Lake and Water Governance Research Trajectories in Stakeholder Engagement and Participation

Over the past two decades, water resource governance has undergone a fundamental transformation from a technocratic approach dominated by technical-hydraulic solutions toward a more holistic, participatory, and adaptive paradigm. This shift has been driven by the recognition that contemporary water challenges—ranging from water scarcity affecting 2 billion people to aquatic ecosystem degradation threatening global food security—cannot be resolved through technical interventions alone, but rather require governance reforms that integrate social, political, economic, and ecological dimensions [1]. The global water crisis, exacerbated by climate change, population growth, and rapid urbanization, has positioned water governance as one of the most critical issues on the sustainable development agenda. Governance failure, rather than physical water scarcity, constitutes the root cause of most water crises facing the world today, underscoring the urgency of institutional and policy reforms centered on stakeholder participation [2].

The concepts of stakeholder engagement and public participation have emerged as fundamental pillars in modern water governance, driven by principles of deliberative democracy and recognition of the plurality of values and knowledge in natural resource management. Participatory approaches in water governance represent not merely a normative response to demands for democratization, but also a pragmatic strategy to enhance the effectiveness, legitimacy, and sustainability of water management decisions [3]. Effective stakeholder engagement processes in water management have demonstrated significant long-term benefits compared to non-participatory approaches, including better policy outcomes, improved governance quality, and enhanced cost efficiency [4]. Nevertheless, implementing participatory approaches faces significant challenges, including power imbalances, uneven capacities, and the risk of participation fatigue that can erode the effectiveness of deliberative processes [5].

The evolution of water governance paradigms cannot be separated from the context of climate change, which presents unprecedented uncertainty and complexity. Climate change has intensified the global hydrological cycle, causing increased frequency and intensity of extreme events such as floods and droughts, which in turn demand more adaptive and responsive governance approaches [6]. The concept of adaptive water governance offers a framework for managing uncertainty through social learning, policy experimentation, and institutional flexibility [7]. This approach recognizes that water governance systems must be capable of evolving and adapting to changing social-ecological conditions, requiring effective feedback mechanisms and capacity for systemic transformation when necessary.

Research on lake governance specifically presents additional dimensions of complexity, given the unique characteristics of lake ecosystems as closed landscape-connected social-ecological systems. Lakes provide vital ecosystem services—including drinking water provision, food production, microclimate regulation, and recreational-cultural values—yet remain highly vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures such as eutrophication, sedimentation, and pollution [8]. Global lake degradation has reached a critical point, with 50% of the world's large lakes experiencing significant water quality decline over the past three decades [9]. The complexity of lake management is compounded by multi-jurisdictional characteristics, where a single water body may fall under multiple administrative authorities, often holding different priorities and approaches, necessitating sophisticated coordination and collaboration mechanisms.

Within the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), effective water governance becomes a fundamental prerequisite for achieving not only SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) but also contributes directly and indirectly to nearly the entire SDG agenda. The systemic interconnections between water and other development dimensions are critical, where failures in water governance can trigger domino effects that impede the achievement of sustainable development goals overall [10]. However, despite growing recognition of the importance of water governance, significant gaps remain in understanding how water governance concepts and practices have evolved, what factors drive change, and how scientific knowledge in this field is produced and disseminated.

Bibliometric analysis offers a systematic approach to mapping the intellectual landscape of water governance research, identifying trends, collaboration patterns, and conceptual evolution shaping this field. While several reviews have examined specific aspects of water governance, for instance, water governance [11], participatory water management [12], no comprehensive bibliometric analysis has specifically explored the evolution of lake and water governance research with a focus on stakeholder engagement and public participation dimensions. This gap becomes increasingly critical given the surge in research publications in this field, requiring systematic synthesis to identify achievements, gaps, and future directions.

Therefore, this study aims to address this gap by conducting a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of lake and water governance research during the period 2000-2025, with particular focus on the evolution of stakeholder engagement and public participation concepts and practices. Through systematic analysis of 660 publications from Scopus and Web of Science databases, this research seeks to: (1) map the thematic and conceptual evolution in water governance research; (2) identify collaboration patterns and knowledge networks shaping scientific production in this field; and (3) reveal research gaps and opportunities for future knowledge development, particularly in the context of developing countries and implementation of more inclusive participatory approaches. The findings from this study are expected to provide crucial insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in developing more effective, inclusive, and sustainable water governance approaches to address 21st-century water challenges.

