of 298 nodes were generated. Figure 6 presents the network visualization map of co-citation journals in adaptive governance. The top 10 highly cited journals and their corresponding statistical parameters in adaptive governance research are demonstrated in Table 4. Ecology and Society, which is hosted in Canada, is the most influential journal in terms of citation frequency. This journal has been cited a total of 8319 times and has a total link strength of 338,556. Global Environmental Change, hosted by the United Kingdom, is the second-ranked journal with 6097 citations and a total link strength of 249,811. Both the total citation frequency and total link strength of these journals are significantly higher than other journals, indicating their highest unparalleled recognition and expertise in adaptive governance research. They are followed by Science, Environmental Science & Policy, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, and Marine Policy. All of these journals have received more than 2000 citations, and their total connection strengths exceed 90,000, highlighting their substantial influence in adaptive governance research. Adaptive governance is a multidisciplinary field of research, and there has been a notable increase in the number of papers on adaptive governance published in both general academic journals and journals focusing on sustainability or climate research. Concurrently, researchers engaged in the field of adaptive governance continue to publish a greater number of papers in journals specializing in sustainability or climate research, and have the highest number of citations compared to general academic journals.
Fig. 6 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Network visualization map of co-citation journals
Table 4. Top 10 highly cited journals in adaptive governance research
Rank | Journal | Citations | Total link strength | Host country/region | 2022 IF | 5 years IF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ecology and Society | 8319 | 338,556 | Canada | 4.1 | 5.4 |
2 | Global Environmental Change | 6097 | 249,811 | UK | 8.9 | 13.0 |
3 | Science | 2876 | 131,161 | USA | 56.9 | 54.5 |
4 | Environmental Science and Policy | 2573 | 107,360 | USA | 6.0 | 6.4 |
5 | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 2298 | 112,614 | USA | 11.1 | 12.0 |
6 | Marine policy | 2237 | 94,742 | UK | 3.8 | 4.1 |
7 | Journal of Environmental Management | 1887 | 84,238 | UK | 8.7 | 8.4 |
8 | Annual Review of Environment and Resources | 1718 | 76,000 | USA | 16.4 | 18.1 |
9 | Ecological Economics | 1649 | 72,883 | The Netherlands | 7.0 | 7.5 |
10 | Environmental Management | 1549 | 69,121 | USA | 3.5 | 3.9 |
Upon analysis of the ten most highly cited journals, our research reveals that there is a concentration of such influential publications in Europe and North America. Specifically, out of the top-ranked journals, five are from the USA, three originate from the UK, and the remaining two are from the Netherlands and Canada, respectively. The concentration of these publications implies that adaptive governance research in the USA and the UK is driving further progress in this field.
Distribution and collaboration of authors
A total of 9702 researchers have made contributions to the realm of adaptive governance. The average number of authors per article was 2.96, indicating that collaborative efforts among multiple authors are a prominent characteristic in the field of adaptive governance research. Table 5 presents the top 10 productive authors in adaptive governance research, providing statistical information such as their number of publications, institution, country, and H-index. The highest number of publications was achieved by Claudia Pahl-Wostl and Ryan Plummer, who published 26 articles each. Carl Folke follows closely in second place with 23 papers. Derek Armitage tied for third place with 21 papers. Ahjond Garmestani published 17 articles, and authors who have published 15 articles are Per Angelstam, Julia Baird, Brian C. Chaffin, Henrik Österblom, and Lisen Schultz. The top 10 prolific authors produced outstanding results in the adaptive governance field, as most of the authors have an H-index greater than 30. The publication years of these high-yield authors indicate that they became active in the field after 2006. This highlights the last two decades as a critical period for adaptive governance research, particularly the last ten years.
Table 5. Top 10 productive authors in adaptive governance research
Rank | Author | Publications | Starting Year | Institutions | Countries/regions | H-Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Claudia Pahl-Wostl | 26 | 2007 | Osnabrück University | Germany | 59 |
2 | Ryan Plummer | 26 | 2007 | Brock University | Canada | 30 |
3 | Carl Folke | 23 | 2006 | Stockholm University | Sweden | 106 |
4 | Derek Armitage | 21 | 2007 | University of Waterloo | Canada | 39 |
5 | Ahjond Garmestani | 17 | 2013 | Emory University | USA | 38 |
6 | Per Angelstam | 15 | 2007 | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences | Sweden | 30 |
7 | Julia Baird | 15 | 2014 | Brock University | Canada | 16 |
8 | Brian C. Chaffin | 15 | 2016 | University of Montana | USA | 20 |
9 | Henrik Österblom | 15 | 2011 | Stockholm University | Sweden | 43 |
10 | Lisen Schultz | 15 | 2015 | Stockholm University | Sweden | 19 |
The authors having published more than five articles were counted, and a network map depicting the main authors' cooperative relationships was generated using VOSviewer software (See Fig. 7). Each node on the map represents an author, and its size indicates the number of articles published by that author. Figure 7 illustrates the presence of multiple potential cooperation teams within the network. Notably, there are four prominent teams represented by green, red, blue and yellow networks. The first research team (green) is represented by Ahjond Garmestani and Brian C. Chaffin. The second research team (red) is represented by Carl Folke, Per Olsson and Henrik Österblom. The third research team (blue) is represented by Sarah Clement, Susan A Moore and Michael Lockwood. The fourth research team (yellow) is represented by Ryan Plummer, Derek Armitage, Julia Baird and Lisen Schultz. There is extensive and productive collaboration within these four teams. However, the overall network of co-authorship appears to be relatively loose. Therefore, there is a need to encourage cross-institutional and cross-border collaboration between authors in the field of adaptive governance research, which will facilitate knowledge sharing for the joint publication of higher-level scientific papers.
Fig. 7 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Visualization map of main author cooperation network
Authors with a citation frequency exceeding 100 were identified via the VOSviewer software, displaying their co-citation network in Fig. 8. The publications of co-cited authors can be categorized into four themes, represented by the yellow, green, red, and blue colors. As adaptive governance is an interdisciplinary field, most of the citations between co-cited authors span different topics. Notably, Carl Folke, Elinor Ostrom, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Fikret Berkes, W. Neil Adger, Per Olsson, Crawford Stanley Holling, and Brian Walker were co-cited most frequently.
Fig. 8 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Network visualization map of co-cited authors
Table 6 shows the 10 most cited authors with their frequency, total link strength, institution, year of publication and H-index. However, the most productive authors are not the most influential authors. Among these authors, Carl Folke of Stockholm University is recognized as the most influential, with his work cited 1916 times, ranking first among the list. Folke C et al. are credited with publishing the first paper directly related to adaptive governance. One of his most influential articles is “Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems” published in 2005. This article introduced the social dimension necessary for adaptive ecosystem-based management, focusing on the experiences of adaptive governance during periods of abrupt change and exploring social sources of renewal and reorganization [18]. Elinor Ostrom from Indiana University Bloomington has accumulated 1508 citations for articles in the field of adaptive governance and is ranked second among highly cited authors. The article "A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems", published in Science in 2008 by Ostrom E et al., provided a multilevel, nested framework for analyzing the outcomes achieved in social-ecological systems [75]. Claudia Pahl-Wostl from Osnabrück University has been cited 1,144 times in the field of adaptive governance and is ranked third among highly cited authors. In 2009, Claudia Pahl-Wostl published a conference paper titled “A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes”. This paper developed a conceptual framework for analyzing the dynamics and adaptive capacity of resource governance regimes as multi-level learning processes, capable of responding to resource governance challenges.
