Eva Lieberherr

Over the past 170 years, water management in Switzerland has undergone a profound transformation. What began as a localized, event-driven practice shaped by immediate needs and local initiative—such as efforts to ensure flood protection—gradually evolved into a complex, multi-level system shaped by cantonal and federal regulations. These regulatory developments reflect shifting policy priorities across a broad range of water-related interests, including flood protection, agriculture, nature conservation, energy production, fisheries, and safe drinking water, that risk conflict in their implementation if not consciously coordinated. This article investigates the historical development of water policy and management in the Swiss case study of Alptal valley (local level) in the Canton of Schwyz (regional level) from 1848 to 2021. Drawing on archival and legislative documents, we examined the drivers of change and how interests in protection from water, water use, and protection of water have been differently prioritized over time. The findings show an increase in policy integration at the cantonal level, aligning diverse water-related interests under a more coordinated and holistic approach. We also identify a growing tension: as regional (cantonal) integration deepens, local self-governance structures such as the Wuhrkorporation Alp risk disintegration. These findings underscore the historical and ongoing challenge of balancing top-down integration with bottom-up historical practices with valuable local knowledge. Understanding this dynamic is crucial not only for appreciating how Swiss water management has evolved, but also for informing future responses to pressing multi-interest driven challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, as well as food and water security.

Over 80% of the world's wastewater is discharged untreated, making reuse a widely underutilised strategy for addressing water scarcity. Due to the complexity of implementing water reuse systems, supportive governance conditions are required to steer this process and overcome barriers. Insights from water governance and sustainability transitions literature suggest that configurations of governance‐related conditions, such as the extent of regulatory certainty, economic incentives, social acceptance, innovation capacity and contextual conditions of water scarcity, influence water reuse. Previous research has explored the barriers to water reuse, focusing on isolated case studies leaving the question of how these conditions interact to enable implementation largely unresolved. This study applies Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis across 15 international cases to identify configurations of conditions that enable water reuse, moving beyond individual drivers to map archetypal pathways. We found three distinct pathways to successful implementation. First, low regulatory uncertainty alone was sufficient to enable reuse, underscoring the foundational role of regulatory frameworks. Second, high social acceptance—rooted in public trust, engagement, and participatory design—can compensate for the absence of financial incentives, particularly in European contexts. However, this may be less applicable in resource‐constrained settings. The third and most globally distributed pathway confirms that water scarcity can drive reuse, but only when accompanied by social and technical readiness. The third and most globally distributed pathway confirms that water scarcity can drive reuse, but only when accompanied by social and technical readiness involving technical knowledge, skills training, interdisciplinary collaboration and opportunities for experimentation. Notably, neither water scarcity nor financial incentives emerged as necessary conditions for successful implementation across all pathways. These findings challenge commonly held assumptions about what drives water reuse and offer a more nuanced understanding of the governance configurations that can support water reuse.

Interdisciplinary research is essential to address the complex environmental challenges faced by social-ecological systems (SES). However, it is often hindered by difficulties in integrating diverse knowledge and perspectives. Conceptual Frameworks (CFs) can act as boundary objects, facilitating integration in contexts with incomplete knowledge, nonlinearity, and divergent interests. Yet, guidance on developing CFs remains limited. To address this gap, we develop a structured approach and apply it within a research project focused on enhancing the resilience of Swiss Alpine ecosystems. Our approach includes three phases: (1) defining boundary concepts, (2) developing a CF as a boundary object, and (3) using the CF as a boundary object. The resulting CF supports communication, collaboration, and integration across disciplines, advancing SES research that addresses ecological resilience and sustainability. Our approach can be used by other interdisciplinary teams aiming to develop adaptable CFs that facilitate knowledge integration across disciplines.

Research indicates that the increased use of scientific evidence is an important lever for transforming policy toward sustainability goals. We explore how actors use scientific evidence in contests over policy transformation in the agri-food sector. Theoretically, we build on prior research on evidence use in policymaking and the 3i´s —ideas, interests, and institutions—that constitute policy regimes. We argue that some pieces of scientific evidence become salient in policy debates but are contested by competing actor coalitions. Salient and contested means that different actors refer to the same scientific evidence to support arguments for and against options of policy transformation. We posit that, in these arguments, evidence use is closely linked to the ideas, interests, and institutions that actor coalitions want to protect or challenge. We assess our arguments through a close examination of a landmark Swiss policy reform between 2019 and 2022 aimed at pesticide risk reduction. Drawing on policy post-exceptionalism literature to operationalize our analytical categories, we analyzed a comprehensive set of content-coded parliamentary and consultation documents derived from the policy process. Our analysis shows that (1) only a few pieces of scientific evidence became salient, (2) actor coalitions linked scientific evidence to different ideas, interests and institutions in line with their policy preferences, and (3) salient scientific evidence in support of transformation becomes contested when it is “too big to ignore”. We conclude that while salient scientific evidence promotes evidence-informed debate, it does not necessarily provide clear and unambiguous direction for policy.

