Andrea Kristen Gerlak

Interests

No activities entered.

Courses

Scholarly Contributions

Books

• Betsill, M. M., Benney, T. M., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). Agency in earth system governance. Cambridge University Press.
• Volgy, T., Roter, P., Gerlak, A., & Šabic, Z. (2013). Mapping the New World Order. Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444306552
  More info

  This groundbreaking study maps out and analyzes the development of a global intergovernmental (IGO) institutional architecture in the post World War II era. •Systematically traces similarities and differences between the institutional architecture of the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. •Examines the range of reasons why states join IGOs, identifies patterns of participation within these organizations, and examines the effects of membership on states. •Considers the impact of the EU on other regional organizations and developments outside Europe. •Provides a strong contribution to the study of international organization and IGO development combining both quantitative and qualitative methodologies © 2009 Thomas J. Volgy, Zlatko Šabic, Petra Roter and Andrea K. Gerlak.
• Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., & Lubell, M. (2012). The Promise and Performance of Collaborative Governance. doi:10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199744671.013.0019
• Volgy, T. J., Šabič, Z., Roter, P., & Gerlak, A. K. (2009). Mapping the New World Order.. UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers..

Chapters

• Varady, R., Albrecht, T., Gerlak, A., & Wilder, M. (2024). Transboundary Water Management. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Water Policy, Economics and Management.(pp pp. 287-294.). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. doi:10.4337/9781802202946_66
• Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2022). Learning. In Handbook on Theories of Governance, 2nd Edition,(pp pp. 244-253.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
  More info

  Learning is featured prominently in research on policy change and diffusion, adaptive governance and environmental governance, policy networks and collaborative governance, and is recognized as playing an important role in promoting productive governance. This chapter begins with an exploration of how this literature emphasizes different elements of learning and then identifies the opportunities for integrating these elements to clarify both the process and the products of learning. It further examines the factors that can facilitate or constrain learning, including governance processes that foster diverse stakeholder perspectives and new ways of knowing. Finally, the chapter discusses the challenges that governance scholars face in studying and measuring learning, and offers recommendations for future research agendas.
• Zuniga Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., Gerlak, A. K., Albrecht, T., & Varady, R. G. (2021). The water security discourse and its main actors. In Handbook of Water Resources Management. Springer.
• Betsill, M. M., Benney, T. M., Gerlak, A. K., Brown, C., Chan, S., Enechi, O., Mitchell, R. B., M"oller, I., Patterson, J. J., Scobie, M., & others, . (2020). Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance: Agency in Earth System Governance. In Agency in Earth System Governance.
• Gerlak, A. K., Betsill, M. M., Patterson, J. J., Chan, S., Benney, T. M., Brisbois, M., Eimer, T. R., & Scobie, M. (2020). Conclusion: Policy Implications of ESG--Agency Research and Reflections on the Road Ahead: Agency in Earth System Governance. In Agency in Earth System Governance.
• Gerlak, A. K., Mills-Novoa, M., Elder, A., Enechi, O., Sharma, P., & Singh, K. (2020). How Geographies and Issues Matter in ESG--Agency Research. In Agency in Earth System Governance(pp 52--62). Cambridge University Press.
• Gerlak, A. K., Eimer, T. R., Brisbois, M., Mills-Novoa, L. S., Jorrit, L., & Paivi, A. (2020). Power (Ful) and Power (Less): A Review of Power in the ESG--Agency Scholarship. In Agency in Earth System Governance.
• Gerlak, A., & Ingram, H. (2018). De- politicized policy analysis: How the prevailing frameworks of analysis slight equity in water governance. In Water Justice(pp pp. 71-88.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316831847.005
  More info

  Introduction: Policy Analysis for “Better” Public Policy There is a common article of faith in the multi-disciplinary field of policy analysis: a belief that the quality of policy-making increases in proportion to available policy knowledge, and that the policy analyst’s role is to generate and transmit relevant policy information and evaluation. What Alice Rivlin (1984: 18-19) wrote more than 30 years ago is even truer today, particularly when it comes to water policy: “No debate on any serious issue… takes place without somebody citing a public policy study.” Information is not neutral, however, and the kind of information gathered by policy analysts depends largely on the frameworks they adopt and the underlying perspectives and values.The most prominent policy frameworks currently applied to water reflect the context and circumstances from when they were developed, and inventors’ perspectives and values. Frameworks have evolved over time as users apply and modify them. We argue that none of the most common schemas were developed to reflect equity and public participation in decision-making. While improvements have been made, and newer critical perspectives hold promise, the kind of information provided by policy analysis continues to slight the concerns of equity and participation set out by the editors in the introductory chapter to this book.This chapter will examine four different policy approaches and their impact on water governance: (1) efficiency-based analysis; (2) institutional analysis and development; (3) physically-based watershed and river basin approaches; and (4) discursive policy analysis. Each of these approaches developed first in the United States and spread elsewhere, often becoming greatly modified as they disseminated. In each case, we will examine the context and key influences in which each approach was invented, central concepts and underlying theoretical logic, how the approach has evolved, and an overall assessment. The conclusion will indicate how policy analysis must change to better serve equity and participation.The Gospel of Efficiency and Moving Water to its Best Use The progressive conservation movement of the early twentieth century placed water at the heart of the new doctrine championed by reformers. The period’s authoritative historian, Samuel P. Hays (1959) wrote that the conservation movement had little to do with popular support or the people’s wishes.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017). Transnational Networks and Transboundary Water Governance in the Colorado River Delta. In Towards Continental Environmental Policy? North American Transnational Networks and Governance.(pp 203-227). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Vimont, E. T., Gerlak, A. K., Delano, N., Varady, R. G., Zuniga Teran, A. A., & Megdal, S. B. (2017). Groundwater Governance in the United States: A Mosaic of Priorities and Approaches. In Advances in Groundwater Governance, edited by Karen G. Villholth, Elena Lopez-Gunn, Kirstin Conti, Alberto Garrido, Jac Van Der Gun. The Netherlands: CRC/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group.
  More info

  Megdal, S. B., A. Zuniga Teran, R. G. Varady, N. Delano, A. K. Gerlak, and E. T. Vimont (2017) Groundwater governance in the United States: A mosaic of approaches. In Advances in Groundwater Governance, ed. by K. Villholth, E. Lopez-Gunn, K. Conti, A. Garrido, and J. van Der Gun. Delft: CRC Balkema. pp. 483-510. ISBN 9781138029804
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016). Federalism and U.S. Water Policy. In Federal Rivers: Managing Water in Multi-Layered Political Systems(pp 41-56). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Schmeier, S. (2016). River Basin Organizations and the Governance of Transboundary Watercourses. In Ken Conca and Erika Weinthal, editors. Oxford, UK.. In The Oxford Handbook of Water Politics and Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Prress.
• Gerlak, A. K., Lautze, J., & Giordano, M. (2016). Gerlak, Andrea K., Jonathan Lautze, and Mark Giordano. 2014. Greater exchange, greater ambiguity: Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties. In R. Quentin Grafton, Paul Wyrwoll, Chris White and David Allendes, editors. Global Water: Issues and Insights. Canberra, Australia: Australia National University Press, pp. 57-64.. In Global Water: Issues and Insights(pp 57-64). Canberra, Australia: Australia National University Press.
• Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2016). Learning. In Handbook on Theories of Governance.(pp pp. 225-235.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
• Varady, R. G., Gerlak, A. K., & McGovern, E. (2014). Hydrosolidarity and its place in international water diplomacy. In Hydro Diplomacy: Sharing Water Across Borders(pp 23-31). Bangkok: IUCN.
• Gerlak, A. (2014). Federalism and US water policy. In Federal Rivers: Managing Water in Multi-Layered Political Systems(pp pp. 41-56.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. doi:10.4337/9781781955055.00013
  More info

  Water resource management in the United States today is increasingly complex and fragmented as strategies are pursued across multiple decision forums and institutional arrangements (Adler 2000; Stakhiv 2003; Gerlak 2008). Accumulated mandates, authorities, practices, and habits of generations of governmental participation in water resources characterize US water policy. At the federal level alone there are 20 or more federal agencies with some responsibility in water resources (AWRA 2007), working across more than 100 federal water programs for water quality and quantity, water supply, navigation, hydropower, recreation, climate change, natural hazards management, and integrated water resources management (US ACE 2011, p. 20). As part of this complex web of federal involvement in water resource management and use, many congressional committees are involved in legislating, funding, and overseeing the water-related activities of the numerous federal agencies (Cody et al. 2012, p. 1). At last count, more than 100,000 local water-related entities and more than 300 departments in 50 states have water-related functions (Dworsky et al. 1991). The roles of all levels of government in water resources within the US have evolved over time to account for new challenges and incorporate a broader range of stakeholders (White 2000; Deason et al. 2001; ICWP 2006). The relative capabilities of the actors also have been changing as state, local governments, and non-governmental organizations have improved their resource base and increased their abilities in multiple areas of water management (Bell and Johnson 1991; Rogers 1993; Feldman 2007; Mayorís Water Council 2011).
• Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Water Policy. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History, Vol. II.(pp 375-379). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Grant, K. A. (2013). The Correlates of Cooperative Institutions for International Rivers. In Mapping the New World Order.(pp pp. 114-147.). Wiley-Blackwell Publishers,: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781444306552.CH5
  More info

  Thomas J. Volgy, Zlatko Šabič, Petra Roter, and Andrea K. Gerlak, editors,
• Gerlak, A. K., Lubell, M., & Heikkila, T. (2013). The Promise and Performance of Collaborative Governance. In Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy(pp 413-434). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Volgy, T. J., Šabič, Z., Roter, P., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Conclusions. In Mapping the New World Order.(pp pp.247-268.). Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444306552.ch9
• Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2012). Institutional adaptation and change in collaborative watershed management: An examination of the Northwest power and conservation council's fish and wildlife program. In The Columbia River Treaty Revisited: Transboundary River Governance in the Face of Uncertainty(pp pp. 315-332.). Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.: Oregon State University Press.
  More info

  Transboundary institutions, such as treaties, compacts, collaborative agreements, councils, and collaborative programs, have long been recognized as valuable mechanisms for addressing and resolving the conflicts and environmental problems that result from the use and allocation of water resources that cross multiple political jurisdictions, both regionally and internationally (Florestano 1994; Lubell et al. 2002; Wolf et al. 2003; Gerlak and Grant 2009). In the United States, such collaborative efforts have emerged in recent years across a number of the largest and most ecologically, economically, and culturally significant watersheds. They can be found in the marsh wetlands of the Florida Everglades, along the coast of Louisiana, in the Midwest's Great Lakes region, and along the Pacific Northwest's mighty Columbia River (Wiley and Canty 2003;Vigmostad et al. 2005; Heikkila and Gerlak 2005; Doyle and Drew 2008; Gerlak 2008).
• Gerlak, A. K., & Clarke, J. N. (2008). Transforming useless swamps into valuable wetlands: Evaluating America's policy, 1970-2008. In Wetland, Ecology, Conservation and Restoration.(pp pp. 113-132.). Nova Science Publishers.: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
  More info

  This paper traces the evolution of America's wetland policy beginning with passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972. This law, for the first time, established a federal program to protect wetlands, dramatically elevating the value of these ecosystems. However, despite attitudinal changes and new governmental programs, the nation continues to lose its potentially valuable wetlands -- albeit at a slower rate than was the case in the 1970s and prior to the passage of the CWA. This paper offers an objective evaluation of the federal wetlands protection policy. We place this evaluation within a broad societal context, showing that since 1970 there have occurred sweeping demographic, economic, and political changes that clearly have impacted the extent of wetlands in the United States. We argue that Section 404 has failed to reverse the net loss of wetlands in the U.S. Moreover, it has evolved into a policy lightening rod within the water resources arena and been a major factor in Congress' failure to revise and reauthorize the Clean Water Act. Finally, we offer some recommendations designed to improve the policy, arguing for heightened wetlands protection through partnerships and acquisitions. © 2008 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
• Myers, E. C., & Gerlak, A. K. (2008). Global Environment Facility. In The Princeton Encyclopedia of the World Economy(pp pp. 532-536.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.: Princeton University Press.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Gerlak, A. K. (2005). Wetlands Policy in the United States: From Drainage to Restoration. In The Encyclopedia of Water,. ed. Jay H. Lehr. NY: John Wiley & Sons Publishing.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/047147844X.WL112
  More info

  Historically, swamps have been regarded as wastelands, evoking reactions of “disgust at their sight and smell, fear of malaria and yellow fever, and unease about rich resources running to waste within them.” By the beginning of the twentieth century, perceptions began to change. Sportsmen and hunters called attention to declining number of waterfowl and initial federal efforts regarding wetlands focused almost exclusively on waterfowl habitat. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt established the first National Wildlife Refuge by executive order to protect endangered species on Pelican Island, Florida. With the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934, Congress established a special fund to finance wetland acquisitions for duck habitat. Keywords: wetlands; swamps; politics; management; Clean Water Act of 1972; conservation; restoration; Environmental Protection Agency; Army Corps of Engineers
• Gerlak, A. K., & Clarke, J. N. (1998). Environmental Racism in Southern Arizona?: The Reality beneath the Rhetoric. In Environmental Justices, Political Solutions: Race, Class, and the Environment,(pp pp. 82-100.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press,. doi:10.1215/9780822396635-005
  More info

  ed. David Camacho.

