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.
• 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

• 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. 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.
• 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. 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.
• 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

• 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
• 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., 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Lansey, K. E., Zuniga Teran, A. A., Evans, T., Gerlak, A. K., Mayer, B. M., Mayer, B. M., Gerlak, A. K., Evans, T., Zuniga Teran, A. A., & Lansey, K. E. (2020). A multidimensional assessment of urban resilience from green infrastructure systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 42-47.
• 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.
• Varady, R. G., Ernst, K. C., Mukherjee, A., Gerlak, A. K., Mayer, B. M., Wilder, M. O., Albrecht, T., Zuniga Teran, A. A., Lemos, M. C., Lemos, M. C., Zuniga Teran, A. A., Albrecht, T., Wilder, M. O., Mayer, B. M., Mukherjee, A., Gerlak, A. K., Ernst, K. C., & Varady, R. G. (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., 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., 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., 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.
• 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.

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.