Implementing the Agenda 2030 – what is the role of forums?

References

• Ansell C, Gash A. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory. 18(4):543–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bali Swain R, Yang-Wallentin F. 2019. Achieving sustainable development goals: predicaments and strategies. Int J of Sust Dev World.
   Google Scholar
• Berardo R. 2009. Generalized trust in multi-organizational policy arenas: studying its emergence from a network perspective. Polit Sci Q. 62(1):178–189.
   Google Scholar
• Berardo R, Heikkila T, Gerlak AK. 2014. Interorganizational engagement in collaborative environmental management: evidence from the South Florida ecosystem restoration task force. J Public Adm Res Theory. 24(3):697–719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berardo R, Scholz JT. 2010. Self‐organizing policy networks: risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. Am J Pol Sci. 54(3):632–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Johnson JC. 2018. Analyzing social networks. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM. 2006. The design and Implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Adm Rev. 66(1):44–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman J, Katz E, Menzel H. 1957. The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry. 20(4):253–270.
   Google Scholar
• Crona BI, Parker JN. 2012. Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecol Soc. 17(1):32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorsch MJ, Flachsland C. 2017. A polycentric approach to global climate governance. Glob Environ Politics. 17(2):45–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eger S, Doberstein B. 2019. Shared governance arrangements and social connectivity: advancing large-scale coastal and marine conservation initiatives in the dominican republic. Int J of Sust Dev World.v. 26(3):210–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer M, Angst M, Maag S. 2019. Co-participation in the swiss water forum network. Int J Water Res. 35(3):446–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer M, Ingold K, Ivanova S. 2017. Information exchange under uncertainty: the case of unconventional gas development in the United Kingdom. Land Use Policy. 67:200–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer M, Leifeld P. 2015. Policy forums: why do they exist and what are they used for? Policy Sci. 48(3):363–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer M, Maag S. 2019. Why are cross-sectoral forums important to actors? Forum contributions to cooperation, learning, and resource distribution. Policy Stud J. 47(1):114–137. doi:10.1111/psj.12310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer M, Schläpfer I. 2017. Metagovernance and policy forum outputs in Swiss environmental politics. Environ Politics. 26(5):870–892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman LC. 1977. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry. 40(1):35–41.
   Google Scholar
• Gnehm F. 2012. Der Wasser-Fussabdruck der Schweiz. Ein Gesamtbild der Wasserabhängigkeit der Schweiz. [The water footprint of Switzerland. An overall picture of Switzerland’s water dependence]. Zürich: WWF Schweiz. German.
   Google Scholar
• Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Johansson K. 2006. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum Ecol. 34(4):573–592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huxham C, Vangen S, Huxham C, Eden C. 2000. The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Manage. 2(3):337–358.
   Google Scholar
• Janse G. 2008. Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe—a survey on both sides of the science/policy interface. For Policy Econ. 10(3):183–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoke D. 1993. Networks of elite structure and decision making. Sociol Methods Res. 22(1):23–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach WD, Sabatier PA. 2005. To trust an adversary: integrating rational and psychological models of collaborative policymaking. Am Political Sci Rev. 99(4):491–503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach WD, Weible CM, Vince SR, Siddiki SN, Calanni JC. 2014. Fostering learning through collaboration: knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine aquaculture partnerships. J Public Adm Res Theory. 24(3):591–622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leal Filho W, Azeiteiro U, Alves F, Pace P, Mifsud M, Brandli L, Caeiro S, Disterheft A. 2018. Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: the role of the sustainable development goals (SDG). Int J of Sust Dev World. 25(2):131–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leifeld P, Schneider V. 2012. Information exchange in policy networks. Am Political Sci. 56(3):731–744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubell M, Mewhirter JM, Berardo R, Scholz JT. 2017. Transaction costs and the perceived effectiveness of complex institutional systems. Public Adm Rev. 77(5):668–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maag S, Fischer M. 2018. Why government, interest groups, and research coordinate: the different purposes of forums. Soc Nat Resour. 31(11):1248–1265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. annu rev sociol. 27(1):415–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mill JS. 1884. A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation. London: Longmans, green, and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Nederhof AJ. 1985. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. Eur J Soc Psychol. 15(3):263–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öberg P. 2002. Does administrative corporatism promote trust and deliberation? Governance. 15(4):455–475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Change. 20(4):550–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus K, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell K, Quinn CH, Stringer L. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage. 90(5):1933–1949.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Durand-Delacre D, Teksoz K. 2017. SDG index and dashboards report 2017. New York (NY): Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).
   Google Scholar
• Schneider F, Kläy A, Zimmermann AB, Buser T, Ingalls M, Messerli P. 2019. How can science support the 2030 agenda for sustainable development? Four tasks to tackle the normative dimension of sustainability. Sustain Sci. 14(6):1593–1604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith MS, Cook C, Sokona Y, Elmqvist T, Fukushi K, Broadgate W, Jarzebski MP. 2018. Advancing sustainability science for the SDGs. Sustain Sci. 13(6):1483–1487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2015. Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 September 2015. [accessed 2018 May 27] http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.
   Google Scholar
• Weitz N, Carlsen H, Nilsson M, Skånberg K. 2018. Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 agenda. Sustain Sci. 13(2):531–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiek A, Farioli F, Fukushi K, Yarime M. 2012. Sustainability science: bridging the gap between science and society. Sustain Sci. 7(1):1–4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar