Polycentric governance (PG) describes governance systems characterized by multiple, interdependent centers of decision‐making, offering an alternative to centralized governance models. PG is often assumed to be effective at helping policy actors address complex collective action problems, but burgeoning empirical literature on PG shows that it is not a panacea – PG is associated with both positive and negative governance outcomes. In this article, we ask: what do we know about why PG performs well in some cases but not in others? We start with a systematic review, synthesizing findings that provide empirical support for positive and negative features that are theorized to accompany PG. Our review reveals a critical gap in relation to our understanding of PG: the existing empirical literature largely fails to address change and evolution over time in PG systems, undermining our understanding of why PG works – or does not– across different contexts and over time. To fill this gap, we propose a “Context – Operations – Outcomes – Feedbacks” (COOF) framework that draws explicit attention to the interplay between context, operational arrangements, outcomes and identifies feedback pathways and adjustment mechanisms that drive dynamic change and evolution over time.

“Action situations”—events, venues, or physically interdependent instances of decision-making—have become a central unit of analysis in the social–environmental sciences, particularly among scholars interested in bridging the social with the biophysical or ecological side of interdependent decisions. A growing body of empirical studies in social–ecological systems research has recently used case and comparative studies to analyse multiple interdependent action situations, structured into networks. In this article, we take stock of this body of empirical research, synthesize the diverse approaches that scholars have taken to assess “networks of action situations”, and identify fruitful paths forward. We conduct a systematic review of the empirical literature in the field, reviewing and summarizing the key characteristics of the empirical studies, including network features, topologies, methods, and data sources used in each case. We summarize and discuss the conceptualizations, methods, diagnostic procedures, and conclusions used in this body of work in a narrative framework synthesis. The review indicates that an increasingly coherent approach is taking shape, but a systematic, protocol-driven, or formalized approach is only partly emerging. We derive future research needs that could help accumulate knowledge from empirical research.

Reservoirs are built worldwide for a higher water supply in dry periods by storing water temporarily in wet periods. Recent socio‐hydrology studies hypothesized, by creating “supply–demand cycles”, that reservoirs can lead indirectly to counterintuitive dynamics such as more water scarcity and a higher economic and social vulnerability. This opinion argues that reservoirs are part of co‐evolutionary processes with natural, social, and engineered elements and therefore, water scarcity need to be analyzed within socio‐political interactions. Aspects such as (a) institutions; (b) governance processes; (c) social–ecological factors; (d) narratives of water scarcity; and (e) powerful economic interests are essential to understand feedback mechanisms between reservoirs and water scarcity and to hypothesize long‐term phenomena such as water scarcity. Neglecting these interactions could lead to biased research agendas, misleading conclusions, and adverse effects on the transformation process toward sustainability. Given the complexity of social–ecological systems, the diversity and critical capacity of inter‐ and transdisciplinary work is crucial to further advance the study of unintended side effects of reservoirs or — more general — the study of socio‐hydrology.This article is categorized under: Human Water

In the twenty-first century, the world´s demand for natural resources is more pressing and deeply interconnected than ever before. The Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus has gained growing interest as a promising concept for complex resource management challenges. However, knowledge about the root causes of cross-sectoral coordination problems and how they can be shifted towards sustainability is still lacking. This paper fills this gap by conceptualising a WEF nexus case with the Networks of Action Situations approach combined with systems thinking. This approach allows a deep analysis of the root causes of coordination gaps, facilitates a joint understanding of the system dynamics to identify leverage points for shifting the WEF nexus towards sustainability, and to envision the impact of potential interventions on the network of action situations and their outcome. The value and the reciprocal benefits of the combined approach introduced are illustrated for a case in Switzerland, Europe. The results show a coordination gap between the different sectors and that not all sectors were considered equally. This leads to a prioritization of energy production over water-bound biodiversity and food production. The root causes for this outcome are a focus to mitigate climate change and awareness of biodiversity but much less awareness of the impacts of climate change on Swiss water bodies. The study identifies five deep leverage points for interventions, which are expected to ensure a shared systemic problem understanding and more balanced coordination between different sectors resulting in the sustainable and equitable provision and utilization of WEF resources.

Mountains, said to be the world's water towers, are central for the provision of downstream water demands. This provision service is strongly challenged by climate change associated with changes in runoff amount and seasonality caused by the retreat of glaciers, rising snow lines, and changes in precipitation. One potential adaptation strategy is the construction of new water reservoirs or the adjustment of current reservoir management strategies. These strategies need to account for various water uses originating from sectors and governments with different economic interests. Here, we investigate governance processes leading to reservoir management strategies ignoring downstream water needs in one of the most important water towers of the world, the European Alps. We assess why governance processes can lead to a coordination gap between an upstream reservoir and downstream water needs. We show that downstream water deficits could potentially be covered through an upstream reservoir under mean and partially under extremely low inflow conditions. However, these hydrological conditions were neglected in the governance processes. The decision‐making when issuing the new reservoir concession was influenced by (a) a lack of knowledge and of an appropriate reservoir‐management study, (b) an interest to increase renewable energy production, (c) a focus on environmental agreements in the participatory process, and (d) economic interests. Our analyses provide factors, which need to be considered when designing governance processes for the management of reservoirs in world's important and vulnerable water towers. We conclude that immediate action is required toward balancing upstream and downstream water needs in governance processes.