ArticleAmbio2015
Science-policy processes for transboundary water governance.
Article in Ambio, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 141 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transboundary water conflicts, cooperation, and pathways forward.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Evolving together: transboundary water governance in the Colorado River Basin.International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics · 2021Article
- Flood Risk Management in Canada's Prairie Provinces: an Analysis of Decision-Maker Priorities and Policy Preferences.Environmental management · 2019Article
- Co-Producing Interdisciplinary Knowledge and Action for Sustainable Water Governance: Lessons from the Development of a Water Resources Decision Support System in Pernambuco, Brazil.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2019Article
- Governing in the Anthropocene: are there cyber-systemic antidotes to the malaise of modern governance?Sustainability science · 2018Article
- Exploring Institutional Mechanisms for Scientific Input into the Management Cycle of the National Protected Area Network of Peru: Gaps and Opportunities.Environmental management · 2017Article
- Integrative Governance of Environmental Water in Australia's Murray-Darling Basin: Evolving Challenges and Emerging Pathways.Environmental management · 2017Article
- Ocean Research Priorities: Similarities and Differences among Scientists, Policymakers, and Fishermen in the United States.Bioscience · 2017Article
- Assessing the sustainability of freshwater systems: A critical review of composite indicators.Ambio · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science-policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science-policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.