Table 6. Top 10 highly cited authors in adaptive governance research
Rank | Cited author | Frequency | Total link strength | Starting year | Institution | H-Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Carl Folke | 1916 | 40,520 | 2004 | Stockholm University | 106 |
2 | Elinor Ostrom | 1508 | 29,179 | 2006 | Indiana University Bloomington | 63 |
3 | Claudia Pahl-Wostl | 1144 | 23,193 | 2007 | Osnabrück University | 59 |
4 | Fikret Berkes | 1136 | 24,025 | 2003 | University of Manitoba | 63 |
5 | W. Neil Adger | 1076 | 21,805 | 2003 | University of Exeter | 70 |
6 | Per Olsson | 1053 | 25,493 | 2004 | Stockholm University | 47 |
7 | Crawford Stanley Holling | 769 | 16,478 | 2004 | University of Florida | 38 |
8 | Brian Walker | 597 | 13,233 | 2006 | Australian National University | 61 |
9 | Derek Armitage | 560 | 13,380 | 2007 | University of Waterloo | 39 |
10 | Ryan Plummer | 486 | 11,609 | 2007 | Brock University | 30 |
In addition to the aforementioned authors, the top 10 highly cited authors consist of Fikret Berkes, W. Neil Adger, Per Olsson, Crawford Stanley Holling, Brian Walker, Derek Armitage, and Ryan Plummer. It is noteworthy that these authors have contributed significantly to adaptive governance fields.
Intellectual bases and hotspots of adaptive governance research
Intellectual bases of adaptive governance research
Analysis of highly cited literature
Mutual citations of documents can reflect the objective laws of the development of the field of study [76]. Furthermore, top-cited publications commonly serve as the foundation and foundation for a specific field [77]. Based on citation frequency, this study selected the top ten references in adaptive governance research, providing detailed information about them in Table 7. It should be noted that the citation frequency in this article is restricted to the mutual citation among these 3274 articles. Therefore, the precise citation frequency differs from the stats provided by the Web of Science. Table 7 shows three of the top ten most cited articles from Ecology and Society, as well as top journals such as science. These cited journals represent the research main foundation of in adaptive governance research.
Table 7. Top 10 highly cited documents in adaptive governance research
Rank
Title
Cited frequency
Author
Betweenness centrality
Journal/publisher
Year
1
A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions [16]
99
Chaffin, BC; Gosnell, H and Cosens, BA
0.04
Ecology and Society
2014
2
A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes [78]
82
Pahl-Wostl C
0.02
Global environmental change: human and policy dimensions
2009
3
Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning [79]
79
Berkes F
0.04
Journal of Environmental Management
2009
4
Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the Institutional Prescriptions of Adaptive (Co-)Management from a Governance Perspective and Defining a Research Agenda [80]
60
Huitema D; Mostert E; (…); Yalcin, R
0.03
Ecology & Society
2009
5
Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity [81]
58
Armitage DR; Plummer R;(…); Wollenberg EK
0.01
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
2009
6
Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world[82]
57
Walker B; Salt D
0.19
Island press
2012
7
A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems[75]
56
Ostrom E
0
Science
2009
8
Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems[83]
55
Olsson P; Gunderson LH;(…); Holling CS
0.12
Ecology and Society
2006
9
Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems [18]
55
Folke C; Hahn T;(…); Norberg J
0.22
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
2005
10
The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society [84]
50
Gupta J; Termeer C;(…); Bergsma E
0.08
Environmental Science&Policy
2010
The review "A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions" has been cited 99 times, making it the most frequently cited paper in the field of adaptive governance. This paper provides an overview of the principal literature on adaptive governance in the decade following 2003. Adaptive governance is defined as a range of interactions between actors, networks, organizations, and institutions emerging in pursuit of a desired state for social-ecological systems [16]. The second most cited article, titled “A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes” was cited 82 times. This paper developed a conceptual framework that facilitates flexible and context-sensitive analysis, addressing the dynamics and adaptive capacity of resource governance regimes as multi-level learning processes [78]. The article “Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning”, published in 2009, is the third most cited literature with 79 citations. This paper critically reviewed the theory and practice of co-management, and analyzed the role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations, social learning and adaptation, and demonstrated the similarities and distinctions among co-management, adaptive management, and adaptive co-management [79]. In conclusion, the majority of highly cited documents are comprehensive papers that provide summaries and valuable commentary.
Meanwhile, the book "Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world", published in 2012, stands as the most widely read book in adaptive governance research. Resilience thinking is strongly interconnected with adaptive governance and emphasizes the criticality of considering the interdependencies of social and ecological systems. This book, authored by Walker B and Salt D, presented an accessible introduction to the emerging paradigm of resilience and is frequently cited by scholars in the field of adaptive governance [82]. Additionally, the article "Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems" holds the highest betweenness centrality, which is deemed to be highly significant in the realm of adaptive governance research. This paper examines the social dimensions of achieving ecosystem-based adaptive management, with a specific focus on experiences of adaptive governance in social-ecological systems during times of crisis. It emphasizes that a resilient social-ecological system can leverage a crisis as an opportunity for transformation towards a more desirable state [18].
Cluster analysis of literature co-citation network
We used CiteSpace software for conducting a cluster analysis of the highly cited literature, as shown in Fig. 9. To gain a deeper understanding of clustering, Table 8 provides more detailed information on clustering.
Fig. 9 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Knowledge map of co-citation literature cluster network
Table 8. Summary table of knowledge map of co-citation literature cluster network information
Cluster ID
Size
Silhouette
Mean (Year)
Label
0
271
0.954
2016
Adaptive governance
1
212
0.742
2009
Adaptive management
2
154
0.844
2004
Adaptive co-management
3
99
0.987
2001
Social capital
4
99
0.984
2005
Social-ecological systems
5
72
0.991
2006
Dynamic systems theory
6
55
0.967
2006
Adaptive capacity
7
53
0.993
2004
Climate change
8
49
0.991
2007
Local knowledge
The modularity value and the silhouette value can be used to judge the effect of spectrogram drawing. The larger the silhouette, the more perfect the clustering. The mean silhouette value of clusters in Fig. 9 is 0.9545, and all the silhouette values of each part are above 0.7, suggesting high network reliability [65]. Additionally, Modularity can measure the structural characteristics of the overall clustering network. The modularity of the clustering is 0.8961in Fig. 9, indicating the fitting effect is preferable [65]. Upon integrating the clustered content, the intellectual foundations of adaptive governance were classified into seven categories: the evolution of adaptive governance knowledge, social capital mechanisms, social-ecological systems, dynamic systems theory, climate change, and local knowledge [63].
Research hotspots of adaptive governance
Keywords provide a high-level overview of research papers, and analyzing keywords in a particular field can identify research hotspots [47]. Table 9 presents only the top 30 high-frequency keywords due to length limitations. It was found that the top 10 high-frequency keywords are governance, management, climate change, adaptive governance, resilience, adaptive capacity, framework, adaptation, policy, and adaptive management. The top 50 high-frequency keywords were extracted to form clusters, as illustrated in Fig. 10. The clustering is perfect, with the average modularity and silhouette values of the clustering depicted in Fig. 10 being 0.8508 and 0.9537, respectively. Finally, five hotspots were derived by summarizing all clusters identified by CiteSpace, and detailed analyses are as follows:
Table 9. Top 30 keywords with frequency
Rank | Keywords | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
1 | Governance | 958 |
2 | Management | 803 |
3 | Climate change | 698 |
4 | Adaptive governance | 578 |
5 | Resilience | 535 |
6 | Adaptive capacity | 433 |
7 | Framework | 414 |
8 | Adaptation | 392 |
9 | Policy | 326 |
10 | Adaptive management | 298 |
11 | Vulnerability | 286 |
12 | Conservation | 272 |
13 | Systems | 255 |
14 | Sustainability | 234 |
15 | Science | 219 |
16 | Knowledge | 201 |
17 | Challenges | 195 |
18 | Ecosystem services | 183 |
19 | Adaptive comanagement | 176 |
20 | Climate Change adaptation | 171 |
21 | Comanagement | 166 |
22 | Lessons | 153 |
23 | Social-Ecological Systems | 153 |
24 | Capacity | 150 |
25 | Community | 147 |
26 | Social Ecological Systems | 146 |
27 | Impacts | 137 |
28 | Water Governance | 137 |
29 | Participation | 137 |
30 | Politics | 126 |
Fig. 10 [Images not available. See PDF.]
The cluster network mapping of high-frequency keywords
Topic one: the concept of adaptive governance (cluster zero and cluster three)
Despite the popularity of adaptive governance, the distinction between its concept and its neighboring concepts is not yet clear enough. However, some scholars mistakenly conflate adaptive governance with adaptive management, adaptive co-management, and adaptive institutions [85, 86]. There are varying interpretations and definitions of adaptive governance across different fields. However, establishing a clear definition and differentiation of these concepts to reach a consensus remains a pressing issue for researchers in adaptive governance. Consequently, numerous scholars have turned their attention to untangling the concept of adaptive governance and its related concepts. According to Hasselman different epistemologies and the resulting interpretations of uncertainty are central to the confusion surrounding the concept of adaptive governance [86]. In terms of its links to neighboring concepts, adaptive governance is closely related to resilience, collaborative governance, and participatory decision-making. These concepts often intersect and influence one another in practice. Empirically, adaptive governance has delivered positive outcomes in various contexts, such as natural resource management [87, 88], disaster governance [89], risk governance [90] and climate change adaptation [91]. It has been shown to enhance the ability of decision-makers to address complex and uncertain challenges [92]. Practical policy and governance recommendations stemming from adaptive governance include fostering collaboration between different stakeholders [93], building social capital [94, 95], and enhancing the capacity for learning and innovation within governance structures [91, 96].
Topic two: environmental governance (cluster one, cluster two and cluster seven).
Luhmann considered system-environment relations to be precarious, while the recurrent ecological crisis shows the problems of environmental sustainability [97]. It is increasingly recognized that environmental problems around the world are not only a result of inadequate management but also a failure of governance [78]. Due to the rapidly changing environment, it is difficult for a top-down, state-orientated governance system to be fully effective in addressing the problems of environmental governance characterized by uncertainty, complexity and across large-scale ecosystems that cross multiple jurisdiction boundaries [98,99]. As a response to dramatic environmental changes, adaptive governance is frequently advocated as a solution [1]. Adaptive governance challenges the traditional environmental governance knowledge and common sense of centralized governance, top-down directive and state-based governance. The attributes of adaptive governance include a variety (hierarchical, networks), institutional nesting (complex, redundant, layered) and analytical deliberation [100]. Adaptive governance has significantly contributed to environmental governance debates by highlighting the importance of flexibility, stakeholder inclusivity, polycentric governance structures, iterative learning processes, and resilience. Namely, adaptive governance brings together formal and informal institutions to address the uncertainty and complexity associated with vital environmental challenges, such as transboundary pollution and tropical deforestation [16, 101]. However, critics have identified some limitations in adaptive governance. They argue that the approach's embrace of uncertainty and the need to synthesize complexities is too theoretical to be effectively implemented in practice. In reality, stakeholders and practitioners must grapple with the often ambiguous and always complex requirements of adaptive governance. Therefore, the researcher focuses on operationalizing adaptive governance in environmental governance and emphasizes the necessity for further research on cross-institutional learning, ranging from local to international levels [102]. Over the past two decades, researchers engaged in the study of complex environmental governance issues have gradually refined the theory of adaptive governance and presented evidence of successful adaptive governance practices in numerous case studies. As a result, environmental governance has emerged as a prominent research topic within the field of adaptive governance.
Topic three: social-ecological systems (cluster four and cluster six)
Researchers have used the concepts of coupled socioecological systems [103] and ecosocial systems [104] to illustrate the interactions between societies and ecosystems, but the use of either social or ecological as a prefix can lead to misinterpretation by decreasing their weight in the analytical process. Consequently, Berkes and Folke (1998) introduced the term 'socio-ecological' systems to emphasize the integration and interdependence of humans and nature [105]. Dietz et al. describe the need for ‘adaptive’ governance of socio-ecological systems, pointing out that our understanding of any system can be wrong and incomplete, and that the governance required may change as biophysical and social system components change [15]. In theory, adaptive governance posits that the higher the level of adaptiveness of the governance system to the functioning and changes in the socio-ecological system, the greater the likelihood of achieving sustainable development goals [106].
The boundaries of socio-ecological systems are not fixed or easily delineated due to the complex and interdependent nature of these systems. Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom advanced the view that social-ecological complexity should be embraced and developed a framework for social-ecological systems to facilitate a deeper understanding of the factors that contribute to the success or failure of different social-ecological systems contexts [107]. The analytical framework developed by Elinor Ostrom and others is often used to study the effects and outcomes of natural resource governance in various social-ecological systems. A common criticism of Ostrom's framework is that it fails to account for power dynamics and historical influences [108]. However, the widespread use of the Ostrom framework has facilitated extensive comparisons of various social-ecological systems, thereby opening up avenues for subsequent improvements. These comparisons have yielded a wealth of knowledge on the adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
In recent years, the concept of adaptive governance for social-ecological systems has attracted increasing scientific and policy interest [22]. A key strength of adaptive governance is its ability to provide a theoretical framework for research that integrates the analysis of new governance capacities, including adaptive capacity, collaboration, scalability, knowledge, and learning. For instance, Folke et al. identified four key features that are essential for the implementation of adaptive governance in social-ecological systems [18]. Huber-Stearns and Cheng studied the changing role of government in the context of adaptive governance for freshwater social-ecological systems [109]. Tuda et al. argue that promoting adaptive governance for transboundary marine ecosystem services requires creating policy frameworks that enable cross-sectoral integration and provide opportunities to collaborate among stakeholders [110]. The existence of various social-ecological systems is a ubiquitous phenomenon, occurring wherever human communities and large-scale activities are present. Consequently, the scope of research on adaptive socio-ecological governance is extremely broad, to achieve the goal of sustainable development.
