Towards transboundary Water–Energy–Food–Ecosystem Nexus governance

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning ISSN: 1523-908X (Print) 1522-7200 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cjoe20 Towards transboundary Water-Energy-FoodEcosystem Nexus governance: a comparative governance assessment of the Lielupe and MestaNestos river basins Caro E. Mooren, Stefania Munaretto, Dries L.T. Hegger, Peter P.J. Driessen & Isabelle La Jeunesse To cite this article: Caro E. Mooren, Stefania Munaretto, Dries L.T. Hegger, Peter P.J. Driessen & Isabelle La Jeunesse (2024) Towards transboundary Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystem Nexus governance: a comparative governance assessment of the Lielupe and MestaNestos river basins, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 26:6, 623-642, DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2024.2384582 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2024.2384582 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group View supplementary material Published online: 29 Aug 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1906 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 7 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjoe20 Towards transboundary Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystem Nexus governance: a comparative governance assessment of the Lielupe and Mesta-Nestos river basins Caro E. Mooren a,b , Stefania Munaretto a,b , Dries L.T. Hegger b , Peter P.J. Driessen b and Isabelle La Jeunesse c,d a KWR Water Research Institute, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands; b Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; c University of Tours CNRS 7324 Citeres, Tours, France; d University Côte d’Azur, IMREDD, Laboratoire CNRS 7300 ESPACE, Nice, France ABSTRACT In recent years, the conceptualization and application of the WEF and later WEFE nexus in science, policy and practice has progressed significantly. Despite the transboundary nature of sustainability and WEFE nexus issues, research on WEFE nexus governance in a transboundary context is less developed. WEFE nexus governance refers to societal decision-making to address challenges related to goals, actors and actor networks, scales, institutions and resources. In this paper, we explore the governance challenges encountered when implementing WEFE nexus governance in a transboundary setting. To identify these challenges in practice, we conducted a WEFE nexus governance and policy coherence assessment in two transboundary case studies: the Lielupe river basin and Mesta-Nestos river basin. Our analysis shows that in both cases the governance arrangements are restrictive towards WEFE nexus governance. Based on the factors contributing to the degree of restrictiveness, we identify four key conditions to overcome the transboundary governance challenges: (1) awareness of WEFE nexus interlinkages at all governmental levels; (2) local crossborder and sectoral communication and trust; (3) addressing issues at the appropriate level; and (4) adequate resources and natural resource monitoring across sectors. These conditions lead to recommendations to proceed towards more integrated approaches to transboundary WEFE nexus governance. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 23 January 2024 Accepted 16 July 2024 KEYWORDS WEFE nexus governance; WEFE nexus policy; governance assessment; cross-sectoral collaboration 1. Introduction Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus thinking gained attention in recent years as a response to increasing depletion of natural resources due to excessive demand (Allouche et al., 2015; Benson et al., 2015; White et al., 2017). Simultaneously, evidence shows that interlinkages between WEF nexus domains (i.e. connections through which the nexus domains influence each other) are strong and activities in one domain can create negative spillover effects in another domain (De Strasser et al., 2016; Mooren et al., Under review). More recently, authors have added the Ecosystem domain, resulting in the WEFE nexus (e.g. De Strasser et al. (2016), Bidoglio et al. (2019), and Malagó et al. (2021)). Within this framework, cross-domain knowledge co-production and governance are based on the assumption that all nexus domains are equal and interdependent. It aims to manage natural resources in a coherent and sustainable © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. CONTACT Caro E. Mooren [email protected] Groningenhaven 7, 3433 PE Nieuwegein, Netherlands & Princetonlaan 8, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2024.2384582. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 2024, VOL. 26, NO. 6, 623–642 https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2024.2384582 manner by leveraging synergies and managing trade-offs between domains on a regional scale (Avellán et al., 2017; Benson et al., 2015; Chenoweth & Al-Masri, 2021;Hoff,2011; van den Heuvel et al., 2020). The scientific debate on WEFE nexus governance has progressed significantly in the past decade (e.g. González-Rosell et al., 2023; Kurian et al., 2018; Lebel et al., 2020), with the development of several methods to analyze and implement the nexus approach in policy practice (Daher & Mohtar, 2015; Halbe et al., 2015; Harwood, 2018;Hoffet al., 2019; Pereira Ramos et al., 2022). However, the role and integration of the ecosystem in the nexus remains debated and requires further attention (Sušnik & Staddon, 2021). Lucca et al. (under review) highlight the discussion on the role of the ecosystem in the conceptualization of the WEFE nexus and the different terminology used such as nature, biodiversity, natural environment, and natural resources. Moreover, adding the ecosystem component adds challenges to nexus governance. Many sustainability and WEFE issues are transboundary by nature as the biophysical properties of the ecosystem and the WEFE nexus interlinkages that derive from it do not always follow administrative boundaries. A well-known example is that of rivers, which cross multiple countries (Armitage et al., 2015). As a result, water pollution is not contained in the upstream country, but affects the down-stream country as well. Upstream placed irrigation dams directly affecting down steam water quantity for irrigation purposes are another example. The transboundary aspect of the nexus amplifies the complexity of nexus governance. Transboundary governance itself is complicated by an increased number of stakeholders, power imbalances, cultural differences, conflicting perspectives and values, socio-economic differences between countries, and the need to integrate different types of knowledge (Armitage et al., 2015; Dore et al., 2012; Finger et al., 2006; Gerlak, 2015; Mylopoulos et al., 2008). Additional complication stems from the complex set of biophysical interlinkages leading to cross-sectoral trade-offs whose management requires coherent WEFE policies (Hoff, 2011). Several authors have reflected on governance aspects of importance to the nexus (de Andrade Guerra et al., 2021; Jones & White, 2021;Pahl-Wostl et al., 2021; Roidt & Avellán, 2019; Scott et al., 2018). In particular, Mooren et al. (under review) identified