Journals/Publications

• Pascaris, A. S., Swanson, T., Seay-Fleming, C., Gerlak, A. K., McCall, J., Barron-Gafford, G. A., & Macknick, J. (2026). Exploring the effects of policy on stakeholder adoption and deployment of agrivoltaics: A case study of Massachusetts. Energy Policy, 208. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2025.114921
  More info

  Further deployment of agrivoltaics is likely require better understanding how policies and agreements can shape the outcome of solar siting on farmland. This study evaluates the Massachusetts agrivoltaics policy in terms of its implications on deployment and stakeholder experiences in adoption. We present findings from interviews with 26 state policymakers, Extension agents, representatives of non-governmental organizations, farm owners and operators, and solar developers. Our findings demonstrate how the policy has mixed effects on deployment processes and outcomes—in some instances, the policy enables deployment by formalizing cross-sector collaboration, increasing farm owner and operator participation in development, and facilitating novel business models. In other instances, the policy constrains deployment by prescribing operational requirements, creating liability risk, and developing dependency on empirical data to inform eligibility decisions. Interviewees explained how these mixed policy effects create both benefits and burdens for adopters, particularly farm owners and operators. These insights indicate the value of cross-sector collaboration during all phases of agrivoltaic policy implementation and project development; the importance of coordination across policy, research, and commercial activities; and the significant role of regulators and policy design in deployment. The evidence presented in this paper can inform decision making for emerging agrivoltaic policies and markets, both in the United States and internationally.
• Bilalova, S., Valin, N., Burchard-Levine, A. F., Gerlak, A. K., Huitema, D., Jager, N. W., Geagea, D. H., Koehler, J. K., Newig, J., Singh, R., Porada, H., & Ros, J. R. (2025). Now you see me, now you don’t: the role and relevance of paradigms in water governance. Ecology and Society, 30(Issue 4). doi:10.5751/es-16279-300411
  More info

  Current understandings of water governance rely on a multitude of paradigms, defined as normative ideas collectively held by actor groups. These ideas shape how water challenges are framed and addressed; however, the ways in which paradigms influence governance processes and evolve across contexts remain underexplored. Reflecting on the role of paradigms in water governance enables a better understanding of the driving forces behind the implementation of certain water governance arrangements, their international spread, and what interests, politico-economic stakes or power dynamics are at play. This agenda-setting paper is a first attempt to bring together diverse insights on the role and functions of paradigms from various conceptual lenses to inspire more reflexive scholarly engagement with paradigms. Our approach is based on a four-year, iterative, interdisciplinary collaboration involving workshops and virtual labs with scholars from diverse backgrounds. From this process, we identify ten key agenda items for future research. These items highlight critical gaps and recommendations for scholars in the water governance field—such as the underexplored role of paradigms in shaping power relations, the neglect of contextual variation, and the marginalization of alternative epistemologies-which may also hold relevance for practitioners at times. Together, they provide both a conceptual foundation and practical direction for scholars and practitioners seeking to better understand and navigate the paradigm-driven dynamics of water governance.
• Brown, A. R., Gerlak, A. K., Smith, G., Zuniga-Teran, A., & Gilson, G. (2025). Governing the nexus: Lessons from water governance in the United States. Environmental Science and Policy, 172(Issue). doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104214
  More info

  The nexus has become an increasingly popular conceptual tool for understanding the various threats posed to natural resources by climate change and human use. Here we focus on the primary nexus elements of water, food, energy, and climate to reflect on some of the implications for contemporary freshwater governance. We propose an integrated nexus-collaborative governance approach to address complex challenges and support sustainable and equitable solutions. Using three case studies across the US—groundwater depletion, drought, and flooding—we illustrate the scope of nexus challenges, cross-sectoral trade-offs, and the potential for better water governance. We conclude with takeaways to inform nexus governance. First, decision-makers must account for and manage the various unintended consequences of resource uses and proposed solutions. Second, there is a need to better integrate environmental justice into the nexus, considering impacts to human health and well-being. We propose the local community as an effective site for engagement and innovation for nexus issues.
• Gerlak, A. K., Brown, A. R., Heikkila, T., & Hughes, S. (2025). The Future of Water and Democracy: Assessing and Improving Water Governance in the United States. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 12(Issue 2). doi:10.1002/wat2.70022
  More info

  Water governance—the structures and processes for making collective choices over how to allocate, deliver, and protect water supplies—poses both an opportunity and a challenge for democracy. Water governance can create opportunities for knowledge-sharing, collaboration, and meaningful civic engagement, which can support democratic goals like legitimacy and accountability. However, when water governance exacerbates racial and socioeconomic inequalities or fails to inform and involve citizens, people may feel alienated from political systems and institutions—threatening democracy. In this Perspective, we highlight three vehicles for democracy (cross-sector collaboration, community advisory processes, and community-led institutions) and three threats to democracy (lack of governance capacity, imbalanced power in decision-making, and explicit exclusion of marginalized voices) that are common in water governance in the United States. We further examine lessons from research and practice on pathways to strengthen democracy, namely assessing and building formalized water governance processes and outcomes that reinforce legitimacy and accountability in our democracy.
• Macy, A., Swanson, T., Seay-Fleming, C., Gerlak, A. K., & Barron-Gafford, G. A. (2025). Designing for dual-use solar: An examination of the agrivoltaic policy landscape in the United States. Energy Policy, 205. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2025.114682
  More info

  Efforts to achieve a transition to a clean energy grid in the United States necessitate the development of a significant amount of land for solar energy, particularly in rural settings. However, as demand for solar energy grows, so too does local opposition that may threaten the realization of a clean energy transition. An increasingly popular solution for local opposition to solar energy in the United States is agrivoltaics, the dual use of land for both agricultural and solar energy production, and many states are crafting policy to support its development. However, the novel United States agrivoltaics policy landscape is underexplored in the literature. In this perspective, we conduct a policy review of the existing United States federal and state agrivoltaics policy landscape with the objective of establishing an agenda for future research. We organize existing agrivoltaic policies into a categorical archetypes of common policy approaches: pollinator-friendly scorecards, use value assessment laws, research funding programs, and feed-in tariff programs. We also discuss proposed federal legislation that, if enacted, would further expand the federal agrivoltaic policy landscape. We conclude by using the newly created agrivoltaic policy framework to establish three themes for future agrivoltaics policy research.
• Murveit, A. M., Gerlak, A. K., Kaibara, M. D., Hovis, M., Minde, J., & Colella, T. (2025). Geospatial Public Participation Tool Adoption in U.S. Natural Resource Agencies. Society and Natural Resources, 38(Issue 6). doi:10.1080/08941920.2025.2450693
  More info

  Government agencies increasingly adopt geospatial online participation tools (geo-OPTs) for public engagement. Yet, little is known about the enablers and constraints surrounding their adoption. We draw from organizational innovation theory to address this knowledge gap related to the adoption of geo-OPTs by U.S. natural resource agencies. We conduct 35 interviews with natural resources agencies and triangulate our findings with policy documents. We find that enablers and constraints interact in distinctive ways that support and hinder innovation of geo-OPTs. Organizational champions navigate enablers and constraints within organizations and their broader environment to propel tool adoption and overcome structural barriers to public engagement in natural resources decision-making. By doing so, geo-OPTs become a pathway for agencies to overcome structural barriers and a tool for advancing human dimensions of natural resource management. These findings provide lessons applicable to public participation activities across diverse governance scales and issue areas.
• Seay-Fleming, C., Swanson, T., & Gerlak, A. (2025). For what and for whom? A political ecology of agrivoltaics in the Southwestern United States. Sustainability Science, 20(Issue). doi:10.1007/s11625-025-01653-3
  More info

  Agrivoltaics, the practice of colocating agriculture and solar panels, is gaining traction as a proposed solution to solar siting conflicts. At the same time, a growing body of social science research tends to emphasize questions about “social acceptance”, aimed at identifying barriers to scaling up agrivoltaics. There remains, however, a lack of understanding about the socio-environmental implications of agrivoltaics, and how these benefits and hazards might be experienced differently by different groups and in particular socio-spatial contexts. In this research, we use a political ecology approach to demonstrate how the renewables-driven land transformation in the American Southwest is shaped by a complex entanglement of site-specific biological and sociopolitical factors. We focus on one rural, agricultural county in Central Arizona where solar siting has been rapidly expanding on existing farmland, with local opposition increasing, and agrivoltaics has been proposed as a potential solution to the siting conflict. Drawing on interviews and participant observation, we demonstrate how pre-existing legacies of extraction, land financialization, and rural transformation shape site-specific agri-solar–land dynamics. We critique the assumption that ecological conditions alone—like water scarcity—create suitable conditions for agrivoltaics, and instead, emphasize the importance of socio-material and sociopolitical conditions. Lastly, we illustrate how AV is used discursively to circumscribe public debate about USSE and legitimize the acquisition of farmland. This paper adds to a growing body of critical social science scholarship on agrivoltaics, highlighting the multiplicity of goals the technology may serve and the importance of getting agrivoltaics right.
• Seay-Fleming, C., Swanson, T., Gerlak, A. K., Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A., Andrews, H., Moore, K., & Barron-Gafford, G. A. (2025). Cultivating engagement: Public participation in agrivoltaics planning and design. Energy Research and Social Science, 127. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2025.104273
  More info

  As the use of agrivoltaics—or the dual use of land for agricultural and photovoltaic energy production—increases around the world as a potential solution to the land-use tension between solar energy and agriculture, it becomes crucial to understand how local communities conceptualize and perceive the practice. Current literature finds a range of benefits that agrivoltaic systems can provide to farmers, but community acceptance of agrivoltaic projects is not inevitable. Due to the wide range of project scales, ownership structures, production outputs, and benefit distributions that agrivoltaic projects may include, discerning between aspects that contribute to local support and opposition is difficult. To that end, this Perspective presents a pilot workshop on community engagement in agrivoltaics organized by the authors as an avenue for improving awareness and understanding local expectations of agrivoltaic systems. Convening a range of local stakeholders including farmers, solar developers, government officials, food advocates, community leaders, and researchers, the workshop provided Arizona-specific information on agrivoltaics and gathered participant's opinions of and preferences for agrivoltaic systems through both individual surveys and group activities. The workshop participants identified a preference for small, farmer-owned agrivoltaic systems that provide food access and educational opportunities for host communities. We close with a recommendation that researchers adopt robust community engagement practices for agrivoltaics in their own communities, and gather information on community expectations surrounding the design, ownership, and benefits of agrivoltaic systems.
• Swanson, T., Seay-Fleming, C., Gerlak, A. K., & Barron-Gafford, G. A. (2025). “Enough is enough, we like our farms”: The role of landscape ideology in shaping perceptions of solar energy and agrivoltaics in the rural American Southwest. Journal of Rural Studies, 114. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103572
  More info

  As efforts to develop solar energy increase across the US, so does local opposition in rural communities where residents view solar energy as incompatible with local landscapes and identities. Recognizing the growing public opposition to solar energy resulting from landscape conflicts, many scholars have recommended the adoption of agrivoltaics. This co-utilization practice allows for agricultural and solar energy production to take place on the same plot of land as a solution to improve public support for solar energy development. This study uses landscape ideologies of the Western United States to examine how solar energy fits into changing Western landscapes and investigates whether agrivoltaics can be used as a tool to better align solar energy development with local landscapes. The study focuses on Pinal County, Arizona, a historically rural agricultural community simultaneously experiencing exurbanization, a decline in agricultural production, and an increase in proposed utility-scale solar energy projects. Using semi-structured interviews with farmers, government officials, and local business interests in combination with participant observation of local meetings about solar energy development, we find that a divergence in landscape ideologies between farmers and government officials in Pinal County significantly shapes opposition to solar energy. Agrivoltaics is perceived positively by government officials as a solution to public opposition toward solar energy development, however, farmers’ insufficient knowledge about agrivoltaics and a lack of current interest by solar developers to engage in agrivoltaic practices present critical barriers to the use of agrivoltaics as a land-use solution in Pinal County. We conclude with recommendations for increasing farmer participation in agrivoltaic policy and project development.
• Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Brown, A. R., & Gerlak, A. K. (2025). The Evolution of Public Engagement in United States Environmental Governance: A Justice-Centered Framework. Society and Natural Resources, 38(Issue 5). doi:10.1080/08941920.2025.2463064
  More info