The bibliometric analysis in this study was conducted to examine the development of research related to lake and water governance, utilizing Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases as primary data sources to analyze publication patterns, citation networks, and research impact intensity. The analytical approach applied encompasses several dimensions: dataset overview, temporal distribution of publications, source and author productivity, international and institutional collaboration, high-impact documents, thematic research evolution, and keyword mapping. The findings obtained from both databases are presented systematically as follows.

3.1 Main information

This study limited its analytical scope by including only articles published between 2000 and 2025. As shown in Table 1, the field has experienced significant development with a total of 660 documents published from 241 different sources. The annual growth rate of 15.78% demonstrates continuously increasing research interest in this topic, with an average document age of 6.06 years, indicating that most research remains relatively recent and relevant. Notably, each document has an average of 15.31 citations, signifying the substantial scientific impact of these publications. The involvement of 2,263 authors, with 96 single authors, demonstrates the dominance of collaborative research in this field, reinforced by an average of 4.08 co-authors per document and an international collaboration rate of 32.27%. Regarding document types, journal articles dominate with 627 publications (95%), while the remainder consists of articles in press, book chapters, and conference proceedings, indicating that research in lake and water management has achieved a high level of academic maturity with a primary focus on high-quality publications in accredited journals.

Table 1. Descriptive main information about the collection

3.2 Annual production trends

Figure 2 provides information on annual scientific publication trends in lake and water governance topics, focusing on stakeholder engagement during the period 2000-2025. The data reveal that scientific production experienced slow growth until 2010, then increased significantly, particularly from 2015 onward, reaching peaks in 2021 and 2024 with more than 70 articles per year. This surge reflects growing global attention to water resource governance and stakeholder participation, aligned with sustainability issues and climate change. The sharp fluctuations after 2021 may be attributed to external dynamics such as the pandemic or shifts in research funding priorities. It should be noted that the 2025 publication count represents preliminary data, as the database search was conducted in August 2025; therefore, the apparent decline in 2025 should not be interpreted as a decreasing trend but rather as incomplete full-year data. Scientific production in this field demonstrates a strong positive trend, signaling a global scientific focus shift toward inclusive and collaborative water governance. To address various 21st-century challenges, fundamental changes in water governance are required toward more flexible approaches involving active participation from diverse stakeholders and comprehensive integration [21].

Figure 2. Article production from 2000 to 2025

3.3 Citation trends

The annual citation overview analysis in Table 2 reveals interesting patterns in the academic impact of lake and water governance publications. The average citations per article show a consistent increasing trend from 2006 (24.33), reaching its highest point in 2011 (39.88), followed by fluctuations at high levels until 2015 (35.45). The period 2011-2015 can be categorized as a golden era with average citations above 30, indicating that publications from this period provided fundamental contributions that continue to be referenced by subsequent researchers. However, a drastic decline is evident from 2016 onward, continuing through 2025 (0.15), which represents a normal phenomenon in bibliometric analysis as recent publications require time for citation accumulation—evident from the Citable Years value decreasing from 20 years (2006) to just 1 year (2025). Interestingly, despite the number of publications (N) increasing rapidly from 3 articles (2006) to 73 articles (2021), the average citations per year show variability with peaks in 2015 (3.22) and 2020 (3.01), indicating that increased publication quantity does not always correlate directly with scientific impact, and confirming the importance of a 3-5 year maturation period for an article to achieve optimal visibility and recognition within the academic community.