five types of governance challenges (see section 2) for the WEFE nexus, highlighting its complexity: goal-related, actor-related, scale-related, institutionalrelated, and resource-related governance challenges. Based on these challenges, Mooren et al. (under review) observe that striving for policy coherence, which can be defined as having aligned policy goals and instruments between policy domains fostering synergies between those domains and reducing trade-offs (Giest & Mukherjee, 2022; Nilsson et al., 2012), is a difficult endeavor. However, it is also an indicator for successful WEFE nexus governance, requiring negotiated policy goals based on shared perspectives, consistent coordination between WEFE institutions and actors, a match between the biophysical scale of the problems and the governance structures addressing them, and consistent allocation of sufficient human and financial resources to ensure sustainable management of WEFE resources. Therefore, it is important to assess governance systems’current orientation, and their capacity to support or restrict the transition towards transboundary WEFE nexus governance. This could help to identify entry points for change. Despite these challenges, insights about transboundary WEFE nexus governance approaches are limited in the literature. While there is a growing body of literature on the nexus in a transboundary context, most approaches are technical, focusing on bio-physical modeling (Chenoweth & Al-Masri, 2021). When studies focus on nexus governance issues, they often exclude the ecosystem with the exception of De Strasser et al. (2016) and Dondeynaz et al. (2018). Nevertheless, Dondeynaz et al. (2018) maintain a rather technical focus in its attempt to define a nexus governance framework and De Strasser et al. (2016) lack clear nexus governance instruments. Moreover, the systematic literature review of Urbinatti et al. (2020) shows that research on the nexus should include different knowledge types across different stakeholders. This is especially important in a transboundary context as local scale problems and related impacts are often neglected when addressing nexus issues (Scott et al., 2011). Local stakeholder engagement is usually limited due to centralized national governmental processes for transboundary issues (Jager et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2013). This paper therefore aims to contribute to the transboundary WEFE nexus governance literature by providing insights into conditions enabling WEFE nexus governance in transboundary river basins by analyzing 624 C. E. MOOREN ET AL. two cases, the Lielupe (Latvia-Lithuania) and the Mesta-Nestos (Bulgaria-Greece) transboundary river basins. More specifically, this research sets out to answers three research questions: .To what extent are the current governance arrangements in the two case studies supportive or restrictive towards WEFE nexus governance? .What factors contribute to the restrictiveness or supportiveness? .Based on lessons learned across the two cases, what recommendations can be formulated for transboundary WEFE nexus governance? To answer these research questions, the paper starts with presenting the research approach and analytical framework (section 2), followed by the methodology (section 3). After illustrating the case studies’WEFE nexus issues (section 4.1), section 4.2 presents the governance and policy coherence assessment results. Section 4.3 illustrates the factors explaining the assessment results in a comparative fashion. The paper ends with a discussion, recommendations (section 5) and a conclusion (section 6). This research is conducted within the European funded research project NEXOGENESIS. 2. Research approach and analytical framework Our research approach consists of three steps (Figure 1). First (step 1), a WEFE nexus governance assessment is conducted using the Nexus Governance Assessment Tool (NXGAT) (La Jeunesse et al., 2023; La Jeunesse et al., forthcoming) integrated with a policy coherence assessment as suggested by Mooren et al. (under review). The overall assessment identifies elements contributing to restrictiveness and supportiveness of the governance arrangements towards WEFE nexus governance. These elements, analyzed in light of the nexus governance challengessuggestedbyMoorenetal.(underreview)andrelatedexplanatoryfactors(step2),permittoidentifysuitable governance arrangements and related enabling conditions for transboundary WEFE nexus governance (step 3). 2.1. Governance and policy coherence assessment The analytical framework underpinning the WEFE nexus governance and policy assessment is reported in details in La Jeunesse et al. (forthcoming), Mooren et al. (Under review), and Hüesker et al. (2022). Here we briefly summarize it. Figure 1. Research approach. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 625 The NXGAT (ibid) assesses the degree of restrictiveness or supportiveness of governance arrangements towards WEFE nexus governance by providing an understanding of how governance arrangements perform in relation to key nexus governance challenges, and consequently, which barriers, opportunities and entry points for change exist. Supportiveness is defined as the degree to which a governance system enables WEFE nexus governance. Restrictiveness is defined as the degree to which the governance arrangement hinders WEFE nexus governance (La Jeunesse et al., Forthcoming). To identify key factors contributing to the degree of supportiveness or restrictiveness, the NXGAT assesses five governance dimensions (levels and scales, actors and networks, problem perspectives and goal ambitions, strategies and instruments, and resources and responsibilities) against five governance quality criteria (comprehensiveness, coherence, flexibility, intensity of action, and fit). Both the governance dimensions and criteria are developed based on key nexus governance characteristics and challenges identified by an extensive literature review (Mooren et al. under review). The quality criteria in the NXGAT are scored on a four-point scale (very low –low –high –very high) per governance dimension. The overall evaluation of the governance orientation towards WEFE nexus governance of a specific case study (CS) is based on the overall scores of the quality criteria. If three out of five is very low/low, the governance arrangement is restrictive. If three out of five is high/very high, the governance arrangement is supportive towards WEFE nexus governance. The assessment is based on interviews with relevant stakeholders across the WEFE domains and literature review. The evaluation questions and qualitative scoring system per each pair of criteria/quality dimension can be found in the supplementary material –Annex 2. Furthermore, for the NXGAT governance dimension ‘strategies and instruments’an in-depth investigation of the quality criteria ‘Coherence’is conducted using a dedicated policy coherence assessment method. This additional investigation gains specific insights on how WEFE policies account for nexus trade-offs and synergies. Because policy coherence is a key aspect and an indicator of successful nexus governance (Mooren et al., under review), such analysis validates the quality criteria coherence of the NXGAT and strengthens the overall nexus governance assessment evaluation. The coherence investigation consists of assessing the presence and stringency within WEFE policy documents of measures to reduce trade-offs and exploit synergies that exist across WEFE policy domains. The presence and stringency of prescriptions is assessed through a fourpoint scoring system: not applicable, no-coherence, weak coherence, strong coherence (see Hüesker et al. (2022) for more details on the method and supplementary material-Annex 2). The assessment is based on an in-depth analysis of policy documents through expert judgement and a validation with a group of key stakeholder representing the WEFE nexus policy domains. 