  Public engagement in environmental governance in the United States (US) has evolved from an initial regulatory approach to a more targeted effort to consider the input of the most impacted communities in decision-making. However, we are still learning about the efficacy of participatory processes in overcoming power asymmetries and achieving environmental justice. We argue that changing forms of engagement have led to an opportunity to embed justice in environmental governance. To illustrate this, we trace the evolution of public engagement toward environmental justice despite ongoing backlash. We explore changing definitions of stakeholders, engagement models, and the translation of processes into outcomes. To illustrate the scope and evolution of the public’s changing role, we examine forest management and water governance in the US–two highly significant issue areas in environmental governance. Finally, we offer a framework for justice-centered engagement and propose recommendations for practitioners and researchers to advance justice in environmental governance.
• Albrecht, T. R., Gerlak, A. K., & Zuniga-Teran, A. A. (2024). Viewpoint ─ Urban Water Conservation and Sustainability in the Colorado River Basin. Water Alternatives, 17(Issue 3).
  More info

  Many cities around the world are facing the challenges of freshwater decline and groundwater degradation, compounded by population growth. In the southwestern United States, these challenges are amplified. In that region, many growing cities depend on water from the Colorado River Basin, which is faced with aridification and record-low surface water supplies. Despite these unprecedented trends in Colorado River flows, however, many basin cities are enhancing their water security through a combination of supply diversification and water conservation. We draw from key academic and practitioner studies to better understand which conservation strategies are employed, how water providers evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies, and what role urban water conservation has played in the Colorado River Basin. Our examination of the contributions and limitations of urban water conservation under Colorado River Basin drought conditions reveals how the political dimensions of urban water conservation influence the ability to fully realise the potential of conservation in broader basin governance and sustainability. We call for improved assessment and monitoring of conservation efforts, advancement of holistic approaches, and the addressing of key political and equity dimensions as ways to improve urban water conservation efforts and, more realistically, situate them in the context of basin wide sustainability.
• Elder, A., & Gerlak, A. (2024). ‘You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’: An examination of actor engagement in water public private partnerships. Water Policy, 26(8). doi:10.2166/wp.2024.078
  More info

  Public–private partnerships, or PPPs, first gained prominence in the water sector with the promise of providing more efficient and lower-cost water services and infrastructure. Despite criticism, water PPPs continue to grow globally and receive support from a diverse set of actors around the globe. This empirical research uses a combination of inductive and deductive approaches to study the engagement of key actors in water PPPs, including the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and intergovernmental organizations. We map out the differing relationships across key actors engaged in water PPPs to examine the interdependencies between actors. We uncover how actors help to serve or promote water PPPs and how, in turn, water PPPs help with the achievement of different actor goals. Our findings reveal how through PPPs, private sector actors utilize the sustainable development goals as a form of moral authority to exhibit corporate social responsibility. We also find that the unique capabilities of pro-PPP NGOs enable them to serve as connectors between actors in facilitating water PPPs. As climate change increasingly strains water resources globally, understanding the goals, motivations, and capabilities of the diverse actors engaged in the water sector is crucial for addressing water challenges going forward.
• Haemmerli, H., Gerlak, A., & Swanson, T. (2024). Reimagining hydropower in the United States. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 11(5). doi:10.1002/wat2.1735
  More info

  In this Perspective, we review the clashing narratives around the role of hydropower in the United States' (US) energy future. In doing so, we reveal how hydropower is regarded as a keystone for the renewable energy transition but also viewed as a harmful technology with significant negative environmental and social impacts. These narratives can be seen in the contrasting future renewable energy visions of US government agencies, the hydropower industry, NGOs, and Tribal governments. We review critical lessons learned from past dam- and hydropower-related challenges to reimagine a just energy future for the US that bridges diverse sectors, jurisdictions, and values. We conclude by highlighting some key paths forward that might result in more resilient and adaptive water and energy systems as the country strives to decarbonize. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Human Water Human Water > Water Governance Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change Engineering Water > Planning Water.
• Hovis, M., Gerlak, A., Heikkila, T., Rittelmeyer, P., Koebele, E., Lubell, M., & Méndez-Barrientos, L. (2024). Illuminating the collective learning continuum in the Colorado River Basin Science-Policy Forums. Environmental Policy and Governance, 35(Issue 1). doi:10.1002/eet.2125
  More info

  Although considerable research over the past two decades has examined collective learning in environmental governance, much of this scholarship has focused on cases where learning occurred, limiting our understanding of the drivers and barriers to learning. To advance knowledge of what we call the “collective learning continuum,” we compare cases of learning to cases where learning was not found to occur or its effects were “blocked.” Through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in science-policy forums in the Colorado River Basin, a large and complex river basin in western North America, we examine differences and patterns that explain moments of learning, blocked learning, or non-learning, drawing insights from the collective learning framework. Our results find various factors that influence learning, blocked learning, and non-learning. We discover technical and social factors as common drivers of both learning and blocked learning. In contrast, we find more structural factors associated with non-learning. At the same time, the cases reveal insights about the role of political factors, such as timing, legal constraints, and priorities, which are underdeveloped in the collective learning framework. Overall, these findings advance theoretical knowledge of the collective learning continuum and offer practical insights that may strengthen the coordination of science and management for effective governance within the Basin.
• Lubell, M., Pozzi, T., Heikkila, T., Gerlak, A., & Rittelmeyer, P. (2024). Learning in polycentric governance: Insights from the California Delta science enterprise. Policy Studies Journal, 53(Issue 1). doi:10.1111/psj.12581
  More info

  Science is critical for learning and adaptation of policy and governance systems. Increasingly, science is produced in the context of a science enterprise: a complex, polycentric institutional arrangement featuring multiple science forums and actors. The characteristics of these polycentric systems can influence whether and to what extent science supports policy-relevant learning. Limited research, however, has examined how science enterprises function as polycentric systems and how they can be governed to support learning. Using a survey of actors involved in the science enterprise of the California Delta, we integrate the collective learning framework and ecology of games framework to analyze individual- and forum-level drivers of perceived learning across the adaptive management cycle. The results suggest that social drivers such as leadership, trust, and engagement are most highly correlated with perceived learning. While science enterprise actors often perceive administrative and financial resource limitations, those constraints are less important for learning than social drivers.
• Minde, J., Gerlak, A., Colella, T., & Murveit, A. (2024). Re-examining Geospatial Online Participatory Tools for Environmental Planning. Environmental Management, 73(6). doi:10.1007/s00267-024-01973-7
  More info

  Geospatial online participatory tools, or geo-OPTs, are increasingly used worldwide for engaging the public in planning. Yet, despite growth in the adoption and use of geo-OPTs, and the growing scholarship to accompany it, our understanding of their ability to support public participation in environmental planning is still underdeveloped. In this paper, we investigate the application of a geo-OPT by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a leading water management agency in the United States, in three contextually and geographically diverse cases. Through a combination of document analysis, interviews, and participant observation, we examine the processes and dynamics associated with the development and use of the geo-OPT Crowdsource Reporter. Our findings highlight the importance of managing geo-OPTs not in isolation or as a panacea but rather as part of a broader planning process that recognizes the complexity and significance of communication in geo-OPT processes. Although it may be tempting and seemingly simple to create and launch these online tools, our research reveals how a lack of intention early on may lead to underuse or misapplication of the tool. More significantly, real damage can be done, like increased public frustration and alienation, resulting in breakdown in communications or even worsening public relations for federal agencies.
• Rittelmeyer, P., Lubell, M., Hovis, M., Heikkila, T., Gerlak, A., & Pozzi, T. (2024). Knowledge is not power: Learning in polycentric governance systems. Review of Policy Research, 42(Issue 3). doi:10.1111/ropr.12606
  More info

  The link between knowledge and decision-making in polycentric systems is shaped by the process of collective learning, where policy actors participate in multiple policy forums to acquire, translate, and disseminate knowledge. This article argues that the relationship between learning and participation in polycentric systems differs for actors with executive responsibilities versus specialized staff. Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, we show that executive staff are less likely to learn because of their incentives, resources, and position in the system. In contrast, specialized staff are more likely to learn as they form epistemic communities focused on specific policy issues. The different learning experiences of executive versus technical staff contributes to the disjunction between knowledge and power that is a feature of all polycentric systems. Bridging this gap requires institutional arrangements and training to enable the development of trust-based relationships between decision-makers, scientists, and other types of specialized knowledge communities.
• Seay-Fleming, C., Brown, A., Gerlak, A., Bieber, K., Zuniga-Teran, A., & Sugg, Z. (2024). Engaging farmers in water governance in the Western United States: lessons from the Colorado River Basin. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 6(4). doi:10.1007/s42532-024-00203-y
  More info

  The Colorado River Basin (CRB) is central to many sectors in the Western United States, including agriculture, ecology, recreation, and urban water supplies, but it faces shortage and conflict. Because agriculture is the CRB’s main water user, leaders are increasingly looking for ways to engage farmers and ranchers in water conservation efforts. In this perspective essay, we reflect on the state of public engagement with agricultural producers in the CRB in the United States. We describe some positive trends in public engagement in the Basin that may lead toward more inclusive and effective outcomes. At the same time, we flag four areas where there is still opportunity for improving engagement with farmers in water conservation: (1) the fragmentation of water governance and engagement activities; (2) the need to bridge the research-practice divide; (3) the necessity of fostering more equitable and inclusive engagement practices; and (4) the challenge of translating engagement trends into effective, sustainable practices. These reflections are relevant for those looking to support engagement with agricultural producers in the management of water resources, but also for anyone engaging across sectors to manage complex socio-environmental systems.
• Albrecht, T. R., Gerlak, A. K., Modak, S., Varady, R. G., & Wilder, M. O. (2023).

  Transboundary Water Governance Scholarship: A Critical Review

  . Environments, 10(2), 27. doi:10.3390/environments10020027
• Heikkila, T., Gerlak, A. K., & Smith, B. (2023). Diagnosing individual barriers to collective learning: how governance contexts shape cognitive biases. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(7), 1-24. doi:10.1080/13501763.2023.2251525
  More info

  A growing body of public policy and governance scholars recognise the importance of learning in supporting adaptive and responsive governance systems. Fostering learning within policy processes and governance systems, however, can be challenging. Collectively, we often ignore or misinterpret relevant policy information, or we may be incapable of translating new information into policy. Despite significant scholarly attention to learning, knowledge of the barriers to learning remains underdeveloped. To advance theoretical insights, this article integrates research on individual cognitive biases with literature on learning to identify barriers that can block learning or lead to non-learning in policy and governance processes. It also explores how these barriers can be mitigated or exacerbated by different governance contexts. Based on these insights, this paper provides guidance for researchers on how to empirically assess learning barriers across different governance contexts.
• Joshi, N., Gerlak, A., Hannah, C., Lopus, S., Krell, N., & Evans, T. (2023). Water insecurity, housing tenure, and the role of informal water services in Nairobi's slum settlements. World Development, 164(Issue). doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106165
  More info

  Presently, about one billion people reside in slums around the world, creating an ongoing urbanization and development challenge. Slum settlements lack tenure security, posing an additional challenge for municipal and national governments in providing basic services. In particular, safe and affordable access to water for slum residents remains unmet, as slum settlements often lack municipal water supply coverage and rely on small-scale informal water services. We examined the dynamics between housing tenure status (tenancy vs ownership), water service types, and water insecurity among households in three slum settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. Using a cross-culturally validated 11-item Household Water Insecurity Experience (HWISE) scale, we identified a key link between housing tenure status and water insecurity, based on survey data from 556 households. We found that water insecurity in the study sites is a significant challenge because of the link between housing tenure and access to different water service types. As such, water insecurity scores among tenants were significantly higher than homeowners, and this association persists even after controlling for household characteristics. Furthermore, a higher percentage of homeowners had access to formal water services than tenants and accessing water from informal water providers was related to higher water insecurity. Our results highlight the need for development interventions in slums to consider housing tenure of residents when planning interventions to alleviate water insecurity. To meet the goal of ‘equitable water for all’ set by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), governments must also take key steps to resolve housing tenure injustice and expand home ownership in slum settlements.
• Joshi, N., Shrestha, P., Meadow, A. M., Murveit, A. M., Zimmer, A., Smith, K. J., Davies, J., Louder, E., Rodriguez McGoffin, M. S., Owen, G., Guido, Z. S., & Gerlak, A. K. (2023). Stakeholder Engagement in the Co-Production of Knowledge for Environmental Decision-making. . World Development, 170.
• Pascaris, A., Gerlak, A., & Barron-Gafford, G. (2023). From niche-innovation to mainstream markets: Drivers and challenges of industry adoption of agrivoltaics in the U.S.. Energy Policy, 181(Issue). doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113694
  More info

  Agrivoltaic systems harmonize agriculture and solar energy to mitigate land use competition, strengthen agricultural viability and resilience, and enhance solar development practice. Innovations in agrivoltaics has gained traction globally yet exist in niche-application and early adoption stages in the U.S. While initial research has emphasized technical and economic performance, critical questions remain about stakeholder adoption, social acceptance, and the role of policymakers. To better define the socio-political landscape for agrivoltaic development, we leverage qualitative interviews with U.S. solar professionals. We articulate key sets of drivers and challenges of industry adoption and their interactions. The findings suggest that overcoming the challenges impeding U.S. solar industry adoption of agrivoltaics will require robust market mechanisms that stimulate price improvements as well as coordinated, cross-sector learning processes, research, and regulation. We maintain that socio-political adaptations, coupled with techno-economic advances in price and performance, may constitute the key improvements of the development landscape for agrivoltaics in the U.S. Multi-stakeholder considerations and the co-evolution of technology, practice, and regulation are discussed in the context of developing the enabling framework conditions to progress agrivoltaics from niche-innovation to mainstream markets.
• Gerlak, A., Louder, E., & Ingram, H. (2022). Viewpoint: An Intersectional Approach to Water Equity in the US. Water Alternatives, 15(1).
  More info

  In the United States today,there is growing concern over what is being referred to as a 'water crisis',but which is,in fact,a crisis of equity in water access. This concern has been exacerbated and illuminated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper draws on reports from leading NGOs,activist groups and media sources,on commentary from high-profile water actors,and on emerging academic literature. In the process of these investigations,it uncovers a tendency to frame the water crisis primarily in terms of affordability; it also notes widespread concern over access and water quality issues. All of these are fundamentally related to equity principles. We argue here that seeing America’s water crisis as being about equity of access provides an opportunity to foreground the historic inequities revealed by the pandemic and by the subsequent economic downturn. A broader,intersectional approach can open-up the problem framing of water equity in the US to include histories of racism and colonialism. An intersectional approach allows for a more integrated and holistic analysis of the ways in which social difference shapes access,quality and affordability of water. Underlying power structures can be revealed through a better understanding of how water inequities result from broader patterns of systemic racism and colonial relations. Ultimately,this improved understanding can result in interventions that disrupt familiar patterns of inequality. As the idea of a water crisis in the US comes into the mainstream,the paper offers a point from which academics can begin to frame their research and a base from which practitioners can consider how to better achieve equity in water governance.
• Guido, Z., Knudson, C., Gerlak, A., Mason, S., Hewitt, C., & Muth, M. (2022). Implementing a knowledge system: Lessons from the global stewardship of climate services. Global Environmental Change, 74(Issue). doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102516
  More info

  Knowledge systems are mechanisms that can drive climate adaptation through the pursuits of enhancing resource sharing, collaboration, and learning, while at the same time helping to develop trust and credibility among individuals and intuitions. While these goals are widely discussed, less is known about the activities and strategies that knowledge systems undertake to achieve these goals. We analyze the Global Framework of Climate Services (GFCS) as a knowledge system organized around the translation of weather and climate information for decision-making. The GFCS brings together the World Meteorological Organization, national meteorological and hydrological services, and some of the world's largest multilateral scientific, humanitarian, and development organizations. Our analysis draws on key informant interviews, focus groups conducted in African countries, and an online survey of GFCS participants. We describe the main activities pursed by the GFCS that shaped the vision of climate services, built capacity in national climate adaptation, and created connections among diverse actors and organizations worldwide. We show how these activities generated tensions about the purpose of the GFCS and how influence among the knowledge system was distributed. Based on our results, we illustrate new ways to conceptualize the strategies of knowledge systems, which we describe as (1) theorizing the norms of practice and mechanisms of change, (2) legitimizing actors, and (3) managing knowledge. These strategies identify pathways for, and pitfalls to, a knowledge system's pursuit of its goals, providing guidance to managers of knowledge systems and an analytical framework to evaluate their impacts.
• Hilbert-Wolf, H., & Gerlak, A. (2022). The evolution of the modern dam conflict on the Snake River, USA. Water International, 47(8). doi:10.1080/02508060.2022.2090147
  More info

  As dams age and values shift, communities face dam removal decisions that involve navigating complex social, economic and ecological interactions. Sometimes, this results in decades-long conflicts, such as that over the removal of the four lower Snake River dams (LSRD) in Washington State, USA–the focus of this study. We apply a broad analytical framework to understand how key factors in this conflict perpetuate it. We find that western science and economic expertise are politicized, and that while venues and geographies for stakeholder engagement are expanding, these shifts are not powerful enough to interrupt the cycle of litigation sustaining the LSRD debate.
• Keaton, W., Amy, M., Karen, H., James, M., Stella, H., Tara, D., Yang, B., Neha, G., Molli, B., Alison, E., Colella, A., Zuniga Teran, A. A., Blue, B., & Gerlak, A. K. (2022). A collaborative effort to address maintenance of green infrastructure through a university-community partnership. Socio-Ecological Practice, online.
• Gerlak, A. K., De Vito, L., Staddon, C., Zuniga‐Teran, A. A., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2021). Aligning green infrastructure to sustainable development: A geographical contribution to an ongoing debate. Area, 54(2), 242-251. doi:10.1111/area.12764
• Gerlak, A. K., Elder, A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Zuniga-Teran, A., & Sanderford, A. R. (2021). Agency and governance in green infrastructure policy adoption and change. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 23(Issue 5). doi:10.1080/1523908x.2021.1910018
  More info

  Green Infrastructure (GI) is being adopted in cities all around the world as a key piece of climate change adaptation and water management for local governments. Recognizing that there is increasingly a diversity of actors engaged in designing, implementing, and fostering GI policies, we aim to better understand how urban GI policies take shape over time. We draw from two bodies of scholarship–– agency in Earth System Governance and entrepreneurs in public policy scholarship -- to study the agents who come to exercise authority to shape GI governance. We trace the trajectory of urban GI practices and policy over the past two decades, keenly observing how GI policies are adopted and change over time. We focus on Tucson, Arizona and combine document analysis, key informant interviews, and participation in stakeholder meetings with an innovative timeline method we collaboratively developed with stakeholders to identify the key events and actors in GI policy adoption. Our findings suggest diverse yet, interconnected roles for entrepreneurs highlighting how agency is exercised, how learning occurs and takes shape across entrepreneurs and scales, and how inequities are realized and addressed.
• Gerlak, A. K., Elder, A., Thomure, T., Shipek, C., Zuniga Teran, A. A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Gupta, N., Mastler, M., Lena, B., Henry, A. D., Yang, B., Murrieta-Saldivar, J., & Meixner, T. (2021). Green infrastructure: Lessons in governance and collaboration from Tucson. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 63(3). doi:10.1080/00139157.2021.1898894
• Gerlak, A. K., Karambelkar, S., & Ferguson, D. B. (2021). Knowledge Governance and Learning: Examining Challenges and Opportunities in the Colorado River Basin. Environmental Science and Policy. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.026
• Rivera-torres, M., & Gerlak, A. K. (2021). Evolving together: transboundary water governance in the Colorado River Basin.. International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics, 1-22. doi:10.1007/s10784-021-09538-3
  More info

  Transboundary collaboration between the United States (US) and Mexico in the Colorado River Basin has heightened in recent years, as climate change, population growth, and overallocation threaten the long-term stability of the region. Through a combination of document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, we examine patterns of change in the governance of the Colorado River, as the US and Mexico navigate socioeconomic, cultural, and political asymmetries to jointly share water over the past two decades. We ask: What key events and environmental agreements have influenced transboundary water governance in the Colorado River over the past 20 years? We draw on the rich scholarship on transboundary water governance, especially around international river basin organizations, to uncover patterns of engagement and collaboration over time. We focus on the binational scale with an eye to study governance at multiple scales including interactions and impacts at the national and subnational scales. Our findings illustrate how Mexico's role has evolved from a narrow one following a strict interpretation of the 1944 Treaty toward a more creative partnership between the US and Mexico demonstrated in binational negotiations and the creation of joint solutions to emerging challenges around water conservation and ecological restoration. We find transboundary water governance in the basin is influenced by both long-term and short-term contextual changes that can inform strategies key actors employ to bolster institutional resilience and take advantage of opportunities for transformative change. Further, we find that the evolution of the binational relationship is reflected in changes in the negotiation process and structure, which highlights the importance of trust and relationship building, transparency, joint fact-finding, and information sharing to foster collaboration. However, we also find uneven institutionalization of stakeholder participation and transparency in engagement patterns that may ultimately, serve to hinder governance and cooperation in the basin.
• Rivera-torres, M., Jacobs, K. L., & Gerlak, A. K. (2021). Lesson learning in the Colorado River Basin. Water International, 46(4), 1-11. doi:10.1080/02508060.2021.1913782
• Staddon, C., Ward, S., DeVito, L., Zuniga-Teran, A., Gerlak, A. K., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2018). Contributions of green infrastructure to enhancing urban resilience. Environment Systems and Decisions.
• Thomure, T., Rivera-torres, M., Murveit, A. M., Mccoy, A. L., Martin, S., Leinberger, A. J., Jacobs, K. L., & Gerlak, A. K. (2021). Scenario Planning: Embracing the Potential for Extreme Events in the Colorado River Basin.. Climatic change, 165(1), 27. doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03013-3
  More info

  Scenario planning (SP) has been increasingly utilized by water managers and planners in the 21st century as climate and other uncertainties have challenged traditional planning approaches. This paper discusses the potential for scenario planning processes in the Colorado River Basin in the southwestern United States to build collective understanding of compound and cascading risks, and to identify possible solutions at multiple scales. Under the Colorado River Conversations Project, we convened a series of conferences and scenario planning workshops over the past 3 years to explore the potential to enhance the use of social and physical sciences in river management, and to broaden the community of people and entities engaged in discussions about managing the Colorado River. Working with a group of thirty water managers and other interested parties representing all 7 basin states, several Tribes, NGO's and Mexico, we used a participatory, mixed-methods approach to scenario planning that identified multiple drivers of change and developed eight science-based storylines from the intersection of these drivers. The development of the storylines and the subsequent conversations with participants about impacts and solutions resulted in a framework for understanding low probability-high consequence climate and other risks across the Colorado River Basin. We highlight three lessons that speak to the value and role of SP for fostering collaboration and creativity. These lessons include: (1) the importance of process in SP in fostering deliberate community building across sectors and geographies; (2) identifying challenges with engaging with uncertainty, complexity, and risk; and (3) determining what these findings mean for future SP in the Colorado River Basin and beyond.
• Varady, R. G., Gerlak, A. K., Wilder, M. O., & Pineda Pablos, N. (2021). Ruminations and insights on hydrodiplomacy. Environmental Science and Policy, 124(Issue). doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.06.004
• Villar, P. C., Venturini, V., Santos, M. A., Saguier, M., Lara, A., Gerlak, A. K., & Baigun, C. (2021). Interdisciplinary research networks and science-policy-society interactions in the Uruguay River Basin. Environmental development, 38. doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100601
  More info

  Abstract The Uruguay River Basin (URB) that extends along Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay has been the hub of increasing pressures caused by the expansion of industrial agriculture, forestry and infrastructure projects in hydroenergy and transportation. There are growing concerns that the fragmented institutional framework is inadequate to address the growing challenges. Interdisciplinary research networks can contribute to creating perspectives of the basin that are policy and governance relevant. In this paper, we set out to interrogate the potential scope of interdisciplinary research networks (IRNs) for the advancement of basin governance framework for the URB. We envision IRNs as knowledge actors that can open up opportunities to mediate and connect basin actors across different spaces – academic, policy, technical-administrative and social. We highlight a series of pathways to advance networks actions in creating opportunities to fill the gaps of transboundary basin governance, and acknowledge the challenges associated with doing this work in the URB and other basins around the world.
• Zuniga Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., Elder, A. D., & Tam, A. (2021). The unjust distribution of urban green infrastructure is just the tip of the iceberg: A systematic review of place-based studies. Environmental Science and Policy, 126, 234-245.
• Zuniga-teran, A. A., Sanderford, A. R., Pavao-zuckerman, M., Gerlak, A. K., & Elder, A. (2021). Agency and governance in green infrastructure policy adoption and change. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 23(5), 1-17. doi:10.1080/1523908x.2021.1910018
  More info

  Green Infrastructure (GI) is being adopted in cities all around the world as a key piece of climate change adaptation and water management for local governments. Recognizing that there is increasin...
• Zuniga-teran, A. A., Zuniga-teran, A. A., Mussetta, P., Ley, A. N., Gerlak, A. K., & Diaz-caravantes, R. E. (2021). Analyzing water policy impacts on vulnerability: Cases across the rural-urban continuum in the arid Americas. Environmental Development, 38. doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100552
  More info