Table 2. Annual citation summary

3.4 Most relevant sources

Table 3 demonstrates the dominance of the journal Water with 71 articles, confirming its position as the primary platform for research dissemination in this field. Environmental policy journals such as Environmental Science & Policy (29 articles) and Water Policy (29 articles) occupy second position, indicating that water governance discussions focus not only on technical hydrological aspects but also strongly emphasize policy and regulatory dimensions. The presence of interdisciplinary journals such as Ecology and Society (27 articles) and Sustainability (25 articles) reflects a holistic approach to understanding water governance that integrates ecological, social, and sustainability perspectives. Regional and development-specific journals such as the International Journal of Water Resources Development (18 articles) and Water International (15 articles) signify the importance of geographical and developmental contexts in this research. Notably, the presence of Water Alternatives-An Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development (12 articles) underscores the political and power dimensions in water governance that increasingly receive academic attention. This publication distribution confirms that lake and water governance research has evolved into a mature multidisciplinary field, with the journal Water as a central hub, yet maintaining diverse perspectives through policy, ecology, and development journals that collectively form a comprehensive intellectual landscape for understanding the complexity of water resource management in the context of stakeholder engagement and public participation.

Table 3. The most relevant source

3.5 Leading authors

Table 4 presents profiles of leading authors in lake and water governance research based on bibliometric metrics, including h-index, g-index, m-index, total citations (TC), number of publications (NP), and initial publication year (PY_start). Newig J leads with the highest h-index and g-index (7), m-index of 0.7, and TC reaching 338 from 7 publications since 2016, demonstrating consistency and significant research impact within a relatively short period. Collins K and White D follow with h-index and g-index of 6 each, though White D shows higher efficiency with an m-index of 0.545 despite lower TC (200) compared to Collins K (340). Pahl-Wostl C, despite having an h-index of 5, recorded impressive TC (269) from 5 publications since 2012, indicating high quality and relevance of their work in adaptive water governance. The group of authors with h-index 5-6, such as Adamowski J, Gerlak A, Hurlbert M, and Ison R, demonstrate substantial contributions with TC varying between 93-248, reflecting diverse approaches and research focuses within the water governance domain. Authors who began publishing more recently, such as Koop S (2018) and Ricart S (2017), show strong momentum with high m-indices (0.625 and 0.556), indicating their potential as influential emerging researchers in the evolution of stakeholder engagement and participation research in water resource governance.

Table 4. Leading author

3.6 Leading countries

The geographical mapping of scholarly output on lake and water governance demonstrates a clear hierarchy favoring industrialized countries, where the United States maintains a commanding position with 355 studies, evidencing its substantial scientific infrastructure and financial commitment to water resource investigations. With 186 scholarly works, Australia secures the second position, highlighting the country's focused efforts on water management challenges arising from its distinctive environmental and geographical characteristics. Table 5 illustrates Europe's remarkable presence in this field, where collective contributions from the Netherlands (173), United Kingdom (167), Germany (140), Spain (83), and Italy (77) total 640 studies, reinforcing the continent's scholarly prominence in water governance facilitated by comprehensive EU Water Framework Directive regulations. Despite its modest geographical size, the Netherlands demonstrates remarkable research output, leveraging its centuries-old water management experience and status as an international center of excellence for water governance knowledge. Comparative assessments involving Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, China, and South Africa reveal how various governance frameworks embody different theoretical and applied strategies for achieving sustainable water management [22]. In the North American context, while the United States maintains clear leadership, Canada's 130 studies indicate strong engagement with cross-border water resource management investigations. China's contribution of 83 publications from Asia reflects expanding scholarly production aligned with the nation's multifaceted water governance complexities. With 73 studies, South Africa stands as the continent's leading contributor, demonstrating its role in tackling water shortage problems and developing participatory governance approaches. These patterns reveal substantial disparities in global research production, where OECD nations dominate scholarly output while countries experiencing severe water crises remain significantly underrepresented in scientific discourse. Notably, sub-Saharan African nations facing acute water stress—such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo—remain marginally represented despite their urgent water governance challenges. Similarly, South Asian countries, including India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, which collectively face some of the world's most pressing water scarcity and transboundary water management issues, demonstrate disproportionately low research visibility relative to their population size and the severity of their water crises. Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) regions, particularly Yemen, Iraq, and Jordan, also remain underrepresented despite experiencing critical water scarcity conditions. The necessity of broadening comparative water governance studies to include marginalized areas, especially in the Global South, becomes crucial for documenting varied socio-environmental settings and governance innovations [23].