In der Bundesverwaltung standen 2024 Arbeiten an der Integralen Wald- und Holzstrategie 2050 im Zentrum. Mit der Annahme des Bundesgesetzes für eine sichere Stromversorgung wurde vom Schweizer Stimmvolk auch eine Änderung des Waldgesetzes angenommen. Im Parlament wurden 17 Vorstösse eingereicht, die insbesondere die Ressource Holz und deren Nutzung thematisierten. Auch hier kam es zu einer Revision des Waldgesetzes. Das Bundesgericht äusserte sich im Berichtsjahr sechsmal zu waldrechtlichen Fragen. Der Artikel schliesst mit einer wissenschaftlichen Einordnung der waldpolitischen Prozesse anhand von ausgewählten Geschäften und einem Ausblick auf das Jahr 2025.

Highly engineered Alpine watersheds and forests face growing risks, requiring shifts in management and research. We use science integration and a participatory scenario process to integrate disciplines and co-create knowledge with stakeholders. We thus develop pathways for rethinking future management, aiming for higher resilience of Alpine ecosystems and delivering greater societal value than current systems.Given highly engineered Alpine ecosystems with monocultures and channelized streams, this project proposes radical changes to enable increased ecosystem resilience and societal wellbeing. We propose to rethink 1. management by including ecological and socio-economic aspects and 2. research by integrating natural, engineering, and social sciences. In this inter- and transdisciplinary project, we develop qualitative scenarios as storylines for future Alpine watershed and forest management. These scenarios serve as parameters for, on the one hand, the biophysical modelling of ecological quality (biodiversity, ecosystem function, ecological integrity) in Swiss case study regions. On the other, we assess residents’ preferences for the scenarios in relation to Nature’s Contributions to People and aspects of justice. We thus use science integration and a participatory scenario process to enable integration across disciplines as well as co-create knowledge with stakeholders throughout the research process. While this approach facilitates working across disciplinary boundaries and includes stakeholders from the onset, it also comes with challenges: finding a common language across disciplines and engaging meaningfully with stakeholders takes time and simultaneously does not cater to the traditional metrics in academia.

To increase the societal impact of environmental governance research, scholars have called for knowledge cumulation, meaning that scientific evidence builds more systematically on previous findings. Our article develops the perspective that such knowledge cumulation takes place not only within academia but also at science‐policy interfaces (SPIs). Drawing on literature on knowledge integration, synthesis, and use as well as science‐policy literature, we outline five opportunities for knowledge cumulation at SPIs: (1) proximity to democratic discourse and decision‐making; (2) suitability for inter‐ and transdisciplinary integration; (3) combined problem and solution focus; (4) potential to increase the generality of scientific findings; and (5) creation of targeted synthesis products. We illustrate their respective benefits and challenges with empirical examples from SPIs for climate change, biodiversity and natural resources, and food systems. We conclude that SPIs are an important locus for cumulating knowledge used in complex environmental governance and that future research could explore how this interacts with knowledge cumulation in the academic realm.

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in developing countries was initially envisioned to incentivize forest protection through payments for ecosystem services (PES). Nevertheless, our global understanding of REDD+ project benefits proposed by proponents to local communities is limited. To address this gap, we ask: globally, how do REDD+ projects propose to provide local community benefits? We use and update the international database on REDD+ projects (ID-RECCO) to analyze the REDD+ benefits proposed by 347 REDD+ projects in 55 countries. Logistic regression and chi-square tests explore relationships between the probability of a benefit type being proposed and the influencing factors. Our global-level analysis can serve as a useful benchmark for empirical case studies. Our findings show the diversity of benefits REDD+ projects propose. Most REDD+ projects (89%) proposed a mix of monetary and non-monetary benefits; employment was proposed in >¾ of the projects, while forest restrictions were proposed in 52% of REDD+ projects. Many projects proposed infrastructure (107) or services (181). Factors that influence the probability a benefit type being proposed by a project include carbon certification standards, de facto forest user types, and country. PES-style conditional payments are no longer emblematic of benefits from REDD+ projects to local communities. Instead, REDD+ projects typically propose employment, livelihood activities, tenure clarification, and public goods and services. Further empirical research is needed to understand how meaningful these benefits are to local people, and their contribution in producing effective and equitable project outcomes. National policy and legal frameworks on benefit sharing, more explicit standards on benefit sharing among carbon standards, and better risk management related to community expectations from REDD+ projects are important avenues to ensure REDD+ benefits are aligned with the needs and realities of local communities.