  Abstract Climate change is posing emerging threats to people and the environment, particularly in arid regions. However, some groups are more vulnerable than others, depending on their levels of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which are determined by climatic and non-climatic factors. In water-scarce environments, water policies become key non-climatic factors that affect vulnerability yet enable modifications if their impacts unintentionally exacerbate vulnerability. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the impacts of water policies on vulnerability, particularly for disadvantaged groups. In this paper, we analyze four cases in the arid Americas that illustrate an array of challenges at different scales and across the rural-urban continuum: (1) irrigated oases in Mendoza, Argentina, where groundwater and surface water management are disconnected; (2) rural communities in central Sonora, Mexico, where local water rights have been transferred to large scale mining; (3) peri-urban marginalized neighborhoods in Hermosillo, Mexico, where competition for water is driving changes in land use; and (4) underserved communities in Tucson, Arizona, USA who are left behind in a rainwater harvesting movement. Our analysis shows that water policies in arid regions interact with land and neoliberal policies between sectors across different scales, exacerbating vulnerabilities disproportionately in less privileged groups and enhancing disparities. Here, we offer recommendations for more inclusive policymaking processes that can build capacity, protect the livelihoods of disadvantaged groups, and reduce their vulnerability to climate change.
• Ellis, G., Gerlak, A. K., Daugbjerg, C., Feindt, P. H., Metze, T., & Wu, X. (2020). 21 years of research for the twenty-first century: revisiting the journal of environmental policy and planning. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning.
• Ernst, K. C., Varady, R. G., Mukherjee, A., Gerlak, A. K., Wilder, M. O., Mayer, B. M., Zuniga Teran, A. A., Albrecht, T., Lemos, M. C., Lemos, M. C., Albrecht, T., Zuniga Teran, A. A., Mayer, B. M., Wilder, M. O., Mukherjee, A., Gerlak, A. K., Varady, R. G., & Ernst, K. C. (2020). The exigencies of transboundary water security: Insights on community resilience. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 74-84.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Zuniga Teran, A. A. (2020). Addressing injustice in green infrastructure through socio-ecological practice: What is the role of university-community partnerships?. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2, 149-159.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Zuniga-Teran, A. (2020). Addressing injustice in green infrastructure through socio-ecological practice: What is the role of university--community partnerships?. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2(2), 149--159.
• Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., & Newig, J. (2020). Learning in environmental governance: opportunities for translating theory to practice. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(5), 653--666.
• Gerlak, A. K., Mason, S., Daly, M., Liverman, D. M., Guido, Z. S., Soares, M., Vaughn, C., Knudson, C. S., Greene, C. Y., Buizer, J. L., & Jacobs, K. L. (2020). The Gnat and the Bull: Do Climate Outlook Forums Make a Difference?. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Early onine. doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0008.1
  More info

  AbstractWe provide guidance on how to evaluate Regional Climate Outlook Forums, whose longstanding climate prediction efforts have continued to evolve at the forefront in climate services.Little has been documented about the benefits and impacts of the recent growth in climate services, despite a growing call to justify their value and stimulate investment. Regional Climate Outlook Forums (RCOFs), an integral part of the public and private enterprise of climate services, have been implemented over the last 20 years with the objectives of producing and disseminating seasonal climate forecasts to inform improved climate risk management and adaptation. In proposing guidance on how to measure the success of RCOFs, we offer three broad evaluative categories that are based on the primary stated goals of the RCOFs: (1) quality of the climate information used and developed at RCOFs; (2) legitimacy of RCOF processes focused on consensus forecasts, broad user engagement, and capacity building; and (3) usability of the climate information produced at RCOFs. Evaluating the quality of information relies largely on quantitative measures and statistical techniques that are standardized and transferrable, but assessing the RCOF processes and perceived usability of RCOF products will necessitate a combination of quantitative and qualitative social science methods that are sensitive to highly variable regional contexts. As RCOFs have taken up different formats and procedures to adapt to diverse institutional and political settings and varied technical and scientific capacities, objective evaluation methods adopted should align with the goals and intent of the evaluation and be performed in a participatory, co-production manner where producers and users of climate services together design the evaluation metrics and processes. To fully capture the potential benefits of the RCOFs, it may be necessary to adjust or recalibrate the goals of these forums to better fit the evolving landscape of climate services development, needs, and provision.corresponding author: Andrea K. Gerlak, School of Geography and Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona, PO Box 210137, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA, agerlak@email.arizona.edu
• Gerlak, A. K., Mason, S., Daly, M., Liverman, D. M., Guido, Z. S., Soares, M., Vaughn, C., Knudson, C. S., Greene, C. Y., Buizer, J. L., & Jacobs, K. L. (2020). The Gnat and the Bull: Do Climate Outlook Forums Make a Difference?. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Early online. doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0008.1
  More info

  AbstractWe provide guidance on how to evaluate Regional Climate Outlook Forums, whose longstanding climate prediction efforts have continued to evolve at the forefront in climate services.Little has been documented about the benefits and impacts of the recent growth in climate services, despite a growing call to justify their value and stimulate investment. Regional Climate Outlook Forums (RCOFs), an integral part of the public and private enterprise of climate services, have been implemented over the last 20 years with the objectives of producing and disseminating seasonal climate forecasts to inform improved climate risk management and adaptation. In proposing guidance on how to measure the success of RCOFs, we offer three broad evaluative categories that are based on the primary stated goals of the RCOFs: (1) quality of the climate information used and developed at RCOFs; (2) legitimacy of RCOF processes focused on consensus forecasts, broad user engagement, and capacity building; and (3) usability of the climate information produced at RCOFs. Evaluating the quality of information relies largely on quantitative measures and statistical techniques that are standardized and transferrable, but assessing the RCOF processes and perceived usability of RCOF products will necessitate a combination of quantitative and qualitative social science methods that are sensitive to highly variable regional contexts. As RCOFs have taken up different formats and procedures to adapt to diverse institutional and political settings and varied technical and scientific capacities, objective evaluation methods adopted should align with the goals and intent of the evaluation and be performed in a participatory, co-production manner where producers and users of climate services together design the evaluation metrics and processes. To fully capture the potential benefits of the RCOFs, it may be necessary to adjust or recalibrate the goals of these forums to better fit the evolving landscape of climate services development, needs, and provision.corresponding author: Andrea K. Gerlak, School of Geography and Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona, PO Box 210137, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA, agerlak@email.arizona.edu
• Gerlak, A. K., Saguier, M., Mills-Novoa, M., Fearnside, P. M., & Albrecht, T. R. (2020). Dams, Chinese investments, and EIAs: A race to the bottom in South America?. AMBIO, 49(1), 156-164.
• Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). When does science persuade (or not persuade) in high-conflict policy contexts?. Public Administration, 98(3), 535--550.
• Jacobs, K. L., McCoy, A., Martin, S., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). Reimagining the Colorado River by exploring extreme events. EOS, 101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EO151369
• Karambelkar, S., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). Collaborative Governance and Stakeholder Participation in the Colorado River Basin: An Examination of Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion. Nat. Resources J., 60, 1.
• McMahan, B., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). Climate risk assessment and cascading impacts: Risks and opportunities for an electrical utility in the US Southwest. Climate Risk Management, 29, 100240.
• Mccoy, A. L., Martin, S., Jacobs, K. L., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). Reimagining the Colorado River by Exploring Extreme Events. Eos, 101. doi:10.1029/2020eo151369
• Milman, A., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). International river basin organizations, science, and hydrodiplomacy. Environmental Science & Policy, 107, 137--149.
• Milman, A., Gerlak, A. K., Albrecht, T., Colosimo, M., Conca, K., Kittikhoun, A., Kov'acs, P., Moy, R., Schmeier, S., Wentling, K., & others, . (2020). Addressing knowledge gaps for transboundary environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 64, 102162.
• Saguier, M., Gerlak, A. K., Villar, P. C., Baig'un, C., Venturini, V., Lara, A., & Santos, M. A. (2020). Interdisciplinary research networks and science-policy-society interactions in the Uruguay River Basin. Environmental Development, 100601.
• Varady, R. G., Albrecht, T. R., Gerlak, A. K., Wilder, M. O., Mayer, B. M., Zuniga-Teran, A., Ernst, K. C., & Lemos, M. C. (2020). The exigencies of transboundary water security: insights on community resilience. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 74--84.
• Wilder, M. O., Varady, R. G., Gerlak, A. K., Mumme, S. P., Flessa, K. W., Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Scott, C. A., Pablos, N. P., & Megdal, S. B. (2020). Hydrodiplomacy and adaptive governance at the US-Mexico border: 75 years of tradition and innovation in transboundary water management. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 189--202.
• Wilder, M. O., Varady, R. G., Gerlak, A. K., Steve, M., Flessa, K. W., Zuniga Teran, A. A., Scott, C. A., Nicolas, P. P., & Megdal, S. B. (2020). Hydrodiplomacy and adaptive governance at the U.S.-Mexico border: 75 years of tradition innovation in transboundary water management.. Environmental Science and Policy, 112, 189-202.
• Zuniga Teran, A. A., Lansey, K. E., Gerlak, A. K., Evans, T., Mayer, B. M., Mayer, B. M., Evans, T., Gerlak, A. K., Lansey, K. E., & Zuniga Teran, A. A. (2020). A multidimensional assessment of urban resilience from green infrastructure systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 42-47.
• Zuniga Teran, A. A., Mussetta, P. C., Lutz-Ley, A. N., Diaz-Caravantes, R. E., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). Analyzing water policy impacts on vulnerability: Cases across the rural-urban continuum in the arid Americas. Environmental Development.
• Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., Mayer, B., Evans, T. P., & Lansey, K. E. (2020). Urban resilience and green infrastructure systems: Towards a multidimensional evaluation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 42--47.
• Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Mussetta, P. C., Ley, A., D'iaz-Caravantes, R. E., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). Analyzing water policy impacts on vulnerability: Cases across the rural-urban continuum in the arid Americas. Environmental Development, 100552.
• Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., de, V. L., Gerlak, A. K., Ward, S., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2020). Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(4), 710-732.
• Barron-Gafford, G. A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A., Minor, R. L., Sutter, L. F., Barnett-Moreno, I., Blackett, D. T., Thompson, M., Dimond, K., Gerlak, A. K., Nabhan, G. P., & Macknick, J. E. (2019). Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food-energy-water nexus in drylands. NATURE SUSTAINABILITY, 2(9), 848-855.
• Burch, S., Gupta, A., Inoue, C. Y., Kalfagianni, A., Persson, Å., & Gerlak, A. K. (2019). New directions in earth system governance research.. Earth System Governance, 13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100006
• Elder, A. D., & Gerlak, A. K. (2019). Interrogating rainwater harvesting as Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Urbanism. GEOFORUM, 104, 46-54.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Greene, C. (2019). Interrogating vulnerability in the Global Framework for Climate Services. CLIMATIC CHANGE, 157(1), 99-114.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2019). Tackling key challenges around learning in environmental governance. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING, 21(3), 205-212.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2019). Tackling key challenges around learning in environmental governance. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 21(Issue 3). doi:10.1080/1523908x.2019.1633031
• Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., Smolinski, S. L., Armitage, D., Huitema, D., & Moore, B. (2019). It's Time To Learn About Learning: Where Should the Environmental and Natural Resource Governance Field Go Next?. SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES, 32(9), 1056-1064.
• Gerlak, A. K., Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., de Vito, L., Ward, S., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2019). Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(4), 710-732. doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890
• Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2019). Working on learning: how the institutional rules of environmental governance matter. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 62(1), 106-123.
• Roche, M., Greene, C. Y., Cox, S., Guido, Z. S., Gerlak, A. K., Petri, J., Trotman, A., Liverman, D. M., Van Meerbeek, C., Scott, W., & Farrell, D. (2019). Fit for purpose? Transforming National Meteorological and Hydrological Services into National Climate Service Centers. Climate Services, 13, 10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.01.002
  More info