Topic four: climate change adaptation (cluster five and cluster eight)
Climate change presents a widespread challenge facing human society, with uncertain but potentially severe consequences affecting natural and human systems, across generations. Climate change adaptation is implemented to mitigate the detrimental impact of climate change [111]. In the climate context, adaptations is defined as the "adjustments in individual groups and institutional behavior to reduce society's vulnerability to climate" [112]. The concept of adaptation implies the capacity to overcome stress and respond to change, as well as the ability to transform social-ecological systems into improved states [18]. In this treatment of the term, “adaptation” can be distinguished from “adaptive” features that allow societies to function within their environments [113]. Adaptive capacity is defined as the ability of a system to adjust to climate change, mitigate potential damages, benefit from opportunities, or cope with consequences [114]. Adaptive capacity can be categorized into four factors: flexibility and diversity, organizational capacity, learning and knowledge, and access to assets [115]. Adaptive capacity is closely related to other concepts, including resilience, adaptability, management capacity, coping ability, flexibility and stability. As the impacts of climate change become more apparent and urgent, researchers are dedicated to understanding how governance systems can effectively address and adapt to these changes. The concept of adaptive governance has proven useful in devising strategies to cope with climate change-related transformations [116]. Given that uncertainty is an inherent feature of climate change, adaptive governance is considered an important approach to improving climate change adaptation. Furthermore, Climate change adaptation benefits from flexible decision-making approaches that can be linked to key principles of adaptive governance. Munaretto et al. proposed a framework that integrates key features of adaptive governance into a participatory multi-criteria approach to climate adaptation governance [92]. Huh et al. explored the approach to multilateral governance for adapting to climate change in Korea and found that it is characterized by both vertical and horizontal adaptation governance principles [117]. Vella et al. propose a more systematic scaling up of governance and planning to facilitate the meeting of multilevel climate change adaptation needs [118]. Sauer, et al. identified the barriers and enablers of adaptive governance using social network analysis combined with qualitative information [119]. Adaptive governance responds to systemic, wicked, complex climate change by enhancing adaptive capacity and social learning [120]. An adaptive governance system that responds to climate change would include elements of an adaptive management system that monitors and assesses the impact of development decisions; forms of adaptive co-management in the rationing of resources; and anticipatory governance mechanisms that use scenario planning to develop adaptation strategies and assess whether current policies will be sufficient in the changing climate of the future [120]. A substantial corpus of research exists on the subject of adaptive governance in the context of climate change adaptation. This field of study has emerged as a significant area of interest within adaptive governance.
Topic five: social learning (cluster nine)
Social learning has been defined as "achieving concerted action in complex and uncertain situations" [121]. Definitions of the concept of social learning in the existing literature are often ambiguous, and some are so broad that they could cover almost any social process. In the context of adaptive governance processes, social learning can be conceptualized as a cyclic and iterative process in which individuals and collectives learn through social interactions with others, both online and offline [122–124].
Social learning is at the heart of solving environmental problems that arise in repeated iterations. Social learning plays a critical role in adaptive governance as it serves as an indicator of adaptive capacity [125, 126]. Social learning enhances resilience by providing access to knowledge negotiation and knowledge sharing [78, 127, 128], meanwhile, learning during emergencies can lead to innovation [129, 130]. Due to its significance in fostering adaptive governance, social learning has become a focal point in adaptive governance research. Learning initially proposed by Argyris and Schön, has evolved into different forms, including single-loop learning, double-loop learning, and triple-loop learning [32, 131]. Single-loop learning focuses on making adjustments based on mistakes and improving routine practices. Double-loop learning involves examining the underlying assumptions behind actions in response to a crisis. Triple-loop learning involves challenging and changing the fundamental values and norms that guide action. Triple-loop learning has the potential to induce a paradigm shift in disaster management, thereby changing the overall approach, strategy and practical actions of disaster management [132].
Scholars have long recognized the significant role of social learning in adaptive governance [78, 133]. Researchers have employed a variety of metaphors to elucidate the concept of social learning, and have identified a multitude of roles and functions of social learning in adaptive governance [134]. Previous studies have primarily examined the role through which various forms of social learning contribute to adaptive governance and the development of system resilience [32, 78, 135]. Moreover, researchers have increasingly emphasized the importance of institutionalizing social learning, arguing that it serves as a pathway to successful adaptive governance [136].
Discussion
As one of the most widely used theories in the field of environmental governance and social ecology, adaptive governance has attracted the attention of an increasing number of researchers and practitioners [137, 138], there is a high probability that the number of adaptive governance papers will continue to grow in the future. For gaining a deeper understanding of the current state and trends of research in the field of adaptive governance, scientometric techniques such as co-author analysis, co-word analysis, co-citation analysis, and cluster analysis were used to provide an overview of adaptive governance.
General information
The research on adaptive governance has predominantly been conducted in developed countries/regions. Leading the field are countries such as the USA, Australia, England, Canada, the Netherlands, and Sweden. This indicates a deficiency in the existing literature on adaptive governance in the Global South. Moreover, the potential of adaptive governance for environmental governance in the Global South has yet to be fully realized. Adaptive governance is rooted in the developed economies of the world, and researchers inevitably question its suitability for other economic and socio-political environments [22]. Bridging this gap presents a valuable opportunity to apply the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of adaptive governance developed in developed countries to research conducted in developing countries. The socio-economic-political aspects of the Global North are different from those of the Global South, which means that adaptive governance requires modifying frameworks in terms of policies, technologies and solutions in line with the Global South [139].
Based on the findings, it is evident that universities are at the forefront of studies on adaptive governance, yet there is a significant gap in the form of deeper engagement with industry and governmental organizations. Adaptive governance emphasizes the involvement and collaboration of scientific research, government, industry and multiple stakeholders in a continuous problem-solving process [6, 7, 140]. In the realm of future research on adaptive governance, it is crucial to enhance collaboration among industry, academia, and government organizations, which can ensure that our research outcomes are not only more targeted but also highly practical. Moreover, such an interdisciplinary approach can stimulate a broader spectrum of research interests within the field. For instance, integrating adaptive governance with digital technology could pave the way for innovative and groundbreaking research outcomes.
Research bases and hotspots
This study explores the research bases and hotspots in the adaptive governance area, focusing on two aspects: Literature co-citation analysis and keyword co-occurrence analysis.
Through the analysis of cited literature and clusters, this study has revealed that "adaptive governance", "adaptive management", "adaptive co-management", "social capital", "social-ecological systems", "dynamic systems theory", "adaptive capacity", "climate change", "local knowledge" are the research bases in the adaptive governance research field. Within the adaptive governance research field, adaptive governance systematically integrates adaptive management into political processes. Meanwhile, adaptive co-management has been interchangeably used to define adaptive governance, forming a core foundation for research [86]. The three concepts of "Adaptive governance", "adaptive management" and "adaptive co-management" collectively comprise the fundamental principles of adaptive governance research. Further, adaptive governance is seen as a pathway to achieving the desired end goal of adaptive capacity, gaining widespread support for its responsiveness to climate change adaptation and complex ecological systems [141, 142]. Consequently, "social-ecological systems", "dynamic systems theory", "adaptive capacity" and “climate change" contribute significantly to the research on adaptive governance. In addition, in social–ecological systems, where local users and managers hold crucial knowledge, building social capital becomes a defining characteristic or key method of adaptive governance [4, 143]. Thus, "local knowledge" and "social capital" emerge as integral components of the foundation of adaptive governance research.
The co-occurrence analysis of keywords can help grasp quickly the research hotspots of a specific research field [144, 145]. Based on the results of the co-occurrence analysis of keywords, five main research topics in the field of adaptive governance were identified, including the concept of adaptive governance, environmental governance, social-ecological systems, climate change adaptation and social learning. We found that the research bases and research hotspots of adaptive governance are somewhat similar and highly interrelated. This suggests that themes related to the connotations of adaptive governance, environmental governance, social-ecological systems, climate change adaptation and social learning have received sustained attention from scholars. The ultimate goal of adaptive governance is to build resilience in a desirable regime [146]. To foster resilient communities, cities and societies, as well as sustainable global development, these topics above in the field of adaptive governance will receive long-lasting attention and research in the future.