2.2. Explanatory framework for successful transboundary WEFE nexus governance and policy To explain the level of restrictiveness or supportiveness of governance arrangements towards transboundary WEFE nexus governance found in the case studies, we operationalized the nexus governance challenges identified by Mooren et al. (under review) into a number of explanatory factors (Table 1). A high degree/level of each factor is indication of support for transboundary WEFE nexus governance, whereas a low degree/level is indication of the factor being restrictive. 3. Methodology This study uses a comparative case study design to find similarities and differences in the elements supporting or restricting transboundary WEFE nexus governance in two cases: the Mesta-Nestos river basin and Lielupe river basin (Verschuren et al., 2010). This helps to interpret factors contributing to either supporting or restricting transboundary WEFE nexus governance and to formulate recommendations accordingly. The two cases were selected among the case studies of the NEXOGENESIS project based on three criteria. The case studies should: –Have a comparable legislative system. Both cases are European Union (EU) Member States and therefore have to comply with EU regulations. 626 C. E. MOOREN ET AL. –Have similarities in the types of river basins; both river basins are transboundary equally shared by two countries. –Share similar types of problems; in both river basins, WEFE nexus issues are present. The WEFE nexus governance and policy assessment were conducted using a mix of qualitative methods. The nexus governance assessment was carried out via in-depth semi-structured interviews with relevant WEFE stakeholders to assess the governance arrangement as a whole using the NXGAT. Each interview lasted 1.5–2 hours and was conducted by a multidisciplinary research team including the first and fifth author of this paper during 1–2 weeks field visits. 37 stakeholders were interviewed for the Lielupe case study and 27 for the Mesta-Nestos case study. Respondents were selected based on purposeand snowball sampling (Bernard, 2017). Respondents included WEFE resource managers, resource users, NGOs and public authorities across different administrative levels and scales. Most interviews were conducted in English, when impossible, a translator was present on site. All interviews were recorded, and the research team kept a record of notes. Additional notes were gathered through transboundary stakeholder workshops to which the first and fifth author participated. Two transboundary workshops were held in the Lielupe river basin, one in September 2022 with local and regional stakeholders and one in June 2023 with local, regional and national stakeholders. The transboundary workshop in the Mesta-Nestos river basin was held in March 2023 with local and regional stakeholders. The workshops were organized as part of the NEXOGENESIS project activities. These workshop discussions allowed to gather additional insights on the stakeholders perceptions of problems and solutions and their understanding of WEFE nexus and WEFE nexus governance in their region. Table 1. Key explanatory factors for the level of restrictiveness or supportiveness towards transboundary WEFE nexus governance. Type of governance challenge Explanatory factor for the level of restrictiveness or supportiveness towards transboundary WEFE nexus governance References Goal and problems – Conflicting policy goals between the WEFE nexus domains and complexity associated to ensuring a certain degree of policy integration across the WEFE policy domains 1. Degree to which efforts are taken towards integration and coherence of different WEFE nexus policy domains in policy and legislative documents and in practice 1. Scott et al. (2018); De Grenade et al. (2016) Actor and networksConflicting perspectives and values and power imbalances between the actors of the different WEFE domains 2. Degree of willingness to collaborate and compromise between different WEFE domains and nations 3. Degree of willingness to incorporate local views and perspectives in transboundary actions 4. Level of agreement and trust between countries 2. Salmoral et al. (2019) 3. Purwanto et al. (2019) 4. Link et al. (2016) Scale –A lack of fit between nexus issues and the administrative scale dealing with these issues 5. The degree to which administrative levels of the governance arrangement that deal with the WEFE domains match the bio-geophysical scale at which the domains operate 5. Mooren et al. (under review); Pahl-Wostl et al. (2021) InstitutionalThe mismatch between sectoral regulatory models, the jurisdictional overlap between policy domains creating unclear responsibilities, and the impact of the interaction between institutions addressing WEFE issues on their effectiveness, a phenomenon known as institutional interplay (Cash et al., 2006;Pahl-Wostl et al., 2021;Young et al., 1999) 6. The degree of willingness of national institutions to intervene at different scales (related to scalar strategies challenge) 7. The level of sectoral and transboundary institutional collaboration (related to institutional interplay) 8. The extent to which legislation is unambiguous and comprehensive 9. The degree of coordination between domains and countries 10. The extent to which a match between sectoral and national regulatory models is present 6. Pahl-Wostl et al. (2021). 7. Pahl-Wostl et al. (2021) 8. Olawuyi (2020) 9. Carlisle and Gruby (2019) 10. Scott et al. (2018); Olawuyi (2020) Resource –A lack of nexus specific knowledge, nexusdedicated human and financial resources, and political will to address problems with a WEFE cross-domain perspective. 11. The extent to which knowledge, human and financial capital for addressing transboundary nexus issues are available 12. The extent to which resources are clearly assigned for intersectoral transboundary resource management 11. (Salmoral et al., 2020); Scott et al. (2018) 12. Olawuyi (2020) JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 627 The research team coded the data answering the NXGAT questions to score the quality criteria for each governance dimension, and came to the final overall evaluation of the level of supportiveness or restrictiveness of the governance arrangements via in-depth discussions among the research team members that lasted up to eight hours per case study. The quality criteria were scored following the NXGAT methodological table (supplementary material –annex 2). The scores and final evaluation were validated with the local case study partners and discussed with the interviewees and additional stakeholders during a postassessment workshop. This exercise was complemented by the policy coherence assessment that started with a document analysis of the coherence of relevant policies in the case studies. The analysis was conducted per country of each river basin and included transboundary policies when existing. First, local NEXOGENESIS case study partners made an initial selection of the policies based on the WEFE nexus problems present in the case studies. The local partners stored these policies in an Excel database indicating the name of the policy, its policy domain, its goals, targets and policy instruments. As second step, the local partners conducted an in-depth reading of the policy documents and scored the coherence of each policy document with the other WEFE domains, including a justification. Subsequently, the first author of this paper reviewed the scores based on the evidence listed by the local partner. The local partners and first author discussed the scores for which there was disagreement until they reached consensus. To complete the triangulation of the results, the policy coherence scores were discussed and validated with local stakeholders during an online focus group. One stakeholder from each WEFE policy domain familiar with implementation of identified policies was invited. Although representatives from most nexus domains were present in the focus groups, the energy sector was not represented in Lithuania and in Greece. However, all WEFE nexus domains were represented in a workshop where we discussed the policy coherence results. 4. Results 4.1. Case study description The Mesta-Nestos river basin is a transboundary river basin located in upstream Bulgaria (Mesta) and downstream Greece (Nestos) (Figure 2) (Boskidis et al., 2018; Kamidis & Sylaios, 2017; Proutsos et al., 2022). Water quantity and quality are the main transboundary challenges in the river basin. The ecological water quality is deteriorating due to the use of agricultural fertilizers both up –and downstream and solid waste pollution upstream affects downstream water quality. As for water quantity, an often insufficient minimum ecological flow leads to habitat degradation downstream as a result of water abstractions for agricultural purposes upstream, and the presence of three hydropower dams, i.e. the Dospat (Bulgaria), the Thissavros and the Platanovryssi (Greece) and one irrigation dam, the Toxotes (Greece) putting pressure on the riparian ecosystem in both countries. Moreover, these dams block fish migration routes, harming not only natural fish populations, but also impacting the fishery industry in Greece. At the same time, there are tensions between the agricultural and energy sector in Greece over land-use for the installation of solar power plants on agricultural land. Lastly, a large part of the river basin is located within a European Natura 2000 protected area in both countries, creating tensions between the ecosystem preservation organizations and the other WEFE nexus domains, nationally and cross-border. The Lielupe river basin (Figure 3) is located in upstream Lithuania and downstream Latvia (Koltsova & Belakova, 2009). The main transboundary issues are related to water quality. Agricultural and transit pollution have increased eutrophication, which resulted in deterioration of the ecological water quality stemming (Česonienėet al., 2021; Jekabsone et al., 2022). While affecting in the entire river basin, water pollution is a major issue downstream, in Latvia. Moreover, hydro-morphological alterations of the river due to channeling for agricultural land drainage and small hydropower plants are increasingly problematic for the ecological quality of the river in Latvia. The energy sector is searching for alternative energy resources in both countries, therefore looking to the other domains to, for example, use agricultural land or the sea for wind parks. This creates tensions with the ecosystem preservation organizations and 628 C. E. MOOREN ET AL. the agricultural sectors. At the same time, water quantity issues (excessive water) are a problem in Latvia where floods during spring time damage agricultural crops, thus exacerbating ecosystem-agriculture tensions (Merkuryeva et al., 2015). A more detailed illustration of the key characteristics of the river basins can be found in the supplementary material-Annex 1. 4.2. WEFE nexus governance in the two river basins This chapter answers the first research question: to what extent are the governance arrangements in the case studies restrictive or supportive towards WEFE nexus governance? 4.2.1. Mesta-Nestos The governance of the Mesta-Nestos river basin is restrictive towards transboundary WEFE nexus governance. Insights from the interviews and process observations show that the strict top-down governance arrangements combined with a strong hierarchical institutional structure, lack of trust between the administrative levels, and high level of bureaucracy makes it difficult to involve the regional and local levels in transboundary cross-sectoral governance discussions. All transboundary contacts take place at the national level. Figure 2. Mesta-Nestos River basin. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 629 Moreover, the national level did not engage in the research interviews, focus groups, or workshops, indicating little interest in including more local perspectives in transboundary discussions. Specifically, the strong sectoral vision of the national governments is a restrictive element for WEFE nexus-oriented measures at the river basin level. There is no local transboundary contact between the border municipalities resulting in a lack of trust between the two countries at the local level. Local transboundary collaboration is further complicated by a language barrier and high levels of bureaucracy, specifically concerning water quality and quantity data sharing. Moreover, there is a lack of trust between the actors of the different WEFE domains in both countries. More specifically, there are tensions within the Greek agriculture sector between two agricultural districts making use of the same water source for irrigation, the Nestos. While both countries share similar views on most issues in the river basin, they have different perspectives on the causes of these issues due to limited understanding of the hydraulic system’s complexity. For example, according to the Bulgarian stakeholders, the Dospat dam, a hydropower dam in a tributary of the Mesta river (Dospat river), does not influence Mesta’s water levels as it is not located in the Mesta (See Figure 2). However, this tributary flows into the Nestos and therefore influences the water levels of the Nestos river. While a bilateral river basin agreement has been in place since 1995, stating that 29% of the water originating from Bulgaria should flow to Greece (Karasani et al., 2022), Bulgarian stakeholders indicate that there is a need to renegotiate this agreement in light of climate change. According to stakeholders, there have not yet been negotiations, while the meteorological conditions have changed since 1995, indicating that this agreement is rather inflexible. The agreement was intended to ensure sufficient water quantity for both countries, and as such having a positive effect on the WEFE nexus by ensuring sufficient water for all uses. However, due to different climatic conditions, currently Figure 3. Lielupe River basin. 