  AbstractClimate services are becoming an important strategy for delivering climate information to users around the world. In many countries, National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) are charged with providing climate services to diverse audiences. Climate services are important to foster adaptation to climate risks and in reducing vulnerability in developing world contexts. However, the production and delivery of user-oriented climate services place new burdens on NMHSs and require new skillsets, partnerships, and infrastructure. In this paper, we assess the capabilities of 22 NMHSs in Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to understand whether and how NMHSs are fit for the purpose of providing climate services. Our assessment is framed around the five core pillars of the World Meteorological Organization’s Global Framework for Climate Services. We find that the NMHSs face key capacity gaps in the technical production, translation, transfer, and facilitation of the use of climate information. Some of these gaps have historical roots and relate to the overarching legal, political, and institutional settings in which NMHSs were established and currently operate. Others relate to an increased emphasis on users in ways that contrast with traditional NMHSs’ engagement with stakeholders. These results suggest that investments that support the co-production of climate information while also addressing prevailing legal, political, and institutional disconnects and human resource constraints can strengthen the provision of climate services in Caribbean SIDS.
• Ulmer, R., & Gerlak, A. K. (2019). The Remunicipalization of Water Services in the United States. ENVIRONMENT, 61(4), 18-27.
• Ward, S., Staddon, C., De, V. L., Zuniga-Teran, A., Gerlak, A. K., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2019). Embedding social inclusiveness and appropriateness in engineering assessment of green infrastructure to enhance urban resilience. URBAN WATER JOURNAL.
• Wilder, M., Varady, R. G., Mumme, S. P., Gerlak, A. K., Pablos, N. P., & Scott, C. A. (2019). U.S.-Mexico Hydrodiplomacy: Foundations, Change, and Future Challenges. Science & Diplomacy.
• Zuniga-Teran, A. A., & Gerlak, A. K. (2019). A Multidisciplinary Approach to Analyzing Questions of Justice Issues in Urban Greenspace. SUSTAINABILITY, 11(11).
• Albrecht, T. R., Varady, R. G., Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., De, G., Lutz-Ley, A., Martin, F., Megdal, S. B., Meza, F., Ocampo, M. D., Pineda, N., Rojas, F., Taboada, R., & Willems, B. (2018). Unraveling transboundary water security in the arid Americas. WATER INTERNATIONAL, 43(8), 1075-1113.
• Baethgen, W., Van Meerbeeck, C., Buizer, J. L., Jacobs, K. L., Mason, S., Cox, S., Mahon, R., Trotman, A., Liverman, D. M., Greene, C., Rountree, V., Vaughan, C., Guido, Z., & Gerlak, A. K. (2018). Building a Framework for Process-Oriented Evaluation of Regional Climate Outlook Forums. Weather, Climate and Society, 14.
  More info

  Gerlak, A.K., Z. Guido, C. Vaughan, V. Rountree, C. Greene, D. Liverman, A.R. Trotman, R. Mahon, S. Cox, S.J. Mason, K.L. Jacobs, J.L. Buizer, C.J. Van Meerbeeck, and W.E. Baethgen, 2018: Building a Framework for Process-Oriented Evaluation of Regional Climate Outlook Forums. Wea. Climate Soc., 10, 225–239, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0029.1
• Bolognesi, T., Gerlak, A. K., & Giuliani, G. (2018). Explaining and Measuring Social-Ecological Pathways: The Case of Global Changes and Water Security. SUSTAINABILITY, 10(12).
• Bolognesi, T., Gerlak, A. K., & Giuliani, G. (2018). Explaining and Measuring Social-Ecological Pathways: The Case of Global Changes and Water Security. Sustainability 10: 4378.. Sustainability, 10, 4378.
• Burch, S., Gupta, A., Inoue, C., Kalfagianni, A., Persson, A., Gerlak, A., Ishii, A., Patterson, J., Pickering, J., Scobie, M., & others, . (2018). Earth System Governance. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project..
• Gerlak, A. K., & Ingram, H. (2018). De-Politicized Policy Analysis: How the Prevailing Frameworks of Analysis Slight Equity in Water Governance. Water Justice, 71--88.
• Gerlak, A. K., Gerlak, A. K., Baer, M., Lopes, P. D., & Lopes, P. D. (2018). Taking Stock of the Human Right to Water. International Journal of Water Governance, 6, 108-134. doi:10.7564/16-IJWG127
  More info

  The concept of the human right to water and sanitation (HRtWS) has received increasing attention at the policy level in the form of national constitutional guarantees and UN actions, in the work of development organizations, NGOs, network actors and private sector actors. In this article, we explore how the discourse on the HRtWS from key actors in global water governance has evolved over time. Understanding the various discourses around the HRtWS can provide insights into how the HRtWS fits within larger governance trends, including development strategies and practices. We find that despite initial resistance to human rights framing among many of the actors involved in global water governance, there is a convergence on the existence of the HRtWS. Yet, contestation among actors increasingly focuses on what the right means in practice and how to implement a rights-based approach to water services. This contestation is particularly visible around what a legal HRtWS means for questions of financing, providers and oversight. We argue that the HRtWS brings a political dimension to a relatively technical driven discourse by calling attention to issues of discrimination, power differentials, justice, equity and democratic principles of citizen participation in water management. Keywords: human right to water and sanitation, discourse, global water, contestation, actors, development, governance
• Gerlak, A. K., Guido, Z., Vaughan, C., Rountree, V., Greene, C., Liverman, D., Trotman, A. R., Mahon, R., Cox, S., Mason, S. J., Jacobs, K. L., Buizer, J. L., Van, M., & Baethgen, W. E. (2018). Building a Framework for Process-Oriented Evaluation of Regional Climate Outlook Forums. WEATHER CLIMATE AND SOCIETY, 10(2), 225-239.
• Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., Smolinski, S. L., Huitema, D., & Armitage, D. (2018). Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship. POLICY SCIENCES, 51(3), 335-371.
• Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., Smolinski, S. L., Huitema, D., & Armitage, D. (2018). Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship. Policy Sciences, 51(Issue 3). doi:10.1007/s11077-017-9278-0
  More info

  In acknowledgement of the complexity of environmental challenges, research on learning in environmental policy has grown substantially over the past two decades across a range of disciplines. Despite this growth, there are few comprehensive assessments of the literature on learning in environmental policy. This article fills this gap by providing insights on the overall coherence and impact of this body of scholarship. To do so, we analyze a sample of 163 articles from 2004 to 2014 using a standardized coding framework. The results provide an in-depth assessment of the status of the literature on learning in the context of environmental policy, as well as the quality of the literature. We demonstrate that despite the diversity in research questions and goals, the literature is lacking with respect to diversity in cases and context, theoretical development, clear conceptualization and operationalization of learning, and advancements in empirical approaches to study learning. From these insights, we discuss the challenges and opportunities for scholars in studying learning and provide recommendations for building the theoretical and methodological rigor of the field.
• Gerlak, A. K., House-Peters, L., Varady, R. G., Albrecht, T., Zuniga-Teran, A., Routson de Grenade, R., Cook, C., & Scott, C. A. (2018). Water security: A review of place-based research. Environmental Science and Policy, 82, 79-89.
• Gerlak, A. K., House-Peters, L., Varady, R. G., Albrecht, T., Zuniga-Teran, A., de, G., Cook, C., & Scott, C. A. (2018). Water security: A review of place-based research. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 82, 79-89.
• Gerlak, A. K., Weston, J., McMahan, B., Murray, R. L., & Mills-Novoa, M. (2018). Climate risk management and the electricity sector. CLIMATE RISK MANAGEMENT, 19, 12-22.
• Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2018). Working on Learning: How the Institutional Rules of Environmental Governance Matter. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management (forthcoming)..
• Martin, F., Willems, B., Taboada, R., Rojas, F., Ocampo Melgar, D., Meza, F., Pineda, N., Lutz-Ley, A., Degrenade, R., Megdal, S. B., Gerlak, A. K., Zuniga Teran, A. A., Varady, R. G., & Albrecht, T. (2018). Unraveling transboundary water security in the arid Americas. Water International, 43(8), 1075-1113. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1541583
  More info

  Albrecht, T.R., Varady, R.G., Zuniga-Teran, A.A., Gerlak, A., De Grenade, R., Lutz-Ley, A., Martín, F., Megdal, S.B., Meza, F., Ocampo Melgar, D., Pineda, N., Rojas, F., Taboada, R., and Willems, B. (2018) Unraveling transboundary water security in the arid Americas. Water International 43 (8) pp. 1075-1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1541583
• Petersen-Perlman, J. D., Megdal, S. B., Gerlak, A. K., Wireman, M., Zuniga-Teran, A. A., & Varady, R. G. (2018). Critical Issues Affecting Groundwater Quality Governance and Management in the United States. WATER, 10(6).
• Varady, R. G., Zuniga-Teran, A., Mike, W., Gerlak, A. K., Megdal, S. B., & Petersen-Perlman, J. (2018). Critical Issues Affecting Groundwater Quality Governance and Management in the United States, Water. Water, 10(6), 17. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w10060735
  More info

  Petersen-Perlman, J.D., Megdal, S.B., Gerlak, A.K., Wireman, M., Zuniga-Teran, A.A., Varady, R.G. (2018) Critical Issues Affecting Groundwater Quality Governance and Management in the United States, Water 10 (6) 735, http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/6/735
• Albrecht, T., Varady, R. G., Gerlak, A. K., Zuniga-Teran, A., & Stanton, C. (2017). Governing a shared hidden resource: A review of governance mechanisms for transboundary groundwater security.. Water Security, 2, 43-56..
• Daugbjerg, C., Ellis, G., Feindt, P. H., & Gerlak, A. K. (2017). Special Section: Governing climate change. The (dis-)proportionality of policy responses. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING, 19(6), 593-595.
• Ellis, G., Feindt, P. H., Daugbjerg, C., & Gerlak, A. K. (2017). Editorial 19.2. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING, 19(2), 113-114.
• Feindt, P. H., Daugbjerg, C., Ellis, G., & Gerlak, A. K. (2017). Editorial. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING, 19(4), 345-346.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017). Regional Water Institutions and Participation in Water Governance:. The Colorado River Delta as an Exception to the Rule?. JOURNAL OF THE SOUTHWEST, 59(1-2), 184-203.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Haefner, A. (2017). Riparianization of the Mekong River Commission. WATER INTERNATIONAL, 42(7), 893-902.
• Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., Smolinski, S., Armitage, D., & Huitema, D. (2017). Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship. Policy Sciences, 1-37..
• Gerlak, A. K., Weston, J., McMahon, B., Murray, R. L., & Mills-Novoa, M. (2018). Climate risk Management and the electricity sector. Climate Risk Management, 19, 12-22.
• Liverman, D., Jacobs, K. L., Buizer, J. L., Vaughan, C., Trotman, A. R., Rountree, V., Meerbeeck, C. J., Mason, S. J., Mahon, R., Liverman, D., Jacobs, K. L., Guido, Z., Greene, C., Gerlak, A. K., Cox, S. A., Buizer, J. L., & Baethgen, W. E. (2017). Building a Framework for Process-Oriented Evaluation of Regional Climate Outlook Forums. Weather, Climate, and Society, 10(2), 225-239. doi:10.1175/wcas-d-17-0029.1
  More info

  AbstractIn many regions around the world, Regional Climate Outlook Forums (RCOFs) provide seasonal climate information and forecasts to decision-makers at regional and national levels. Despite having two decades of experience, the forums have not been systematically monitored or evaluated. To address this gap, and to better inform nascent and widespread efforts in climate services, the authors propose a process-oriented evaluation framework derived from literature on decision support and climate communication around the production and use of scientific information. The authors apply this framework to a case study of the Caribbean RCOF (CariCOF), where they have been engaged in a collaborative effort to integrate climate information and decision processes to enhance regional climate resilience. The authors’ examination of the CariCOF shows an evolution toward the use of more advanced and more diverse climate products, as well as greater awareness of user feedback. It also reveals shortfalls of the CariCOF,...
• Megdal, S. B., Gerlak, A. K., Huang, L., Delano, N., Varady, R. G., & Petersen-Perlman, J. D. (2017). Innovative Approaches to Collaborative Groundwater Governance in the United States: Case Studies from Three High-Growth Regions in the Sun Belt. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 59(5), 718-735.
• Mills-novoa, M., Weston, J. D., Murray, R. L., Mills-novoa, M., Mcmahan, B., & Gerlak, A. K. (2017). Climate risk management and the electricity sector. Climate Risk Management, 19, 12-22. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2017.12.003
  More info

  Abstract The electric utility industry is an important player in the climate change arena, both as a significant emitter of global emissions and as an industry vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. A climate risk management approach uses risk assessments and decision analyses to identify potential adaptation options. We review the existing literature on climate risk management in the electric utility industry, with a focus on four areas of interest: (1) climate change impacts; (2) measurements of risk; (3) stakeholder engagement and cross-sectoral collaboration; and (4) adaptation actions. Overall, we find significant emphasis on the identification of potential climate change impacts and opportunities for adaptation, but less attention paid to assessments of risk, stakeholder engagement, and cross-sectoral collaboration in climate risk management. We find considerable diversity in the types of adaptation actions, methods for measuring risk, and mechanisms for engaging stakeholders. We offer some suggestions to move beyond more fragmented approaches to climate risk management, including the adoption of more holistic approaches, heightened stakeholder and cross-sectoral engagement, and greater collaboration between researchers and electric utilities.
• Mukhtarov, F., Gerlak, A., & Pierce, R. (2017). Away from fossil-fuels and toward a bioeconomy: Knowledge versatility for public policy?. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-POLITICS AND SPACE, 35(6), 1010-1028.
• Ellis, G., Feindt, P. H., Gerlak, A. K., & Daugbjerg, C. (2016). Editorial 18.4. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING, 18(4), 403-405.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016). Dams and Development in China: The Moral Economy of Water and Power.. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 16(1), 99-105.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016). Negotiating Water Governance: Why the Politics of Scale Matter.. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 16(1), 99-105.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016). The Price of Thirst: Global Inequality and the Coming Chaos.. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 16(1), 99-105.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016). Water in International Affairs: Heightened Attention to Equity and Rights. Global Environmental Politics, 16(1), 99-105. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00339
  More info

  Water continues to loom large in global environmental politics. Any casual observer of international affairs recently cannot help but see growing attention to water access issues. In Brazil, we have observed businesses forced to close and protesters in the streets of Sao Paulo, one of the world’s largest cities, as the result of drought conditions and perceived government failure to respond appropriately (Watts 2015; Wheeland 2015). There are concerns about what the water shortages will mean for a country where more than 75% of its power comes from hydroelectric sources. Water rationing may serve to exacerbate the divide between rich and poor there. Drought conditions and development projects in China have also attracted international attention (Chen 2015; Kaiman 2014). In the summer of 2015, the South-North Water Diversion Project, a controversial megaproject designed to replumb central and northern drainage systems by diverting water from the Yangtze River to the North China Plain to satisfy growing agricultural, urban, and industrial demand, began sending emergency water supplies to urban areas affected by drought. This action has raised equity concerns from
• Gerlak, A. K., & Emerson, K. (2016). Teaching Collaborative Governance Online: Aligning Collaborative Instruction with Online Learning Platforms. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(3), 327-344.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Emerson, K. (2016). Teaching Collaborative Governance Online: Aligning Collaborative Instruction with Online Learning Platforms. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(3), 327-344. doi:10.1080/15236803.2016.12002251
• Gerlak, A. K., & Mukhtarov, F. (2016). Many Faces of Security: Discursive Framing in Cross-border Natural Resource Governance in the Mekong River Commission. GLOBALIZATIONS, 13(6), 719-740.
• Guido, Z., Rountree, V., Greene, C., Gerlak, A., & Trotman, A. (2016). Connecting Climate Information Producers and Users: Boundary Organization, Knowledge Networks, and Information Brokers at Caribbean Climate Outlook Forums. WEATHER CLIMATE AND SOCIETY, 8(3), 285-298.
• Guido, Z., Rountree, V., Greene, C., Gerlak, A., & Trotman, A. (2016). Connecting climate information producers and users: Boundary organization, knowledge networks, and information brokers at Caribbean climate outlook forums. Weather, Climate, and Society, 8(Issue 3). doi:10.1175/wcas-d-15-0076.1
  More info

  Boundary organizations, knowledge networks, and information brokers have been suggested as mechanisms that help integrate information into decision-making and enhance interactions between the producers and users of climate information. While these mechanisms have been discussed in many studies in disparate fields of research, there has been little empirical research describing how they relate and support each other within studies on climate services. In this paper, two Caribbean Regional Climate Outlook Forums (CariCOFs) convened in 2014 are studied. CariCOFs facilitate the production of regional seasonal climate information and the dissemination of it to a diverse climate and socioeconomic region. Network analysis, key informant interviews, and small group discussions were used to answer two questions: 1) what are the barriers to using seasonal climate forecasts (SCFs) by CariCOF participants and 2) what are the iterative processes of information exchange that address these barriers? The barriers to using SCF include difficulty in demonstrating the value of the forecast to potential users, difficulty in interpreting and explaining the forecast to others, and challenges associated with the scientific language used in the information. To address these constraints, the convener of the CariCOF acts as a boundary organization by enabling interactions between participants representing diverse sectoral and geographic settings. This develops a network that helps build shared scientific understanding and knowledge about how different sectors experience climate risk. These interactions guide information brokering activities that help individuals communicate and translate climate information to facilitate understanding at local levels.
• Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2016). Investigating Collaborative Processes Over Time: A 10-Year Study of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 46(2), 180-200.
• Kinoshita, A. M., Chin, A., Simon, G. L., Briles, C., Hogue, T. S., O'Dowd, A. P., Gerlak, A. K., & Albornoz, A. U. (2016). Wildfire, water, and society: Toward integrative research in the "Anthropocene". ANTHROPOCENE, 16, 16-27.
• Mukhtarov, F., Gerlak, A. K., & Pierce, R. (2016). Away from Fossil-Fuels and Toward a Bioeconomy: Knowledge Versatility for Public Policy?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 0(0), 1-19. doi:10.1177/0263774X16676273
• Routson de Grenade, R., House-Peters, L. A., Scott, C. A., Thapa, B., Mills-Novoa, M., Gerlak, A. K., & Verbist, K. (2016). The nexus: reconsidering environmental security and adaptive capacity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 21, 15-21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.10.009
• Schmeier, S., Gerlak, A. K., & Blumstein, S. (2016). Clearing the muddy waters of shared watercourses governance: conceptualizing international River Basin Organizations. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS-POLITICS LAW AND ECONOMICS, 16(4), 597-619.
• Varady, R. G., Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., & Megdal, S. B. (2016). Modes and Approaches of Groundwater Governance: A Survey of Lessons Learned from Selected Cases across the Globe. WATER, 8(10).
• Armitage, D., de, L., Morris, M., Edwards, T., Gerlak, A. K., Hall, R. I., Huitema, D., Ison, R., Livingstone, D., MacDonald, G., Mirumachi, N., Plummer, R., & Wolfe, B. B. (2015). Science-policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio, 44(5), 353-366.
• Baer, M., & Gerlak, A. (2015). Implementing the human right to water and sanitation: a study of global and local discourses. THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY, 36(8), 1527-1545.
• Cheng, A. S., Gerlak, A. K., Dale, L., & Mattor, K. (2015). Examining the adaptability of collaborative governance associated with publicly managed ecosystems over time: insights from the Front Range Roundtable, Colorado, USA. Ecology and Society, 20(1). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07187-200135
• Gerlak, A. K. (2015). Book Review of “Global Environmental Governance, Technology and Politics: The Anthropocene Gap”, Victor Galaz, Edward Elgar Publishing (2014). Anthropocene, 10, 56-57. doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2015.08.001
• Gerlak, A. K. (2015). Resistance and Reform: Transboundary Water Governance in the Colorado River Delta. Review of Policy Research, 32(1), 100-123. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12114
• Gerlak, A. K., & Mukhtarov, F. (2015). 'Ways of knowing' water: integrated water resources management and water security as complementary discourses. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS-POLITICS LAW AND ECONOMICS, 15(3), 257-272.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Saguier, M. (2015). Interdisciplinary knowledge frameworks for transboundary river basins. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, 31(4), 790-794.
• Megdal, S. B., Gerlak, A. K., Varady, R. G., & Huang, L. (2015). Groundwater Governance in the United States: Common Priorities and Challenges. Groundwater, 53(5), 677-684. doi:10.1111/gwat.12294
• Sugg, Z. P., Varady, R. G., Gerlak, A. K., & de, G. R. (2015). Transboundary groundwater governance in the Guarani Aquifer System: reflections from a survey of global and regional experts. WATER INTERNATIONAL, 40(3), 377-400.
• Berardo, R., Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Interorganizational Engagement in Collaborative Environmental Management: Evidence from the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 697-719.
• Chin, A., Galvin, K. A., Gerlak, A. K., Harden, C. P., & Wohl, E. (2014). The Future of Human-Landscape Interactions: Drawing on the Past, Anticipating the Future. Environmental Management, 53(1), 1-3.
• Emerson, K., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Adaptation in Collaborative Governance Regimes. Environmental Management, 54(4), 768-781.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Policy Interactions in Human-Landscape Systems. Environmental Management, 53(1), 67-75.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2014). Investigating Collaborative Processes Over Time. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(2), 180-200. doi:10.1177/0275074014544196
• Gerlak, A. K., & Schmeier, S. (2014). Climate Change and Transboundary Waters: A Study of Discourse in the Mekong River Commission. Journal of Environment and Development, 23(3), 358-386. doi:doi/abs/10.1177/1070496514537276
• Harden, C. P., Chin, A., English, M. R., Fu, R., Galvin, K. A., Gerlak, A. K., McDowell, P. F., McNamara, D. E., Peterson, J. M., Poff, N. L., Rosa, E. A., Solecki, W. D., & Wohl, E. E. (2014). Understanding Human-Landscape Interactions in the "Anthropocene". Environmental Management, 53(1), 4-13.
• Mukhtarov, F., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Epistemic forms of integrated water resources management: towards knowledge versatility. Policy Sciences, 47(2), 101-120.
• Wohl, E., Gerlak, A. K., Poff, N. L., & Chin, A. (2014). Common Core Themes in Geomorphic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Environmental Management, 53(1), 14-27.
• Gerlak, A. K., Zamora-Arroyo, F., & Kahler, H. P. (2013). A Delta in Repair: Restoration, Binational Cooperation, and the Future of the Colorado River Delta. Environment, 55(3), 29-39.
• Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a Conceptual Approach to Collective Learning: Lessons for Public Policy Scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484-512.
• Heikkila, T., Gerlak, A. K., Bell, A. R., & Schmeier, S. (2013). Adaptation in a transboundary river basin: Linking stressors and adaptive capacity within the Mekong River Commission. Environmental Science and Policy, 25, 73-82. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.013
• Mukhtarov, F., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). River Basin Organizations in the Global Water Discourse: An Exploration of Agency and Strategy. Global Governance, 19(2), 307-326.
• Berardo, R., & Gerlak, A. K. (2012). Conflict and Cooperation along International Rivers: Crafting a Model of Institutional Effectiveness. Global Environmental Politics, 12(1), 101-+.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Wilder, M. (2012). Exploring the Textured Landscape of Water Insecurity and the Human Right to Water. Environment, 54(2), 4-+.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2011). Human Rights and Privatization of Water in the European Union and Beyond. International Studies Review, 13(3), 529-531. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01056.x
  More info

  Poisoned Spring: The EU and Water Privatisation. By Kartika Liotard, Steven P. McGiffen London: Pluto Press, 2009. 176 pp., $28.95 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-0-74532-788-4). Viewed as an alternative to traditional state control which was seen as overly centralized, wasteful, and inflexible, many developing countries privatized their water management beginning in the 1990s to attract foreign investment and adhere to new multilateral development bank policies. Growing dissatisfaction with many neo-liberal reforms in the water sector in recent years, especially privatization, has fueled an explosion of popular protests that advance the claim of water as a human right (Bakker 2007, 2010; Conca 2008; Veiga da Cunha 2009; Khadka 2010). In 2010, the human right to water captured the international stage when both the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly affirmed the right to water and sanitation as a basic human right. Increasingly, human rights and equity issues are permeating discussions around development and the role of the private sector in the provision of water. A powerful indictment of EU water policy, Poisoned Spring: The EU and Water Privatisation, explores the growth of water privatization in one region in the past three decades and the negative consequences it produces both within the European Union and in the developing world. It is not a review of EU water policy alone but rather a broader critique of the EU Commission and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization (WTO), and World Bank and the role they play in promoting privatization across the globe. In demonstrating how corporations have come to …
• Gerlak, A. K. (2011). Poisoned Spring: The EU and Water Privatisation. INTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW, 13(3), 529-531.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a Theory of Learning in Collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 619-644. doi:doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq089
• Gerlak, A. K., Lautze, J., & Giordano, M. (2011). Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties. International Environmental Agreements - Politics Law and Economics, 11(2), 179-199.
• Gerlak, A. K., Varady, R. G., Petit, O., & Haverland, A. C. (2011). Hydrosolidarity and beyond: can ethics and equity find a place in today's water resource management?. Water International, 36(3), 251-265. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2011.586552
• Gerlak, A. K., Eden, S., Megdal, S., Lacroix, K. M., & Schwarz, A. (2009). Restoration and river management in the arid southwestern USA: exploring project design trends and features. WATER POLICY, 11(4), 461-480.
• Haverland, A. C., Varady, R. G., Haverland, A. C., & Gerlak, A. K. (2009). Hydrosolidarity and International Water Governance. International Negotiation, 14(2), 311-328. doi:10.1163/157180609x432842
  More info

  In the first decade of the 21st century, 'hydrosolidarity,' the notion that water management should include considerations of ethics and equity, has influenced international approaches to conducting environmental research and formulating water policy. Since its inception in the 1990s, the term appears frequently across a spectrum of water-related research. It has accordingly permeated discourses and publications on water management. Such rapid proliferation of the concept has helped usher in a wave of transition from conflict management to cooperative efforts between upstream and downstream basin users, as well as a complex paradigm that links both human and environmental welfare. In this paper, we trace the intellectual origins and changing conceptions of hydrosolidarity. We outline some of its applications as well as various reactions to the concept. We close by discussing how the concept can help frame negotiations between riparian states and influence treaty-making and institution-building in river basin settings.
• Thorson, J. E., & Gerlak, A. K. (2009). General Stream Adjudications Today: An Introduction. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 133(1), 1-4. doi:10.1111/j.1936-704x.2006.mp133001001.x
• Zawahri, N., & Gerlak, A. K. (2009). Navigating International River Disputes to Avert Conflict. International Negotiation, 14(2), 211-227. doi:10.1163/157180609x432806
  More info