Table 5. Leading countries

3.7 Most relevant affiliations

Figure 3 reveals the institutional landscape in lake and water governance research, with the Australian National University leading dominantly with 27 articles, affirming Australia’s position as a global center of excellence in water resource management research. Strong North American institutional presence is evident through Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, each contributing 26 articles, reflecting regional focus on water management challenges in the arid and semi-arid southwestern United States. Utrecht University from the Netherlands, with 24 articles, reinforces the country’s reputation as a leader in water governance innovation, supported by historical expertise in delta management and polder systems. Canadian university engagement through the University of Waterloo (23 articles) and the University of British Columbia (21 articles) demonstrates institutional commitment to transboundary water governance research and integrated water resource management. Notably, the presence of the University of Tehran (21 articles) indicates a significant Middle Eastern contribution to global water governance discourse, likely driven by acute water scarcity challenges in the region. Wageningen University (20 articles) strengthens Dutch dominance with a focus on interdisciplinary approaches integrating environmental science, agriculture, and governance. University of Leeds (19 articles) and Open University (18 articles) complete the European representation, demonstrating diversity in methodological and conceptual approaches. This distribution underscores expertise concentration in developed country institutions while indicating the need for research capacity strengthening in institutions from developing countries facing the most pressing water governance challenges.

Figure 3. Most relevant affiliations

3.8 Keyword co-occurrence analysis

The keyword co-occurrence network visualization in Figure 4 reveals the intellectual structure of lake and water governance research through the visualization of relationships among key concepts. At the visualization's core, three dominant nodes emerge: "management," "governance," and "policy," displayed in the largest sizes, indicating these concepts' centrality in academic discourse. Keyword co-occurrence analysis serves as a powerful tool for uncovering the intellectual structure and thematic relationships within a research domain, revealing how concepts interconnect to form knowledge networks [24]. The "management" node functions as the central hub connecting various operational and strategic aspects of water resource management. The dominant red cluster encompasses core concepts such as "climate change," "adaptation," "resilience," and "vulnerability," reflecting the urgency of climate change adaptation in contemporary water governance. The strong presence of "organization," "institutions," and "implementation" in this cluster affirms the importance of institutional dimensions in translating policy into concrete action.

The green cluster encompassing "water governance" and "sustainability" demonstrates paradigm evolution from traditional water management toward sustainable and participatory governance. The close relationship between "sustainability" and other nodes underscores the sustainability principle integration across all water governance aspects. The evolution from traditional water management to integrated governance approaches reflects a fundamental paradigm shift in how scholars conceptualize the relationship between human systems and water resources [25]. The blue cluster comprising "stakeholder," "water management," "governance approach," and "water supply" reflects inclusive approaches involving multi-stakeholder decision-making. The strategic position of "stakeholder" connected to various nodes signifies a shift from top-down approaches toward more participatory and democratic governance models.

The presence of concepts such as "cooperation," "collaboration," and "public participation" distributed across various clusters indicates academic consensus regarding the importance of collaborative approaches in addressing water governance complexity. The "politics" and "power" nodes connected to "governance" acknowledge the inherent political dimension in water resource allocation and management. The emergence of "river basin," "basin," and "conservation" demonstrates adoption of ecosystem-based integrated management approaches, while "IWRM" confirms the integrated management paradigm's dominance in the literature.

The connection between "climate change" and nearly all major clusters underscores that climate change has become the fundamental context shaping all aspects of modern water governance. The interdisciplinary nature of water governance research necessitates integration of diverse knowledge domains to address the complexity of socio-ecological systems and their responses to environmental changes [26]. The high density of edges between nodes demonstrates the interdisciplinary nature and high complexity of water governance research, where concepts from various domains—environmental, social, political, and economic—interconnect in complex networks. This visualization comprehensively maps evolution from traditional technical-managerial approaches toward adaptive governance paradigms integrating socio-ecological, institutional, and stakeholder participation dimensions in addressing global change challenges.

Figure 4. Co-occurrence network of author keywords

3.9 Word cloud analysis

Word cloud analysis provides a powerful visual representation of the conceptual landscape in lake and water governance research, with "management" dominating as the largest word, affirming its position as the core concept overarching the entire academic discourse in this field (Figure 5). The prominence of "governance" and "policy" in nearly equal sizes indicates the fundamental trinity in the literature—operational management, institutional governance, and strategic policy—together forming the comprehensive framework for water resource management. The visualization of "water governance" and "water management" as integrated phrases reflects the current scholarly emphasis on integrated water governance paradigms, acknowledging the interconnections between technical and socio-political dimensions.