630 C. E. MOOREN ET AL. results show, in line with other authors, that including local perspectives in transboundary governance is necessary for legitimacy and local acceptance of solutions (Armitage et al., 2015; Green et al., 2013). Moreover, the low coherence and lack of trust between the different administrative levels limits the willingness to intervene at different and often more appropriate scales. One possible explanation could be the distance between the administrative levels, especially in the Mesta-Nestos case study. Proximity fosters knowledge exchange between actors (Biggiero & Sammarra, 2010). The cases show that some issues are very local and require solutions based on local knowledge, and are often more adequately tackled from the local/regional level than from the national level. To address issues at the appropriate level we recommend that allocating a bigger role for the regional level could reduce the distance between the national and local level leading to more integration and coordination. More specifically, catchment officers could bridge the different administrative levels, countries, and WEFE nexus sectors. They could act as boundary organizations or workers. Boundary organizations and boundary workers are mentioned in the literature as one of the key conditions for transboundary governance (Armitage et al., 2015). Boundary organizations are formal institutions at the intersection between governmental and non-governmental organizations aiming to bring social actors and their views together. Catchment officers, can be seen as boundary workers. Such agents have successfully been used in Denmark to foster communication and trust building between different types of stakeholders (e.g. public administrations, scientist, private actors), while at the same time supporting the implementation of nutrient mitigation measures (Hoffmann et al., 2020). Another successful example is the Dutch Delta program, a national program responsible for advising the Dutch government on flood protection and fresh water supply (Restemeyer et al., 2017). To be effective, impartial and avoid institutional crowdedness, these organizations should have the clear aim and mandate to mediate between different WEFE domains and governmental scales, rather than adding their own agenda to existing ones (Biesbroek et al., 2011; Smith & Porter, 2010). These organizations or individuals should function as true boundary organizations/workers, responsible for facilitating inclusive communication, creating common ground and mutual understanding between the stakeholders, making space for all perspectives to be heard, and laying down the rules for decision-making (Van Enst et al., 2017). This could enable different national and sectoral institutions to collaborate and coordinate. Hoffmann et al. (2022)reflect on the roles and expertise that individuals bridging multiple disciplines and, science and practice should have. They often take on roles such as bridge builders, translating different perspectives, fostering synergies between different perspectives, mediating between different groups, but also facilitating and evaluating the process. These roles require specific skills and expertise which the catchment officers should have. They should be creative, patient, and reflexive. Moreover, these individuals should be integrative thinkers, have interactional and referred expertise (Hoffmann et al., 2022). The former refers to the ability to understand and communicate with disciplines other than your own discipline, and the latter the ability to use expertise from one discipline in another (Collins, 2004; Collins & Sanders, 2007;Hoffmann et al., 2022) Catchment officers should either be selected based on this expertise or supported to develop it. Our findings regarding the resource related factors show that both case lack knowledge, human and financial resources hindering monitoring of natural resource. A lack of monitoring of water quality and quantity, in turn, complicates transboundary negotiations over natural resource allocation or pollution. Our findings confirm existing literature identifying lack of monitoring, non-transparent data and having different indicators and/or targets as a challenge to transboundary governance (Green et al., 2013; Voss et al., 2013). For instance, disagreement on hydraulic models or pollutants thresholds complicates the process to reach an agreement on transboundary resource quality and use (Krengel et al., 2018; Voss et al., 2013). Green et al. (2013) suggest that joint monitoring of natural resources can be a first step in transboundary collaboration and data sharing because reliable, credible data can foster collaboration (Namany et al., 2023). Monitoring is not only important as a precondition for collaboration, but also to evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken, and so their enforcement (Jiménez et al., 2020). Unfortunately, as seen in the cases, insufficient funding in the public sector or insufficient fines do not stimulate behavioral change. The literature points to potential solutions. Benefit-sharing schemes, for instance, are a way to foster selfenforcement and serve as an incentive for transboundary cooperation (Green et al., 2013; Namany et al., 2023). Other options would be to set up cost-sharing schemes between transboundary countries by JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 637 broadening the valuation of ecosystem services beyond only conservation or making use of public-privatepartnerships (PPP) (Mirumachi & Hurlbert, 2022). However, mitigating the risks of PPPs and making it successful requires well-functioning laws, regulations, and adequate resources (Mirumachi & Hurlbert, 2022). Based on experiences in our research, we noticed that EU-projects are often used to instigate local transboundary actions. Therefore, we recommend using EU-projects as temporary funds to finance projects and meetings and are therefore not a permanent solution. However, they are useful platforms to initiate local transboundary dialogue between different administrative organizations, and between representatives from different WEFE nexus domains. This could be combined with well-coordinated private investments in cross-sectoral initiatives as a long-term solution. The recommendations above are formulated based on the interview results and our observations and experiences in the NEXOGENISIS project. The project is transdisciplinary and researchers from various disciplines frequently interact with stakeholders to produce results. These interactions might contribute to high stakeholder interest and cross-sectoral learning, despite some stakeholder fatigue. It should be noted that the stakeholders explicitly mentioned the usefulness of these transdisciplinary projects and activities. 