In addition, empirical research on the contribution of social learning to adaptive governance and resilience remains limited [32, 147]. Conceptual and methodological research on social learning and its relationship to adaptive governance has progressed sufficiently to facilitate detailed empirical research. This should concentrate on how attempts at social learning can be made more effective, for example, through the utilisation of digital technologies to facilitate the learning process. Moreover, scholars' research on adaptive governance evaluation is more limited and has not yet become a hotspot of adaptive governance research. To achieve effective adaptive governance, assessment of processes and outcomes needs to be seen as a core element [14]. Future research should strengthen the study of the adaptive governance evaluation, which is the key to monitoring, learning and improvement in the adaptive governance process. Of course, because adaptive governance embraces uncertainty, it is challenging to accurately assess the process and outcomes of adaptive governance.
This study intuitively provides a more comprehensive and holistic knowledge map to enhance the existing adaptive governance knowledge system, some limitations have been considered. Firstly, our findings are constrained by the only use of the Web of Science core collection database, thus some data that is not in this database may has been missed. Secondly, this paper does not incorporate grey literature on adaptive governance, in particular relevant local case studies, local knowledge systems and governance approaches to adaptive governance. Additionally, our analysis only considered documents written in English. Despite the extensive collection, screening and analysis of formal publications such as academic journals and conference papers, it is difficult to avoid omitting some relevant literature that has been published in informal literature or has not been widely cited. Consequently, caution has been maintained in summarising general trends in the field of adaptive governance over the past two decades. It is worth noting that despite these limitations, this paper can provide an initial overview of the achievements and developments in adaptive governance over the past 20 years by analyzing and summarising the existing literature and identifying important themes and trends, highlight issues that have not yet been explored in depth in the body of knowledge in the field.
Conclusion
In this study, we conducted a scientometric analysis to provide helpful insights into adaptive governance research based on data from 3274 literature sources retrieved from the WOS core collection from 2003 to 2022.
The results showed that the research on adaptive governance had grown linearly during the last two decades, especially with the advancement of the research on the socio-ecological theory and resilience theory. Moreover, developed countries, including the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and others, have exerted a considerable influence on the evolution of the field of adaptive governance, making notable contributions. The examination of the potential contribution of adaptive governance to the achievement of the sustainable development goals of the global South will be an important research topic in the future, particularly concerning poverty reduction, disaster mitigation and environmental sustainability.
The results also provided valuable information on the scientific output, core authors, significant institutions, high-impact journals, research cooperation networks, intellectual base, high frequency keywords, research topics, emerging trends and citations of the research on adaptive governance, which can enable scholars to understand the current status and trends of impactful research carried out by researchers, research institutes, and countries in the field.
In addition, the literature on adaptive governance concentrated on environmental studies, environmental sciences, and ecology, which was proved by the most cited papers. Knowledge from multidisciplinary fields contributes to the development of adaptive governance research. Exploring how big data analytics and digital technologies can facilitate evidence-based decision-making processes within an adaptive governance framework may also be a future research direction, that enables policymakers to use real-time data to develop and implement informed adaptive governance policies.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the editor and three reviewers for their helpful comments on the article.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, G.Z; Methodology, G.Z, X.H; Formal analysis, G.Z, X.H; Data curation, G.Z; Writing—original draft preparation, G.Z; Writing—review and editing, X.H, Y.L, Y.Z; visualization, G.Z; Perfect chart, X.H; supervision, Y.L and Y.Z.
Funding
This work was supported by the Key Project of China Ministry of Education for Philosophy and Social Science under Big Data Driven Risk Research on City’s Public Safety [Grant No. 16JZD023]; National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 21&ZD163).
Data availability
The datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethics approval and consent to participate do not apply to this research.
Consent for publication
All authors consent to publish this article in Discover Sustainability.
Competing interests
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. van Assche, K; Valentinov, V; Verschraegen, G. Adaptive governance learning from what organizations do and managing the role they play. Kybernetes; 2022; 51,
2. Dunning, KH. Adaptive governance of recreational ecosystem services following a major hurricane. Ecosyst Serv; 2021; 50, 101324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101324]
3. Plummer R, Armitage DR, de Loë RC. Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecol Soc. 2013; 18(1).
4. Sharma-Wallace, L; Velarde, SJ; Wreford, A. Adaptive governance good practice: show me the evidence!. J Environ Manage; 2018; 222, pp. 174-184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.067]
5. Cheng, Z; Yan, S; Song, T; Cheng, L; Wang, HM. Adaptive water governance research in social sciences journals: a bibliometric analysis. Water Policy; 2022; 24,
6. Zhang, Q. Land use and adaptive governance under climate change: analysis of four cases in pastoral areas of China. Front Environ Sci; 2023; 11, 922417. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.922417]
7. Plummer, R; Armitage, D. A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecol Econ; 2007; 61,
8. Li, ZZ; Guo, YQ; Yarime, M; Wu, X. Policy designs for adaptive governance of disruptive technologies: the case of facial recognition technology (Frt) in China. Policy Design Pract; 2023; 6,
9. Roux, DJ; Taplin, M; Smit, IPJ; Novellie, P; Russell, I; Nel, JL; Freitag, S; Rosenberg, E. Co-producing narratives and indicators as catalysts for adaptive governance of a common-pool resource within a protected area. Environ Manage; 2023; 72,
10. Walch, C. Adaptive governance in the developing world: disaster risk reduction in the state of Odisha, India. Clim Dev; 2019; 11,
11. Van Assche, K; Verschraegen, G; Valentinov, V; Gruezmacher, M. The social, the ecological, and the adaptive. Von Bertalanffy's General systems theory and the adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Syst Res Behav Sci; 2019; 36,
12. Chaffin, BC; Gunderson, LH. Emergence, institutionalization and renewal: rhythms of adaptive governance in complex social-ecological systems. J Environ Manage; 2016; 165, pp. 81-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.003]
13. Chomba, MJ; Hill, T; Nkhata, BA. Relational capital and connectedness in adaptive governance processes: a case study of the Kafue Flats, Zambia. Soc Nat Resour; 2021; 34,
14. Onzivu, W. Rethinking transnational environmental health governance in Africa: can adaptive governance help?. Rev Eur Comparative Int Environ Law; 2016; 25,
15. Dietz, T; Ostrom, E; Stern, PC. The struggle to govern the commons. Science; 2003; 302,
16. Chaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA. A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecol Soc. 2014; 19(3).
17. Walker B, Hollin CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 2004;9(2).
18. Folke, C; Hahn, T; Olsson, P; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour; 2005; 30, pp. 441-473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511]
19. Folke, C. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environ Change-Human Policy Dimensions; 2006; 16,
20. Wyborn, C; Dovers, S. Prescribing adaptiveness in agencies of the state. Global Environ Change-Human Policy Dimensions; 2014; 24, pp. 5-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.020]
21. Folke, C. Social-ecological systems and adaptive governance of the commons. Ecol Res; 2007; 22,
22. Karpouzoglou, T; Dewulf, A; Clark, J. Advancing adaptive governance of social-ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity. Environ Sci Policy; 2016; 57, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.011]
23. Fransen J, Hati B, Simon HK, van Stapele N. Adaptive governance by community based organisations: community resilience initiatives during Covid-19 in Mathare, Nairobi. Sustain Dev. 2023.
24. Cosens BA, Williams MK. Resilience and water governance: adaptive governance in the Columbia River Basin. Ecol Soc 2012;17(4).
25. Cook, DC; Liu, SG; Murphy, B; Lonsdale, WM. Adaptive approaches to biosecurity governance. Risk Anal; 2010; 30,
26. Pereira, LM; Ruysenaar, S. Moving from traditional government to new adaptive governance: the changing face of food security responses in South Africa. Food Secur; 2012; 4,
27. Djalante, R; Holley, C; Thomalla, F; Carnegie, M. Pathways for adaptive and integrated disaster resilience. Nat Hazards; 2013; 69,
28. Cosens BA, Craig RK, Hirsch SL, Arnold CA, Benson MH, DeCaro DA, Garmestani AS, Gosnell H, Ruhl JB, Schlager E. The role of law in adaptive governance. Ecol Soc 2017;22(1).