Figure 5. Word clouds provide a visual representation of frequently used terms

The conspicuous presence of "climate-change" in significant size underscores climate adaptation urgency as the dominant context reshaping the entire contemporary water governance architecture. Related words such as "adaptation," "resilience," and "vulnerability" scattered throughout the visualization indicate that research has shifted from a static focus on routine management toward dynamic approaches emphasizing the adaptive capacity of socio-ecological systems. The prominence of "sustainability" reflects deep integration of sustainability principles, not as an addition, but as a fundamental paradigm permeating all research aspects.

Participatory and inclusive dimensions are clearly depicted through the presence of "stakeholder," "participation," and "public-participation," indicating a transformation from technocratic governance models toward deliberative approaches, acknowledging the legitimacy and value of local knowledge. The prominence of "framework" and "implementation" demonstrates academic attention to concept operationalization, bridging gaps between theory and practice. The emergence of "challenges" and "lessons" in visible sizes indicates learning orientation and critical reflection in the literature, acknowledging complexity and contestation in water governance practice.

The presence of spatial concepts such as "basin," "river," and "river-basin" confirms the adoption of ecosystem-based management approaches transcending conventional administrative boundaries. Terms like "resources," "ecosystem services," and "conservation" indicate a shift from viewing water as a commodity toward a more holistic understanding of ecosystem services. The visible words "politics" and "power" in the visualization acknowledge that water governance is not a neutral technical domain but an arena laden with power dynamics and political contestation.

Overall, this word cloud captures the current dominant conceptual landscape in water governance research, characterized by integrative paradigms acknowledging socio-ecological complexity, climate change urgency, sustainability imperatives, and the importance of participation in shaping equitable and sustainable water governance futures. It should be noted that this visualization represents an aggregate snapshot of prevalent terminology across the analyzed literature rather than temporal trends, which are examined separately in Section 3.2. The shift from technical-managerial terminology toward socio-ecological and participatory vocabulary in water governance literature reflects a fundamental transformation in how scholars conceptualize water challenges as complex adaptive systems requiring multi-stakeholder engagement rather than purely engineering solutions [27].

3.10 Country collaboration map

The international collaboration map reveals the global research cooperation network in lake and water governance studies, with red connecting lines indicating intensity and patterns of inter-country collaboration (Figure 6). The United States and Australia emerge as central collaboration hubs, marked by dark blue coloring and a high concentration of connecting lines radiating across continents, reflecting their leadership in establishing international research networks. Europe displays a dense and integrated collaboration network, particularly among Western European countries such as the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany, indicating a cohesive regional research framework likely facilitated by European Union research programs such as Horizon Europe.

Figure 6. Country collaboration map

Australia maintains a highly diversified collaboration portfolio with partnerships spanning developed countries (Canada 4 times, China 4 times) to developing nations (Bangladesh, Cambodia each 1 time). This pattern reflects Australia’s strategic approach in building water governance expertise relevant to diverse geographic and developmental contexts. Regional collaboration in South America is evident through Argentina’s connections with Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay, demonstrating collaborative efforts in addressing transboundary water governance challenges in the region.

The density of connecting lines between northern and southern hemispheres indicates significant knowledge and capacity transfer, with developed countries sharing methodological and technological expertise with developing countries facing acute water governance challenges. Collaboration concentration in the Asia-Pacific region, evident from Australia’s connections with Asian countries, reflects regional priorities in addressing water security in regions experiencing increasing water resource pressure. The strong trans-Atlantic network between North America and Europe demonstrates traditional research alliances continuing to dominate global knowledge production.

These collaboration patterns underscore the transnational nature of water governance challenges, requiring collaborative research approaches to generate solutions transferable across contexts. However, the absence or minimal connections with Africa (except South Africa) and most of South Asia indicate collaboration gaps requiring attention to ensure global inclusivity in water governance research. Overall, this map reflects power geometries in global knowledge production, where countries with established research capacity play central roles in shaping international water governance research agendas and methodologies.