  Building on the findings from the International Negotiation's 2000 issue on negotiations in international watercourses and the major advances in the field during the past nine years, this issue seeks to advance our knowledge about the management of international river disputes. Collectively, the articles in this issue move beyond the simple dichotomy of conflict and cooperation to suggest the possibility that both are often simultaneously present within a basin and should be studied as such. Using a diversity of methodological approaches from comparative case studies to single case studies to quantitative analysis, the articles also illustrate the growth of institutionalization within river basins and their contribution to conflict management. Moreover, the articles advance our knowledge of the role of the relative distribution of power within the basin on the resolution of water disputes and management of resources. Some scholars find power asymmetry important for treaty formation, while others suggest that issue linkages and side payments can provide weaker riparians with the means to gain from cooperation.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2008). Today's pragmatic water policy: Restoration, collaboration, and adaptive management along US Rivers. SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES, 21(6), 538-545.
• Dale, L., & Gerlak, A. K. (2007). It's all in the numbers: Acreage tallies and environmental program evaluation. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 39(2), 246-260.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2007). Lesson learning and trans-boundary waters: a look at the Global Environment Facility's international waters program. WATER POLICY, 9(1), 55-72.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2007). Collaboration and institutional endurance in US water policy. PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS, 40(1), 55-60.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2006). Comparing collaborative mechanisms in large-scale ecosystem governance. NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL, 46(3), 657-707.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2005). Federalism and U.S. Water Policy: Lessons for the Twenty-First Century. Publius-the Journal of Federalism, 36(2), 231-257. doi:10.1093/publius/pji032
  More info

  This article traces five historical streams of water policy in the United States, revealing the strain and stresses of intergovernmental relations pertaining to water resource management. It finds that water policy is increasingly characterized by pragmatic federalism emphasizing collaborative partnerships, adaptable management strategies, and problem and process orientation. The evolving nature of federal-state relations, characterized by expanding federal authorities and increased state capacity, coupled with a rise of local watershed groups and greater ecological concern, calls for improved coordination. Yet challenges resulting from policy fragmentation and ecosystem complexity remain. Continued calls for greater integration will likely be heard as federal-state relations continue to evolve. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.
• Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2005). The Formation of Large‐scale Collaborative Resource Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of Stakeholders, Science, and Institutions. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4), 583-612. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00134.x
  More info

  This article explores the emergence of collaborative institutional arrangements for managing natural resources in large-scale and complex resource settings, among numerous political jurisdictions and stakeholders. It examines four regional institutions in the United States: the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the CALFED BayDelta Program, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. While a wealth of literature has looked at the emergence of smaller-scale resource management institutions, and some literature has begun to look at the characteristics and successes of these regional institutions, theory is lacking to explain the formation of these regional institutions. We first introduce three relevant streams of literature—on common pool resources management, on policy entrepreneurs and social capital, and on science and information in policy change—to frame our analysis. The comparisons of the cases point to the importance of integrating key insights from the literature for understanding the formation of collaborative resource governance. We emphasize how science, leadership, and prior organizational experience interact in facilitating institutional change, particularly in the process of raising awareness about resource management problems. In tracing the formation of these institutions, we also identify how external institutional triggers can help spur collaborative governance.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2004). One Basin at a Time: The Global Environment Facility and Governance of Transboundary Waters. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 108-141. doi:10.1162/glep.2004.4.4.108
  More info

  Increased international attention to water resource management and integration has resulted in the creation of new institutional arrangements and environmental funding mechanisms. The Global Environmental Facility's (GEF) International Waters Program is at the heart of such novel collaborative approaches to managing transboundary resources. This paper assesses GEF-led efforts in twenty-three projects across ten geographic regions. It finds that the GEF has been successful in building scientific knowledge and creating linkages across social, economic and environmental issues. However, challenges of enhancing the contractual environment and building national capacity remain. While GEF efforts thus far do indicate that institutions can affect the growth of knowledge and cooperation around transboundary waters, long-lasting achievements of the GEF's International Waters Program have yet to be realized.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2004). Strengthening river basin institutions: The Global Environment Facility and the Danube River Basin. Water Resources Research, 40(8). doi:10.1029/2003wr002936
  More info

  [1] Increased international attention to water resource management has resulted in the creation of new institutional arrangements and funding mechanisms as well as international initiatives designed to strengthen river basin institutions. The Global Environment Facility's (GEF) International Waters Program is at the heart of such novel collaborative regional approaches to the management of transboundary water resources. This paper assesses GEF-led efforts in the Danube River Basin, GEF's most mature and ambitious projects to date. It finds that GEF has been quite successful in building scientific knowledge and strengthening regional governance bodies. However, challenges of coordinating across expanding participants and demonstrating clear ecological improvements remain. GEF-led collaborative activities in the Danube River Basin reveal three critical lessons that can inform future river basin institution building and decision making, including the importance of appropriately creating and disseminating scientific data pertaining to the river system, the need for regional governance bodies for integrated river basin management, and the necessity to address coordination issues throughout project planning and implementation.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2004). The Global Environment Facility and Transboundary Water Resource Management: New Institutional Arrangements in the Danube River and Black Sea Region:. The Journal of Environment & Development, 13(4), 400-424. doi:10.1177/1070496504270869
  More info

  Increased international attention to water resource management has resulted in the creation of new institutional arrangements and environmental funding mechanisms. The Global Environment Facility’s (GEF) International Waters Program is at the heart of these new collaborative regional approaches to the management of transboundary resources. This article assesses the GEF-led efforts in the Danube River and Black Sea region, the GEF’s most mature and ambitious projects to date. It finds that the GEF has been successful in building scientific knowledge and strengthening regional governance institutions in the region. However, challenges remain, including the incorporation of stake-holder participation and the demonstration of clear ecological improvements.
• Clarke, J., & Gerlak, A. (1998). Environmental racism in the sunbelt? A cross-cultural analysis. Environmental Management, 22(6). doi:10.1007/s002679900153
  More info

  Sociologist Robert Bullard challenged the prevailing paradigm of environmentalism as a consensual issue in the United States by developing the concept of environmental racism. As he claims, ethnic minorities have been put 'at greater environmental risk' than has the Caucasian majority in most areas of the country. This study of the Tucson metropolitan area examines this proposition by utilizing data from several sources: interviews with elected officials and other opinion leaders, GIS-generated socioeconomic data, articles in the press, and a literature review. We conclude that Bullard's concept has validity for this metropolitan area but that there also exist widely divergent differences of opinion on the subject. We explain why this is so. We further conclude that the allegation of 'environmental racism' made by the Hispanic community in the 1980s and 1990s has had a transformative effect on local politics.

Presentations

• Barron-Gafford, G. A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Minor, R. L., Barnett-Moreno, I., Dimond, K., Gerlak, A. K., Murphy, P., Thompson, M. S., Winkler, C., Marston, S., & Macknick, J. (2019, August). Agrivoltaics in drylands: Co-location has food, water, and renewable energy benefits. 2019 ESA Annual Meeting. Louisville, KY: Eoclogical Society of America (ESA).
• Gerlak, A. K. (2018, April). Governing Transboundary Rivers: The Intersection between Science and Policy.. Presented at School of Public and Environmental Affairs and the Ostrom Workshop’s Program on Natural Resource Governance, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.. Bloomington, Indiana.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2018, October). Opportunities and Challenges in Groundwater Policy and Governance: A Global Overview.. Presented at the Rosenberg Water Forum, University of California, San Jose, California. San Jose, California.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Zuniga-Teran, A. (2018, December). Nature-based solutions to urban and peri-urban water scarcity in Tucson, Arizona.. Hosted by Center for Science and Environment and the International Water Security Network, AAETI, Nimli, Rajasthan, India. Rajasthan, India.
• Heikkila, T., Gerlak, A. K., & Weible, C. (2018, April). Does Science Change Beliefs in Contested Policy Contexts? New Insights for, and from, the Advocacy Coalition Framework.. Presented at the ECPR General Conference, Hamburg, Germany. Hamburg, Germany: ECPR.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017, Fall). “Equity in green infrastructure: A case study in Tucson, Arizona.”. Presented at Congreso Agua-Andes.. Ayacucho, Peru.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017, Fall). “From Tucson to Uruguay and Back: Securities and Inequalities in Water Infrastructure.”. Presented at the Earth System Governance conference.. Lund, Sweden.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017, Fall). “Institutional Design and Transformative Learning in Environmental Governance.”. Presented at Symposium on Learning and Innovation in Resilient Systems. Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017, Spring). Formal remarks on Andrew Jordan’s “Innovation in climate change governance”.. Presented at Symposium on Learning and Innovation in Resilient Systems.. Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017, Spring). Formal remarks on Jan Rotmans’ “Transition to a more sustainable society”.. Presented at Symposium on Learning and Innovation in Resilient Systems.. Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands (.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Greene, C. (2017, April). Interrogating the Global Framework for Climate Services.. Presented at the Association of American Geographers, Boston, MA. Boston, MA: AAG.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2017, March). Institutional Design and Transformative Learning in Environmental Governance.. Presented at Symposium on Learning and Innovation in Resilient Systems, Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands. Heerlen, The Netherlands.
• Gerlak, A. K., & Saguier, M. (2017, December). Advancing Good Practices in Building Interdisciplinary: Moving towards User-oriented Science.. Presented at the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research Workshop. Cancun, Mexico. Cancun, Mexico: IAI.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016, February). Information Flows and Networks. Invited talk at Caribbean Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology.. Bridgetown, Barbados.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016, September). Seeking and contesting environmental security in a complex world: Knowledge, agency and governance implications.. Roundtable discussion at the Royal Geographical Society Annual Conference.. London, England.
• Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., Smolinski, S., Huitema, D., & Armitage, D. (2016, April). Learning our way out of environmental problems: A systematic review of the scholarship.. Presented at the Midwest Annual Conference. Presented by Tanya Heikkila.. Chicago, Illinois.
• Megdal, S. B., Vimont, E., & Gerlak, A. K. (2016, September). A Survey of Groundwater Governance and Management Strategies, Challenges, and Opportunities Connected to Water Quality: Preliminary Results. Groundwater Protection Council Annual Forum, State Water Sustainability Planning: The Groundwater Connection. Orlando, FL.

Reviews

• Gerlak, A. K. (2017. Book review for Journal of Peace Research.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017. Earth System Governance conference.
  More info

  Review of conference paper submissions
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017. book manuscript review for Island Press.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2017. reviewed 13 journal articles in 2017.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016. Article Articles (completed 7 in Spring 2016).
  More info

  Climatic Change; Review of Policy Research; Policy Sciences; International Studies Perspectives; Water Resources Research; Anthropocene; Journal of Hydrology
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016. Article Reviews (8 completed in Fall 2016).
  More info

  Journal of Environment and Development; Journal of Hydrology; Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis; Policy Studies Journal (2); Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability; Journal of Environmental Planning and Management; Global Environmental Change
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016. Book Review for MIT Press.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016. Book review for Oxford University Press.
• Gerlak, A. K. (2016. Water in International Affairs: Heightened Attention to Equity and Rights(pp 99-105). Global Environmental Politics 16(1).
• Gerlak, A. K. (2015. Review of Victor Galaz’s Global Environmental Governance, Technology and Politics: The Anthropocene Gap.(pp 56-57).
• Gerlak, A. K. (2013. Review of David Feldman’s Water(pp 425-426).
• Gerlak, A. K. (2011. Review: Human Rights and Privatisation of Water in the EU and Beyond.(pp 529-530).

Case Studies

• Varady, R. G., Gerlak, A. K., & Megdal, S. B. (2015. Evaluation of the World Water Assessment Programme(pp 127 + vi pp.).
  More info

  Prepared in collaboration with A. Malhotra and J. Vaessen of UNESCO

Others

• Keith, L., & Gerlak, A. K. (2021, August). There's no place in the US safe from the heat. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/568718-theres-no-place-in-the-us-safe-from-the-heat
• Gerlak, A. K., Guido, Z., & Knudson, C. (2017, September). Mid-Term Review of the Global Framework for Climate Services.. World Meteorological Organisation.
  More info

  Evaluation and review of Global Framework for Climate Services. Methods = document analysis, surveys, interviews and field work in Africa.
• Gerlak, A. K., Petersen-Perlman, J., Vimont, E., & Megdal, S. B. (2017, June). State-level Groundwater Governance and Management in the U.S. – Summary of Survey Results of Groundwater Quality Strategies and Practices. Project report; Executive Summary posted on wrrc.arizona.edu/groundwater.
  More info

  The work reported on for this report was funded by the Ground Water Research and Education Foundation (GWREF) grant, “A Survey of Groundwater Governance and Management: Strategies, Challenges, and Opportunities Connected to Water Quality.”
• Megdal, S. B., Gerlak, A. K., Varady, R. G., & Huang, L. (2015, December). Improving Integrated Surface Water and Groundwater Management: Three Case Studies of Innovative Groundwater Governance Approaches. Official report on USGS 104b project, grant number: 2014AZ529B.