29. Hong, S; Lee, S. Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others. Gov Inf Q; 2018; 35,
30. Mas-Tur, A; Roig-Tierno, N; Ribeiro-Navarrete, B. Successful entrepreneurial learning: success factors of adaptive governance of the commons. Knowl Manag Res Pract; 2021; 19,
31. Li ZZ, Guo YQ, Yarime M, Wu X. Policy designs for adaptive governance of disruptive technologies: the case of facial recognition technology (Frt) in China. Policy Design Pract. 2022.
32. Choudhury, MUI; Haque, CE; Doberstein, B. Adaptive governance and community resilience to cyclones in coastal Bangladesh: addressing the problem of fit, social learning, and institutional collaboration. Environ Sci Policy; 2021; 124, pp. 580-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.007]
33. Nolte IM, Lindenmeier J. Creeping crises and public administration: a time for adaptive governance strategies and cross-sectoral collaboration?. Public Manage Rev. 2023.
34. Lang, A; Cooney, R. Taking uncertainty seriously: adaptive governance and international trade: a rejoinder to Monica Garcia-Salmones. Eur J Int Law; 2009; 20,
35. McIlwain L, Holzer JM, Baird J, Baldwin CL. Power research in adaptive water governance and beyond: a review. Ecol Soc. 2023; 28(2).
36. Cvitanovic, C; Hobday, AJ; van Kerkhoff, L; Wilson, SK; Dobbs, K; Marshall, NA. Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decisionmakers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manage; 2015; 112, pp. 25-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.002]
37. Pan, X; Yan, E; Cui, M; Hua, W. Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: a comparative study of three tools. J Informet; 2018; 12, pp. 481-493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.005]
38. Raffaella, T; Simboli, A; Di Vincenzo, F; Ioppolo, G. A bibliometric and network analysis of lean and clean (Er) production research (1990/2017). Sci Total Environ; 2019; 653, pp. 765-775. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.412]
39. Haddaway, NR; Woodcock, P; Macura, B; Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv Biol; 2015; 29,
40. Palmatier, RW; Houston, MB; Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J Acad Mark Sci; 2018; 46,
41. Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res; 2019; 104, pp. 333-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039]
42. Herman, A; Pierce, CA; Bosco, FA; Dalton, DR; Dalton, CM. Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organiz Res Methods; 2011; 14, pp. 306-331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428110375720]
43. Combs, JG; Ketchen, DJ; Crook, TR; Roth, PL. Assessing cumulative evidence within 'macro' research: why meta-analysis should be preferred over vote counting. J Manage Stud; 2011; 48,
44. Raisig, LM. Statistical bibliography in the health sciences. Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1962; 50, pp. 450-461.[COI: 1:STN:280:DyaF38%2FptFGjuw%3D%3D]
45. MacCoun, RJ. Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annu Rev Psychol; 1998; 49, pp. 259-287.[COI: 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2c7isVahsg%3D%3D] [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259]
46. Öztürk O, Kocaman R, Kanbach DK. How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal. Rev Manage Sci. 2024.
47. Yang, FQ; Lin, ZY; Qiu, DY. Analysis on visualization of urban public safety based on citespace. J Fuzhou Univ; 2021; 49, pp. 121-127.
48. van Nunen, K; Li, J; Reniers, G; Ponnet, K. Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Saf Sci; 2018; 108, pp. 248-258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.011]
49. Fahimnia, B; Sarkis, J; Davarzani, H. Green supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Prod Econ; 2015; 162, pp. 101-114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003]
50. Gaviria-Marin, M; Merigó, JM; Baier-Fuentes, H. Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang; 2019; 140, pp. 194-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.006]
51. Bonilla-Chaves, EF; Palos-Sanchez, PR. Exploring the evolution of human resource analytics: a bibliometric study. Behav Sci; 2023; 13,
52. Martín-Martín, A; Orduna-Malea, E; Thelwall, M; López-Cózar, ED. Google scholar, web of science, and scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J Informet; 2018; 12,
53. Falagas, ME; Pitsouni, EI; Malietzis, GA; Pappas, G. Comparison of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J; 2008; 22,
54. Liu, Y; Li, Q; Li, W; Zhang, Y; Pei, X. Progress in urban resilience research and hotspot analysis: a global scientometric visualization analysis using citespace. Environ Sci Pollut Res; 2022; 29,
55. Michael, A; Kusleika, R. Excel 2016 formulas; 2016; New York, Wiley:
56. Chen C. Citespace: a practical guide for mapping scientific literature. Nova Science Publishers Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2016.
57. McAllister, JT; Lennertz, L; Mojica, ZA. Mapping a discipline: a guide to using vosviewer for bibliometric and visual analysis. Sci Technol Lib; 2022; 41, pp. 319-348.
58. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media 2009.
59. Hassan-Montero Y, De-Moya-Anegón F, Guerrero-Bote VP. Scimago Graphica: a new tool for exploring and visually communicating data. Profesional de la información/Information Professional 2022;31.
60. Chen, C. Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J Data Inf Sci; 2017; 2, pp. 1-40.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC1cXhtFeis7nO]
61. Katz, JS; Martin, BR. What is research collaboration?. Res Policy; 1997; 26, pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1]
62. Freeman LC. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry. 1977: 35–41.
63. Yang QY, Yang D, Li P, Liang SL, Zhang ZH. A bibliometric and visual analysis of global community resilience research. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(20).
64. Hirsch, JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Nat Acad Sci; 2005; 102, pp. 16569-16572.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXht1Kgs7fL] [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102]
65. Chen, CM; Dubin, R; Kim, MC. Emerging trends and new developments in regenerative medicine: a scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opin Biol Ther; 2014; 14,
66. Guo YM, Huang ZL, Guo J, Li H, Guo XR, Nkeli MJ. Bibliometric analysis on smart cities research. Sustainability 2019; 11(13).
67. Hair, JF; Risher, JJ; Sarstedt, M; Ringle, CM. When to use and how to report the results of pls-sem. Eur Bus Rev; 2019; 31, pp. 2-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203]
68. Zhang YQ, You XL, Huang SJ, Wang MH, Dong JW. Knowledge atlas on the relationship between water management and constructed wetlands-a bibliometric analysis based on citespace. Sustainability 2022;14(14)
69. Li, Y; Xu, ZS. A bibliometric analysis and basic model introduction of opinion dynamics. Appl Intell; 2023; 53,
70. Maia, SC; de Benedicto, GC; DoPrado, JW; Robb, DA; Bispo, OND; de Brito, MJ. Mapping the Literature on Credit Unions: A Bibliometric Investigation Grounded in Scopus and Web of Science. Scientometrics; 2019; 120,
71. Liu, H; Hong, R; Xiang, CL; Lv, C; Li, HH. Visualization and analysis of mapping knowledge domains for spontaneous combustion studies. Fuel; 2020; 262, 116598.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC1MXitFKqs7rO] [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116598]
72. Zhong, MH; Lin, MW. Bibliometric analysis for economy in Covid-19 pandemic. Heliyon; 2022; 8,
73. Web of Science Research Areas. Clarivate, https://incites.help.clarivate.com/Content/Research-Areas/wos-research-areas.htm.