6. Conclusion This paper set out to fill a knowledge gap on practical transboundary WEFE nexus governance approaches and tools by means of two transboundary cases, the Lielupe and the Mesta-Nestos river basins. We addressed three research questions: (1) to what extent are the current governance arrangements in the Lielupe and Mesta-Nestos river basin supportive or restrictive towards WEFE nexus governance? (2) what factors contribute to supportiveness and restrictiveness? (3) what recommendations can be formulated based on the lessons learned across the two case studies for transboundary WEFE nexus governance? Our analysis shows that the governance arrangements in both cases are restrictive towards transboundary WEFE nexus governance. It also revealed a number of elements contributing to the level of restrictiveness, which interpreted in light of 5 types of governance challenges and related explanatory factors, allowed to formulate four recommendations to organize transboundary WEFE nexus governance in a more optimal way. This research compared two transboundary river basins in Europe. The WEFE nexus governance assessment methodology proved useful to provide case-relevant insights and recommendations. However, the findings are difficult to generalize since the methodology has been applied only to two transboundary cases so far. Further testing and application in other transboundary contexts and also across different nexus issues is necessary to consolidate it. Moreover, the practical feasibility of the recommendations should be further investigated. A final suggestion is to have the national level reflect on these results, especially on the current relevance of the formal transboundary agreements and the need to revise or to establish new ones. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank C. Cirelli, I. Canovas, K. Mounir, D. Indriksone, I. Bremere, E. Doncheva, G. Veleva, M. Papadoupoulou & C. Papadoupoulou for their support during the fieldwork, and L.M. Andrews and C.J. Teo for their constructive feedback on the manuscript and figures. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This research took place in the context of NEXOGENESIS project, a research project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [grant number 101003881]. 638 C. E. MOOREN ET AL. ORCID Caro E. Mooren http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7620-4558 Stefania Munaretto http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0342-893X Dries L.T. Hegger http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2721-3527 Peter P.J. Driessen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0724-6666 Isabelle La Jeunesse http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2411-5972 References Allouche, J., Middleton, C., & Gyawali, D. (2015). Technical veil, hidden politics: Interrogating the power linkages behind the nexus. Water Alternatives,8(1), 610–626. Armitage, D., De Loë, R. C., Morris, M., Edwards, T. W., 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0644-x Avellán, T., Roidt, M., Emmer, A., Von Koerber, J., Schneider, P., & Raber, W. (2017). Making the water–soil–waste nexus work: Framing the boundaries of resource flows. Sustainability,9(10), 1881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101881 Benson, D., Gain, A. K., & Rouillard, J. J. (2015). Water governance in a comparative perspective: From IWRM to a’nexus’ approach? Water Alternatives,8(1), 756–773. Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman & Littlefield. Bidoglio, G., Vanham, D., Bouraoui, F., & Barchiesi, S. (2019). The water-energy-food-ecosystems (WEFE) nexus. Encyclopedia of Ecology, 459–466. 2nd ed.; Fath, B., Ed.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.11036-X Biesbroek, R., Klostermann, J., Termeer, C., & Kabat, P. (2011). Barriers to climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. Climate Law,2(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1163/CL-2011-033 Biggiero, L., & Sammarra, A. (2010). Does geographical proximity enhance knowledge exchange? The case of the aerospace industrial cluster of Centre Italy. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation,9(4), 283–305. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJTTC.2010.035397 Boskidis, I., Kokkos, N., Sapounidis, A., Triantafillidis, S., Kamidis, N., Koutrakis, E., & Sylaios, G. K. (2018). Ecohydraulic modelling of Nestos River Delta under low flow regimes. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology,18(4), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecohyd.2018.06.004 Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2019). Polycentric systems of governance: A theoretical model for the commons. Policy Studies Journal,47(4), 927–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212 Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Lowell, P., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society,11(2). Česonienė, L., Šileikienė, D., & Dapkienė,M.(2021). Influence of anthropogenic load in river basins on river water status: A case study in Lithuania. Land,10(12), 1312. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121312 Chenoweth, J., & Al-Masri, R. A. (2021). The impact of adopting a water-energy nexus approach in Jordan on transboundary management. Environmental Science & Policy,118,49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.01.006 Collins, H. (2004). Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences,3(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040824.89221.1a Collins, H., & Sanders, G. (2007). They give you the keys and say ‘drive it!’Managers, referred expertise, and other expertises. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,38(4), 621–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.002 Daher, B. T., & Mohtar, R. H. (2015). Water–energy–food (WEF) Nexus Tool 2.0: Guiding integrative resource planning and decision-making. Water International,40(5-6), 748–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1074148 de Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O., Berchin, I. I., Garcia, J., da Silva Neiva, S., Jonck, A. V., Faraco, R. A., Silva de Amorim, W., & Ribeiro, J. M. P. (2021). A literature-based study on the water–energy–food nexus for sustainable development. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment,35(1), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01772-6 De Grenade, R., House-Peters, L., Scott, C., Thapa, B., Mills-Novoa, M., Gerlak, A., & Verbist, K. (2016). The nexus: Reconsidering environmental security and adaptive capacity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,21,15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.10.009 De Strasser, L., Lipponen, A., Howells, M., Stec, S., & Bréthaut, C. (2016). A methodology to assess the water energy food ecosystems nexus in transboundary river basins. Water,8(2), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8020059 Dondeynaz, C., Pastori, M., Ameztoy, I., & Carmona-Moreno, C. (2018). Assessing the WEFE Nexus and finding optimal solutions in the Mékrou transboundary river basin. Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystems (WEFE) Nexus and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),101, 101–109. Dore, J., Lebel, L., & Molle, F. (2012). A framework for analysing transboundary water governance complexes, illustrated in the Mekong Region. Journal of Hydrology,466-467(466), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.07.023 Finger, M., Tamiotti, L., & Allouche, J. (2006). Multi-governance, and transboundary river basin management. The MultiGovernance of Water: Four Case Studies, 173. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 639 Fulgenzi, A., Brouwer, S., Baker, K., & Frijns, J. (2020). Communities of practice at the center of circular water solutions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water,7(4), e1450. Gerlak, A. K. (2015). Resistance and reform: Transboundary water governance in the Colorado River Delta. Review of Policy Research,32(1), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12114 Giest, S., & Mukherjee, I. (2022). Evidence integration for coherent nexus policy design: A Mediterranean perspective on managing water-energy interactions. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,24(5), 553–567. González-Rosell, A., Arfa, I., & Blanco, M. (2023). Introducing GoNEXUS SEF: A solutions evaluation framework for the joint governance of water, energy, and food resources. Sustainability Science,18, 1683–1703. Green, O. O., Cosens, B. A., & Garmestani, A. S. (2013). Resilience in transboundary water governance: The Okavango River Basin. Ecology and Society,18(2). Halbe, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., Lange, M., & Velonis, C. (2015). Governance of transitions towards sustainable development–the water– energy–food nexus in Cyprus. Water International,40(5-6), 877–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1070328 Harwood, S. A. (2018). In search of a (WEF) nexus approach. Environmental Science & Policy,89,79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2018.01.020 Hoff,H.(2011). Understanding the nexus: Background paper for the Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference. SEI. Hoff, H., Alrahaife, S. A., El Hajj, R., Lohr, K., Mengoub, F. E., Farajalla, N., Fritzsche, K., Jobbins, G., Özerol, G., Schultz, R., & Ulrich, A. (2019). A nexus approach for the MENA region—from concept to knowledge to action. Frontiers in Environmental Science,7, 48. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00048 Hoffmann, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, J. T., & O’Rourke, M. (2022). Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications,9(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-02101017-z Hoffmann, C. C., Zak, D., Kronvang, B., Kjaergaard, C., Carstensen, M. V., & Audet, J. (2020). An overview of nutrient transport mitigation measures for improvement of water quality in Denmark. Ecological Engineering,155, 105863. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105863 Hüesker, F., Sievers, E., Mooren, C. E., Munaretto, S., Canovas, I., La Jeunesse, I., Cirelli, C., Mounir, K., Madrigal, J., Schmeier, S., Müller, A., & Avellan, T. (2022). Stakeholders’co-creation approach for WEFE nexus Governance. Retrieved from Leipzig, Germany. Jager, N. W., Challies, E., Kochskämper, E., Newig, J., Benson, D., Blackstock, K., Collins, K., Ernst, A., Evers, M. Feichtinger, J., Fritsch, O., Gooch, G., Grund, W., Hedelin, B., Hernández–Mora, N., Hüesker, F. Huitema, D., Irvine, K., Klinke, A., Lange, L., Loupsans, D., Lubell, M., Maganda, C., Matczak, P., Parés, M., Saarikoski, H., Slavíkova, L., Van der Arend, S., & Von Korff,Y. (2016). Transforming European water governance? Participation and river basin management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 member states. Water,8(4), 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8040156 Jekabsone, J., Abersons, K., Kolcova, T., & Tirums, M. (2022). First steps in the ecological flow determining for Latvian rivers. Hydrology Research,53(8), 1063–1074. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2022.019 Jiménez, A., Saikia, P., Giné, R., Avello, P., Leten, J., Liss Lymer, B., Schneider, K., & Ward, R. (2020). Unpacking water governance: A framework for practitioners. Water,12(3), 827. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030827 Jones, J. L., & White, D. D. (2021). A social network analysis of collaborative governance for the food-energy-water nexus in Phoenix, AZ, USA. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences,1–11. Kamidis, N., & Sylaios, G. (2017). Impact of river damming on sediment texture and trace metals distribution along the watershed and the coastal zone of Nestos River (NE Greece). Environmental Earth Sciences,76(10), 373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665017-6707-5 Karasani, M., Dionissis, L., Susanne, S., & Ifigenia, K. (2022). Identifying water governance priorities and gaps in transboundary basins through SWOT: The case study of Mesta/Nestos River Basin. Environmental Sciences Proceedings,21(1). Koltsova, T., & Belakova, J. (2009). Storm surges on the southern coast of Gulf of Riga: Case study of the Lielupe River. Paper presented at the Threats to global water security. Krengel, F., Bernhofer, C., Chalov, S., Efimov, V., Efimova, L., Gorbachova, L., & Nabyvanets, Y. (2018). Challenges for transboundary river management in Eastern Europe–three case studies. Kurian, M., Portney, K. E., Rappold, G., Hannibal, B., & Gebrechorkos, S. H. (2018). Governance of water-energy-food nexus: a social network analysis approach to understanding agency behaviour. Managing Water, Soil and Waste Resources to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals: Monitoring and Implementation of Integrated Resources Management, 125–147. La Jeunesse, I., Cirelli, C., Canovas, I., Mooren, C. E., Sievers, E., Munaretto, S., & Mounir, K. (2023). D1.2 governance and policy assessment in case studies. [Unpublished manuscript] University of tours La Jeunesse, I., Mooren, C. E., Munaretto, S., Cirelli, C., Canovas, I., Hueesker, F., & Sievers, E. (Forthcoming). Water-energyfood-ecosystem nexus governance: Methodological aspects of the assessment of supportive and restrictive contexts. [Unpublished manuscript] University of Tours. Lebel, L., Haefner, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Baduri, A. (2020). Governance of the water-energy-food nexus: Insights from four infrastructure projects in the Lower Mekong Basin. Sustainability Science,1–16. Link, P. M., Scheffran, J., & Ide, T. (2016). Conflict and cooperation in the water-security nexus: A global comparative analysis of river basins under climate change. WIREs Water,3(4), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1151 640 C. E. MOOREN ET AL. Lucca, E., Kofinas, D. T., Avallan, T., Kleeman, J., Mooren, C. E., Blicharska, M., & Laspidou, C. (under review). Integrating “Nature”in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Current perspectives and future directions. Malagó, A., Comero, S., Bouraoui, F., Kazezyılmaz-Alhan, C. M., Gawlik, B. M., Easton, P., & Laspidou, C. (2021). An analytical framework to assess SDG targets within the context of WEFE nexus in the Mediterranean region. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,164, 105205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105205 Merkuryeva, G., Merkuryev, Y., Sokolov, B. V., Potryasaev, S., Zelentsov, V. A., & Lektauers, A. (2015). Advanced river flood monitoring, modelling and forecasting. Journal of Computational Science,10,77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2014.10.004 Mirumachi, N., & Hurlbert, M. (2022). Reflecting on twenty years of international agreements concerning water governance: Insights and key learning. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,22(2), 317–332. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10784-022-09564-9 Mooren, C. E., Munaretto, S., La Jeunesse, I., Sievers, E., Hegger, D., Driessen, P. P., & Mounir, K. (Under review). Water-EnergyFood-Ecosystem Nexus: How to frame and how to govern? [Unpublished manuscript] KWR Water Research Institute. Mylopoulos, Y., Kolokytha, E., Kampragou, E., & Vagiona, D. (2008). A combined methodology for transboundary river basin management in Europe. Application in the Nestos–Mesta catchment area. Water Resources Management,22(8), 1101–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-007-9214-8 Namany, S., Govindan, R., & Al-Ansari, T. (2023). Operationalising transboundary cooperation through game theory: An energy water food nexus approach for the Middle East and North Africa. Futures,152, 103198. Nielsen, HØ, Frederiksen, P., Saarikoski, H., Rytkönen, A.-M., & Pedersen, A. B. (2013). How different institutional arrangements promote integrated river basin management. Evidence from the Baltic Sea Region. Land use policy,30(1), 437–445. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.011 Nilsson, M., Zamparutti, T., Petersen, J. E., Nykvist, B., Rudberg, P., & McGuinn, J. (2012). Understanding policy coherence: Analytical framework and examples of sector–environment policy interactions in the EU. Environmental Policy and Governance,22(6), 395–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1589 Olawuyi, D. (2020). Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: Legal challenges and emerging solutions. Environmental Science & Policy,103,1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.009 Pahl-Wostl, C., Gorris, P., Jager, N., Koch, L., Lebel, L., Stein, C., Venghaus,S., & Withanachchi, S. (2021). Scale-related governance challenges in the water–energy–food nexus: Toward a diagnostic approach. Sustainability Science,16(2), 615–629. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00888-6 Pereira Ramos, E., Kofinas, D., Sundin, C., Brouwer, F., & Laspidou, C. (2022). Operationalizing the Nexus approach: Insights from the SIM4NEXUS project. Proutsos, N. D., Solomou, A. D., Koulelis, P. P., Bourletsikas, A., Chatzipavlis, N. E., & Tigkas, D. (2022). Detecting changes in annual precipitation trends during the last two climatic periods (1955–1984 and 1985–2018) in Nestos River basin, N Greece. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment, HAICTA. Purwanto, A., Sušnik, J., Suryadi, F., & de Fraiture, C. (2019). Using group model building to develop a causal loop mapping of the water-energy-food security nexus in Karawang Regency, Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production,240, 118170. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118170 Restemeyer, B., van den Brink, M., & Woltjer, J. (2017). Between adaptability and the urge to control: Making long-term water policies in the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,60(5), 920–940. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09640568.2016.1189403 Roidt, M., & Avellán, T. (2019). Learning from integrated management approaches to implement the Nexus. Journal of Environmental Management,237, 609–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.106 Salmoral,G., Schaap,N.C.,Walschebauer,J.,&Alhajaj,A.(2019).Waterdiplomacyandnexusgovernanceinatransboundarycontext: In the search for complementarities. Science of the Total Environment,690,85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.513 Salmoral, G., Zegarra, E., Vázquez-Rowe, I., González, F., Del Castillo, L., Saravia, G. R., Graves, A., Rey, D., & Knox, J. W. (2020). Water-related challenges in nexus governance for sustainable development: Insights from the city of Arequipa, Peru. Science of the Total Environment,747, 141114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141114 Scott, C. A., Albrecht, T. R., De Grenade, R., Zuniga-Teran, A., Varady, R. G., & Thapa, B. (2018). Water security and the pursuit of food, energy, and earth systemsresilience. Water International,43(8), 1055–1074. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1534564 Scott, C. A., Pierce, S. A., Pasqualetti, M. J., Jones, A. L., Montz, B. E., & Hoover, J. H. (2011). Policy and institutional dimensions of the water–energy nexus. Energy Policy,39(10), 6622–6630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.013 Smith, L. E., & Porter, K. S. (2010). Management of catchments for the protection of water resources: Drawing on the New York City watershed experience. Regional Environmental Change,10(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-009-0102-z Sušnik, J., & Staddon, C. (2021). Evaluation of Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus Research: Perspectives, challenges, and directions for future research. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association,58(6), 1189–1198. Urbinatti, A. M., Benites-Lazaro, L. L., Carvalho, C. M. d., & Giatti, L. L. (2020). The conceptual basis of water-energy-food nexus governance: Systematic literature review using network and discourse analysis. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 17(2), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2020.1749086 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 641 van den Heuvel, L., Blicharska, M., Masia, S., Sušnik, J., & Teutschbein, C. (2020). Ecosystem services in the Swedish waterenergy-food-land-climate nexus: Anthropogenic pressures and physical interactions. Ecosystem Services,44, 101141. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101141 Van Enst, W. I., Driessen, P. P., & Runhaar, H. A. (2017). Working at the boundary: An empirical study into the goals and strategies of knowledge brokers in the field of environmental governance in the Netherlands. Sustainability,9(11), 1962. https://doi. org/10.3390/su9111962 Verschuren, P., Doorewaard, H., & Mellion, M. (2010).Designing a research project (Vol. 2). Eleven International Publishing The Hague. Voss, K. A., Famiglietti, J. S., Lo, M., De Linage, C., Rodell, M., & Swenson, S. C. (2013). Groundwater depletion in the Middle East from GRACE with implications for transboundary water management in the Tigris-Euphrates-Western Iran region. Water Resources Research,49(2), 904–914. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20078 White, D. D., Jones, J. L., Maciejewski, R., Aggarwal, R., & Mascaro, G. (2017). Stakeholder analysis for the food-energy-water nexus in Phoenix, Arizona: Implications for nexus governance. Sustainability,9(12), 2204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122204 World Bank, T. W. (1995). Staffappraisal report Republic of Latvia Siauliai environment project. Young, O. R., Agrawal, A., King, L. A., Sand, P. H., Underdal, A., & Wasson, M. (1999). Institutional dimensions of global environmental change. Public Administration and Public Policy,2(1999), 100. 642 C. E. MOOREN ET AL.