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.

Given the complexity and the difficulty of controlling contributors effectively, road passenger transport often results in serious injuries and fatalities. The purpose of this study is to identify the main contributors to coach and bus accidents and to provide policy recommendations for making improvements in accident prevention. The Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method 3.0 (DREAM 3.0) was modified and used to analyze the contributing factors (i.e. phenotypes and genotypes in DREAM) and their casual mechanisms. By having statistical analysis and social network analysis (SNA) adopted, the main genotypes and phenotypes of the DREAM charts were identified. The results of the study showed that A2.1 (too high speed) was the key phenotype and the main genotypic process chain leading to the phenotype was “inadequate safety management → inadequate training → inadequate skills/knowledge → misjudgment of the situation → too high speed” on all types of road. For A2.1 (too high speed), C2 (misjudgment of the situation) was the dominant genotype, while N5 (inadequate safety management) was the root cause of most genotypes. This suggests that road passenger transport companies, as the responsible parties, often fail to implement or violate safety prevention and control systems. Government regulators should promote the policy system and incentivize them to fulfil their safety management responsibilities. The government should also educate the public and improve the road environment to reduce passenger-related risks and the impact of environmental factors on drivers.