74. Trujillo CM, Long TM. Document co-citation analysis to enhance transdisciplinary research. Sci Adv. 2018; 4(1).
75. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science; 2009; 325,
76. Small, H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci; 1973; 24, pp. 265-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406]
77. Li GL, Yin W, Yang YY, Yang HY, Chen YY, Liang YM, Zhang WR, Xie TT. Bibliometric insights of global research landscape in mitophagy. Front Mol Biosci. 2022; 9.
78. Pahl-Wostl, C. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environ Change-Human Policy Dimen; 2009; 19,
79. Berkes, F. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage; 2009; 90,
80. Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W, Moellenkamp S, Pahl-Wostl C, Yalcin R. Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol Soc. 2009;14(1).
81. Armitage, DR; Plummer, R; Berkes, F; Arthur, RI; Charles, AT; Davidson-Hunt, IJ; Diduck, AP; Doubleday, NC; Johnson, DS; Marschke, M; McConney, P; Pinkerton, EW; Wollenberg, EK. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ; 2009; 7,
82. Walker B, Salt D. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, 2012.
83. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 2006;11(1).
84. Gupta, J; Termeer, C; Klostermann, J; Meijerink, S; van den Brink, M; Jong, P; Nooteboom, S; Bergsma, E. The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environ Sci Policy; 2010; 13,
85. Koontz, TM; Gupta, D; Mudliar, P; Ranjan, P. Adaptive institutions in social-ecological systems governance: a synthesis framework. Environ Sci Policy; 2015; 53, pp. 139-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.003]
86. Hasselman, L. Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: what’s the difference?. Austral J Environ Manage; 2017; 24,
87. Gunderson, LH; Cosens, B; Garmestani, AS. Adaptive governance of riverine and wetland ecosystem goods and services. J Environ Manage; 2016; 183, pp. 353-360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.024]
88. Cody, KC; Smith, SM; Cox, M; Andersson, K. Emergence of collective action in a groundwater commons: irrigators in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. Soc Nat Resour; 2015; 28,
89. Skrimizea, E; Bakema, M; McCann, P; Parra, C. Disaster governance and institutional dynamics in times of social-ecological change: insights from New Zealand, the Netherlands and Greece. Appl Geogr; 2021; 136, 102578. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102578]
90. Molenveld, A; van Buuren, A. Flood risk and resilience in the netherlands: in search of an adaptive governance approach. Water; 2019; 11,
91. Akamani, K. The roles of adaptive water governance in enhancing the transition towards ecosystem-based adaptation. Water; 2023; 15,
92. Munaretto S, Siciliano G, Turvani ME. Integrating adaptive governance and participatory multicriteria methods: a framework for climate adaptation governance. Ecol Soc. 201419(2).
93. Porras, GL; Stringer, LC; Quinn, CH. Unravelling stakeholder perceptions to enable adaptive water governance in dryland systems. Water Resour Manage; 2018; 32,
94. McDougall C, Banjade MR. Social capital, conflict, and adaptive collaborative governance: exploring the dialectic. Ecol Soc 2015; 20(1).
95. Chai, Y; Zeng, YM. Social capital, institutional change, and adaptive governance of the 50-year-old wang hilltop pond irrigation system in Guangdong, China. Int J Commons; 2018; 12,
96. Cooper, SJ; Wheeler, T. Adaptive governance: livelihood innovation for climate resilience in Uganda. Geoforum; 2015; 65, pp. 96-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.07.015]
97. Luhmann, N. Ecological communication; 1989; Chicago, University of Chicago Press:
98. Cumming GS, Cumming DHM, Redman CL. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol Soc. 2006;11(1).
99. Lemos, MC; Agrawal, A. Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour; 2006; 31, pp. 297-325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621]
100. Dietz, T; Ostrom, E; Stern, PC. The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science; 2003; 302, pp. 1907-1912.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXps1amsLk%3D] [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015]
101. Schultz, L; Folke, C; Osterblom, H; Olsson, P. Adaptive Governance, Ecosystem Management, and Natural Capital. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA; 2015; 112,
102. Berkes, F. "Environmental Governance for the Anthropocene? Social-Ecological Systems, Resilience, and Collaborative Learning." Sustainability 9, no. 7 (2017).
103. Gallopín, GC; Funtowicz, S; O’Connor, M; Ravetz, J. Science for the twenty-first century: from social contract to the scientific core. Int Soc Sci J; 2001; 53, 219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00311]
104. Waltner-Toews, D; Kay, JJ; Neudoerffer, C; Gitau, T. Perspective changes everything: managing ecosystems from the inside out. Front Ecol Environ; 2003; 1, pp. 23-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0023:PCEMEF]2.0.CO;2]
105. Berkes, F; Folke, C; Colding, J. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience; 2000; Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:
106. Partelow S, Schlüter A, Armitage D, Bavinck M, Carlisle K, Gruby RL, Hornidge AK, Le Tissier M, Pittman JB, Song AM, Sousa LP, Vaidianu N, Van Assche K. Environmental governance theories: a review and application to coastal systems. Ecol Soc. 2020; 25(4).
107. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science; 2009; 325, pp. 419-422.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXovVCht7k%3D] [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133]
108. Klain SC, Beveridge R, Bennett NJ. Ecologically sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority in common-pool marine resource management. Ecol Soc. 2014;19(4).
109. Huber-Stearns, HR; Cheng, AS. The evolving role of government in the adaptive governance of freshwater social-ecological systems in the Western Us. Environ Sci Policy; 2017; 77, pp. 40-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.011]
110. Tuda, AO; Kark, S; Newton, A. Polycentricity and adaptive governance of transboundary marine socio-ecological systems. Ocean Coast Manage.; 2021; 200, 105421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105412]
111. Ali, S; Liu, Y; Ishaq, M; Shah, T; Abdullah, AI; Din, IU. Climate change and its impact on the yield of major food crops: evidence from Pakistan. Foods; 2017; 6,
112. Pielke, RA. Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Global Environ Change; 1998; 8, pp. 159-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(98)00011-9]
113. Smit, B; Wandel, J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang; 2006; 16, pp. 282-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008]
114. Bakkour, D; Enjolras, G; Thouret, J-C; Kast, R; Mei, ETW; Prihatminingtyas, B. The adaptive governance of natural disaster systems: insights from the Mount Merapi eruption in Indonesia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct; 2010; 13,
115. Beauchamp, E; Moskeland, A; Milner-Gulland, EJ; Hirons, M; Ruli, B; Byg, A; Dougill, AJ; Jew, E; Keane, A; Malhi, Y; McNicol, I; Morel, AC; Whitfield, S; Morris, RJ. The role of quantitative cross-case analysis in understanding tropical smallholder farmers' adaptive capacity to climate shocks. Environ Res Lett; 2019; 14,
116. Brunner, R; Lynch, A. Adaptive governance and climate change; 2013; Cham, Springer Science & Business Media:
117. Huh, T; Park, Y; Yang, JY. Multilateral governance for climate change adaptation in S. Korea: the mechanisms of formulating adaptation policies. Sustainability; 2017; 9,
118. Vella, K; Butler, WH; Sipe, N; Chapin, T; Murley, J. Voluntary collaboration for adaptive governance: the southeast florida regional climate change compact. J Plan Educ Res; 2016; 36,
119. Sauer, IJ; Roca, E; Villares, M. Integrating climate change adaptation in coastal governance of the barcelona metropolitan area. Mitigat Adapt Strateg Global Change; 2021; 26,
120. Hurlbert, M; Gupta, J. Adaptive governance, uncertainty, and risk: policy framing and responses to climate change, drought, and flood. Risk Anal; 2016; 36,
121. Ison, R; Röling, N; Watson, D. Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environ Sci Policy; 2007; 10, pp. 499-511. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.008]
122. Galan, J; Galiana, F; Kotze, DJ; Lynch, K; Torreggiani, D; Pedroli, B. Landscape adaptation to climate change: local networks, social learning and co-creation processes for adaptive planning. Global Environ Change Human Policy Dimen; 2023; 78, 102627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102627]
123. Choudhury, MUI; Emdad Haque, C; Doberstein, B. Adaptive governance and community resilience to cyclones in coastal Bangladesh: addressing the problem of fit, social learning, and institutional collaboration. Environ Sci Policy; 2021; 124, pp. 580-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.007]
124. Moghimi Benhangi, S; Bagheri, A; Abolhassani, L; HamidiRazi, H. Assessing the learning capacity of water users—adoption a social learning framework. J Hydrol; 2020; 590, 125496. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125496]
125. Wilder, MO; Varady, RG; Gerlak, AK; Mumme, SP; Flessa, KW; Zuniga-Teran, AA; Scott, CA; Pablos, NP; Megdal, SB. Hydrodiplomacy and adaptive governance at the Us-Mexico border: 75 years of tradition and innovation in transboundary water management. Environ Sci Policy; 2020; 112, pp. 189-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.013]
126. Bullock, RCL; Diduck, A; Luedee, J; Zurba, M. Integrating social learning, adaptive capacity and climate adaptation for regional scale analysis: a conceptual framework. Environ Manage; 2022; 69,
127. Ostrom, E. Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev; 2010; 100,
128. Thomalla, F; Larsen, RK. Resilience in the context of tsunami early warning systems and community disaster preparedness in the Indian Ocean Region. Environ Hazards; 2010; 9, pp. 249-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2010.0051]
129. Comfort, LK; Kapucu, N. Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: the world trade center attacks. Nat Hazards; 2006; 39, pp. 309-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-0030-x]
130. Comfort, LK; Dunn, M; Johnson, D; Skertich, R; Zagorecki, A. Coordination in complex systems: increasing efficiency in disaster mitigation and response. Int J Emerg Manage; 2004; 2, pp. 62-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2004.005314]
131. Argyris C, Schön DA. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reis. 1997; 345–48.
132. Haque, CE; Doberstein, B. Adaptive governance and community resilience to cyclones in coastal Bangladesh: addressing the problem of fit, social learning, and institutional collaboration. Environ Sci Policy; 2021; 124, pp. 580-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.007]
133. Berkes, F. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat Hazards; 2007; 41,
134. Ison, R; Blackmore, C; Iaquinto, BL. Towards systemic and adaptive governance: exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors. Ecol Econ; 2013; 87, pp. 34-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.016]
135. Benhangi, SM; Bagheri, A; Abolhassani, L; Razi, HH. Assessing the learning capacity of water users—adoption a social learning framework. J Hydrol; 2020; 590, 12596.
136. Ison, RL; Collins, KB; Wallis, PJ. Institutionalising social learning: towards systemic and adaptive governance. Environ Sci Policy; 2015; 53, pp. 105-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.11.002]
137. Butchart, SHM; Walpole, M; Collen, B; van Strien, A; Scharlemann, JPW; Almond, REA; Baillie, JEM; Bomhard, B; Brown, C; Bruno, J; Carpenter, KE; Carr, GM; Chanson, J; Chenery, AM; Csirke, J; Davidson, NC; Dentener, F; Foster, M; Galli, A; Galloway, JN; Genovesi, P; Gregory, RD; Hockings, M; Kapos, V; Lamarque, JF; Leverington, F; Loh, J; McGeoch, MA; McRae, L; Minasyan, A; Morcillo, MH; Oldfield, TEE; Pauly, D; Quader, S; Revenga, C; Sauer, JR; Skolnik, B; Spear, D; Stanwell-Smith, D; Stuart, SN; Symes, A; Tierney, M; Tyrrell, TD; Vié, JC; Watson, R. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science; 2010; 328,
138. Gills, B; Morgan, J. Global climate emergency: after Cop24, climate science, urgency, and the threat to humanity. Globalizations; 2020; 17,
139. Munene, MB; Swartling, ÅG; Thomalla, F. Adaptive governance as a catalyst for transforming the relationship between development and disaster risk through the Sendai framework?". Int J Disaster Risk Reduct; 2018; 28, pp. 653-663. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.021]
140. Elbakidze, M, Angelstam PK, Sandström C, Axelsson R. Multi-stakeholder collaboration in Russian and Swedish model forest initiatives: adaptive governance toward sustainable forest management?" Ecol Soc. 2010; 15(2).
141. Cook J, Freeman S, Levine E, Hill M. Shifting course: climate adaptation for water management institutions. Shifting course: climate adaptation for water management institutions. 2010.
142. Gunderson, L; Light, SS. Adaptive management and adaptive governance in the everglades ecosystem. Policy Sci; 2006; 39,
143. Tengo, M; Brondizio, ES; Elmqvist, T; Malmer, P; Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio; 2014; 43,
144. Chen, C; Dubin, R; Kim, MC. Orphan drugs and rare diseases: a scientometric review (2000–2014). Expert Opin Orphan Drugs; 2014; 2, pp. 709-724. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1517/21678707.2014.920251]
145. Wu, HY; Tong, LJ; Wang, YL; Yan, H; Sun, ZM. Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on ultrasound microbubble: a quickly developing field. Front Pharmacol; 2021; 12, 646626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.646626]
146. Chaffin, BC; Garmestani, AS; Gunderson, LH; Benson, MH; Angeler, DG; Arnold, CA; Cosens, B; Craig, RK; Ruhl, JB; Allen, CR. Transformative environmental governance. Ann Rev Environ Resour; 2016; 41, pp. 399-423. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817]
147. de Kraker, J. Social learning for resilience in social-ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustainabil; 2017; 28, pp. 100-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.002]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© The Author(s) 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Adaptive governance has emerged as a prominent theoretical and methodological approach in environmental governance, recognized for its capacity to address evolving conditions and future uncertainties. Despite the extensive literature on adaptive governance since its inception in 2003, a comprehensive review of the literature spanning two decades remains to be conducted. This study addresses that gap by selecting 3274 articles from the Web of Science Core Collection and performing a global scientometric visualization analysis. Our analysis identifies the most productive institutions, authors, journals, publication trends, and research frontiers in adaptive governance research. The findings reveal that there has been a significant acceleration in global research on adaptive governance over the past two decades. Furthermore, the majority of contributions to the field of adaptive governance research have been made by scholars based in the United States, Australia, England, Canada, and the Netherlands. Additionally, existing studies in adaptive governance field focus mainly on subject categories of environmental studies, environmental sciences, and ecology. Finally, the concept of adaptive governance, environmental governance, social-ecological systems, climate change adaptation and social learning were identified as hot topics and emerging trends. This study provides researchers and practitioners with an extensive understanding of the salient research themes, trends, and patterns in global adaptive governance research in an intuitive manner.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Lanzhou University, Research Center for Emergency Management, School of Management, Lanzhou, China (GRID:grid.32566.34) (ISNI:0000 0000 8571 0482)
2 Lanzhou University, Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou, China (GRID:grid.32566.34) (ISNI:0000 0000 8571 0482); Lanzhou University, Centre for Evidence-Based Social Science/Center for Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Lanzhou, China (GRID:grid.32566.34) (ISNI:0000 0000 8571 0482)